Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue No. 28 - Evidence - Meeting of June 15, 2017
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 15, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 10:33 a.m. to study on foreign relations and international trade generally.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade recently completed its study on opportunities for strengthening cooperation with Mexico. Under this mandate, members of the committee travelled to Mexico on a fact-finding mission and met with several Mexican senators, including our next witness.
It is our pleasure to welcome to Canada Senator Gabriela Cuevas Barron, Chairwoman of the Senate Commission on Foreign Affairs, Mexican Senate; and the ambassador designate of Mexico to Canada, His Excellency Dionisio Pérez Jácome Friscione.
We also have with us — perhaps you can introduce yourself. I'm having trouble seeing that far.
Fernando González Saiffe, Counselor, Embassy of Mexico to Canada: Good morning. My name is Fernando González Saiffe, political affairs from the Embassy of Mexico in Ottawa.
The Chair: Thank you.
We have a good group before us. Today we are meeting under our general order of reference to continue our discussion on bilateral relations and to hear from you on recent developments since our visit to your committee last March.
In Mexico, many issues were raised about our bilateral relationship and our trilateral relationship with our mutual neighbour. We appreciate this opportunity to have Senator Gabriela Cuevas Barron here in Canada and she's kindly come to appear before us.
We had problems getting Spanish interpretation. I understand that just moments ago that has been resolved. I'm going to ask the clerk what capability we have now.
Marie-Eve Belzile, Clerk of the Committee: We can translate from Spanish into French and English, just not the other way around.
You may speak either in English or in Spanish, your choice.
The Chair: It is a one-way translation. If you speak in English or Spanish, it can be translated. We will not be able to do it in reverse.
We're good neighbours. We accommodate each other and so we'll find our way through this.
Welcome to the committee and the floor is yours to make your opening statements.
Gabriela Cuevas Barron, Senator and Chairwoman of the Senate Commission on Foreign Affairs, Mexican Senate: Thank you very much for having us here. I am pleased to be in Canada, one of our most important partners. It might be easier to present in Spanish but I'll do my best to do it in English.
In Mexico, as you probably also faced, we're living in an uncertain context. This is new for us.
We have had this long marriage of 22 years. We know each other, at least that's what we thought. We thought that we had everything running in a good way, that trade was enough for having a strong relation with our most important partner. We thought that the political dialogue was going great. We also thought that the exchange of students was enough for having mutual understanding.
Then the new American President appeared on the stage and suddenly the narrative changed. The political correctness changed. The way the American people saw Mexico and the Mexicans also changed. I believe that Canada started to feel that too.
When you depend in such a huge way on a partner, any move or any change is going to affect your daily currency; for example, investments, jobs. The last two years have been very difficult for Mexico.
In this context of uncertainty, we understood that we have to change in many ways. First, as in a marriage, you cannot take that for granted. You cannot think that 22 years of working together is enough for creating a strong future.
Mexico has the biggest network of consulates in the U.S., and that's not enough for protecting our citizens in the U.S. We have 11 million Mexicans living in the U.S. Even with 50 consulates, that's not enough.
We also learned that we have to be close not only to the politicians; we have to be close to public opinion and, to start, public diplomacy.
By that I mean that we need to open different doors and have different options for our bilateral relations. Of course, there's the executive branch, but also parliamentarian diplomacy needs to be stronger, frequent and done in different ways, because we also forgot that.
We also need the universities, different investigation centres and different stories of the successes of the many Mexicans living in the U.S. That's the bilateral situation with Mexico and the U.S.
The other issue for us, and one that really involves our medium- and long-term growth and decisions, is how Mexico is going to diversify in different areas.
In politics, foreign affairs, commerce and investments, Canada makes a lot of sense. We have been together since the first huge free trade agreement. However, when you see the amount of commerce and investments, we can do more than we're doing right now.
We are changing and we are now understanding our situation. We are happy to see that we no longer require a visa to come here. It was really complicated to come to Canada. I am thankful, Madam Chair, that many of you here were speaking in favour of Mexico, to take away the huge amount of paperwork needed to come this beautiful country. But we need to do more, not only in the area of economics but also in the area of political dialogue.
I'm really surprised that we waited such a long time to come here and to have this mutual visit. I have been a senator for five years, and this is my first official visit to Canada. We can't take Canada for granted. We can't make that mistake. We need to see the future that we can create.
I believe that Mr. Trump has done something right. He has polarized the world and the region so much that now Mexico and Canada are closer than ever. I think that's the only good side of Mr. Trump being President.
Now we're going to start a very complicated moment for Mexico and Canada, namely, the reopening of NAFTA. What can we expect? What will we do? What strategy should we follow? I think that we should design the kind of North America we want to build, with or without the U.S. at first in the design of this strategy.
Why should we be thinking about doing it with or without the U.S.? They are going to play their own strategy. Trump is not going to see how to make a greater North America. In both his speeches and campaign, he has been saying that only the U.S. should be great. I don't think so. As a region, we have everything we need to be the strongest and the biggest region in the world. We have enough energy to supply all the industries and demands of our entire region. We have a very productive and smart population. We also have an important place in the geography in the world. We can export and sell everywhere.
I believe the most important thing is that we are a peaceful region. Of course, Mexico is facing a lot of challenges with violence and criminal gangs, but we are a peaceful region. We have everything to grow, to develop new standards and to develop an innovation industry that can change the reality of the world, now that it is not growing enough in many places.
We also need to see how to improve the conditions of our population. That is the real opportunity for opening NAFTA. Yes, we can improve the design of North America but we also have to see it at the local level. Normally we think that foreign affairs is only about speaking of the countries and the good relations between them. I believe that the true success of foreign affairs is in doing more about how it affects or benefits the people we represent.
If we can have a better NAFTA that includes the new challenges in the world, while dealing with the inequalities, as well as a more inclusive commerce policy in which the doors are open for small micro and medium businesses, I believe we can change a lot. We have learnt many things from these 22 years with NAFTA. We also know a lot about each other as we have been involved in TPP negotiations for five years.
We know which cards we want to play. We know what is important for each of us, but we also need to see which future we want to build. These ambitious instruments have to push us toward a new design of agreements in North America and for the world. That's a challenge, but with growth and our history with agreements 22 years ago, maybe this is a good time to improve again and to show the world that in North America, despite our political complications or conditions, we can also have good agreements.
I believe that Canada and Mexico both have that responsibility. We need to have coal mines. We also need to be in peace because a lot of uncertainty and tweets are going to appear every day. And we have to deal with the idea of making media policy a state policy or even a digital policy. A state policy is going to happen. Maybe it will not happen for a while, but these few months with the Trump administration show that the reality of the situation also has a lot to say. There are a lot of congress persons and senators in the U.S., Mexico and Canada that want to make a good future for our region.
I'm sure we can do it, but we must speak up. The narrative can't come only from the executive. The demands and the standards have to be done and decided by the parliamentarians and all the different sectors must be relentless.
Thank you very much for having me here.
The Chair: Thank you for your opening statement.
I neglected to point out that we have filed a follow-up report on our visit. This opportunity before a Canadian audience will remind you that we are looking at ways and means to continue to expand our relationship between our two countries.
Your comments have generated a lot of questions from senators, so I have a long list. I hope we can accommodate everyone. I am sure you're open to answering the questions.
Senator Dawson: Timing is always important. To give you an example of how important today's visit is, yesterday you were preceded by our ambassador to Washington. After you leave, we're going to have our ambassador to the UN. You are in a kind of ménage à trois with two important people. You used the analogy of a marriage. Our relationship with the U.S. and Mexico has been a ménage à trois that usually went very well for the last 22 years.
I was trying to find the Spanish word for "twitter.'' I looked it up and it says gorjeo. In French it's gazouillis. The influence of Twitter messages over the next year will influence your election and how the Mexican people react to the lack of cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico at the executive level, not necessarily with everybody. What do you predict will be the influence of that external participation in your elections?
Ms. Cuevas Barron: I think we are going to face exactly the same thing that we saw in the U.S. election. Now the U.S. is going to be an important issue in the Mexican campaign. All candidates, I believe, must make a statement about how they believe the relations with the U.S. and with Americans should be.
Of course, we received, not in a good way, what Donald Trump said during this campaign. If we compare last year, we had a baseball game and a football game on a field in Mexico City, and the events were really good; people were really respectful. But we had a football game last week and there was not the same respect with the American flag.
In Mexico, we have always lived with this feeling of being somewhat angry, I believe, with the U.S. One hundred and fifty years ago they took half of our territory.
Then they had the idea of a lot of problems with migration, and then the U.S. President called Mexicans rapists and criminals.
I think the respect we used to have is not going to be the same. For the next election, we are going to face a lot of debate about how relations between Mexico and the U.S. should be. It might become polarized because the two main parties now at the polls are the right and the left. There are no parties in the centre. I think it's going to be a huge issue, and I am not sure how it's going to affect things. I hope that the U.S. doesn't have the temptation to put their hands on the Mexican election because that could be a huge problem.
Senator Dawson: I'm going to have the pleasure of having lunch with the senator, so I will keep my questions for later.
The Chair: That will be helpful.
Senator Ataullahjan: Welcome to Canada. We've met many times internationally during the bilaterals with Mexico at the IPU.
I want to go back to the notion that Mexico is living in uncertain times. Can you elaborate for me about how you are adjusting to uncertain times?
And what are some of Mexico's priorities that it has in common with Canada's interests regionally and internationally, and how can we better this relationship?
Ms. Cuevas Barron: Thank you very much. It's good to see you here again.
I think all the world has to adjust with this uncertainty. We used to have very predictable U.S. regarding foreign affairs, with a lot of stability in the former president who wanted to have dialogue with different actors, even with those that the U.S. didn't have relations with at that time. But uncertainty is becoming the rule of every day. It's not like you're having one day with uncertainty. It has been like this for us for almost two years.
Our currency has changed a lot these last two years. Our markets, in terms of our finances, are starting to take note of these uncertainties, with new variables in the equation. I believe that's also going to happen in different areas, in politics, in foreign affairs.
If you saw the visit that Donald Trump made to Arab countries and others, there's also some uncertainty there because there's no president bidding for dialogue or for agreement anymore. He has a different agenda. That's their decision. There's nothing we can do about that except understand it and make the uncertainty bearable. I believe that uncertainty is going to remain for a while, at least four years.
On our priorities, I believe we share a lot. Of course there are the ones that are always there: commerce, education. But I believe now we have to defend the multilateral institutions and the multilateral agreements. For example, there's climate change. Climate change has been important for Canada and for Mexico for a long time. There's also the humanitarian agenda. Now you are receiving a lot of refugees. We are starting to do the same. We just changed our constitution to make it easier. There are also challenges around migration.
I believe we also have to address innovation, productivity and how to create better conditions, in a bilateral way, with or without the U.S. Of course, there is this important issue about creating North America and how to integrate North America, but what's going to happen if the U.S. doesn't want to do that? Are we going to remain seated?
I don't think so. We need to push for our bilateral agenda, the different issues we have and, yes, of course, commerce, investments. We have to develop more in these areas, but also there are changes, for example, with students, education, science, technology, innovation issues. There's climate change; there's migration. I believe that now we also have to defend the multilateral agreements. That's going to be the challenge with the Trump administration.
Senator Woo: Welcome, and thank you for your testimony.
I wonder if you've had a chance to read the speech of our foreign affairs minister in the House of Commons 10 days ago or so. If you haven't, I fully understand; it only came out recently. If you have, I would like to continue and ask you a question about it.
Ms. Cuevas Barron: No, I haven't read it.
Senator Woo: Then I won't. But I do recommend it to you. I would love to hear your take on that speech. I've been asking diplomats from other countries how they have received that speech. I would love to hear a Mexican take on it as well.
If I could ask a different question, in addition to sharing a common neighbour, we share two common oceans, but the one I'm thinking about is the Pacific. As part of the shifting global dynamic — and this is reflected in the speech of the foreign affairs minister — Canada and many other countries are thinking about how to diversify not just economically but in terms of our relationships, pacts, deals and variety of institutional arrangements, and I won't say away from, but beyond North America, beyond the United States. Of course the obvious place to look at is the Asia- Pacific region, East Asia more specifically.
I want to ask you about your thoughts on Mexico-Asia relations and how you see that evolving. How does it fit in with Mexico's foreign policy and trade strategy?
Finally, are there things that Mexico and Canada can do together to build North America relations with Asia in a positive way, with or without the United States?
Ms. Cuevas Barron: I'm going to look for that speech. Thank you very much.
Yes, that's one of the main ideas about TPP, how to open up opportunities with the Asia-Pacific market. I think that we have to, of course, reopen the TPP round table — that's my personal opinion, and Mexico has not had consensus — and that we need to decide what kind of relation we want to address with China. That was one of the problems with the TPP.
Even the people that designed TPP said that it has nothing to with being against China. We have to understand that China is there. That's something Donald Trump didn't see. He thought that if the U.S. started speaking against free trade, everything was going to change; but suddenly, the next day, China decided to speak about free trade and how to open the opportunities. So we need to understand that China is there. It's not like this idea of the elephant in the room that no one speaks about. That's China.
I'm going to speak about the Mexican situation. If you see our trade balance, it's 12 to 1 against Mexico, even in tourism. China has 10 times the population of Mexico, but we are sending 10 times more tourists to China than they are sending to Mexico. So we are doing something dramatically wrong.
If you speak with a Mexican business person, they don't want a free trade agreement or any kind of agreement with China. But that's the trade balance, even the tourist balance.
We need to establish rules for commerce, for investments. That is not something we should be afraid of. We are having problems but not building solutions.
I think that if we start TPP without looking at what is happening to China, we are going to make a mistake. I don't want to say that China should be in TPP, but we need to understand that China is there. If we close our eyes, we are not going to have a good result.
One issue is to decide the kind of relations we want to establish with China. Are we going to have investments from China? Are we going to have stronger commerce? What kind of rules? I believe we should have rules because China's products are everywhere.
Second, of course, we need stronger ties with all of the Asia-Pacific, but that isn't going to be enough. There's India, also a huge market, with a huge innovation industry, developing new products and ideas every day.
I believe that, yes, we have to go to the Pacific, but we can also maybe propose or even design a common strategy. Mexico, for example, only has only eight embassies for all of Africa. A lot of African countries are growing, but we are not there.
The same thing is happening in many regions because there are new actors, and we didn't see that because we were very comfortable with our beloved NAFTA.
So, yes, let's open and design a great NAFTA, but let's also look for new markets, new opportunities. Of course, it might be easier to work together, Canada and Mexico, than to work alone. If the U.S. wants to be a part, welcome. I don't think so. They wanted to have their own agreement with the European Union. The same happened with Canada. I believe, personally, that the agreements between Canada, Mexico and the U.S. with the European Union should be North America with the European Union, as two integrated markets. But let's propose something. Let's go to different opportunities.
We have, for example, the Pacific Alliance, and Canada is an important observer. So we can exchange our experiences concerning markets or agreements that have been working well for us. If we can build something together, you can count on us in the Mexican senate.
Senator Woo: Just to wrap up, based on what the senator has said, I think she'll find our foreign minister's speech very interesting.
Ms. Cuevas Barron: I'm going to look for it.
Senator Marwah: Welcome, senator and ambassador.
There clearly is a lot of focus around North America and the three countries that comprise it: Mexico, the U.S. and Canada. But we also have a huge opportunity to make this a more powerful north-south corridor that includes South America. When we do that, clearly Mexico can play an outsized role in building that north-south corridor. I'd like your comment on the opportunities and challenges. We don't have to go that far away to China when we have a big opportunity just south of you.
Ms. Cuevas Barron: It's a different opportunity and it's a different size of market. Of course, for us, it's easier. Mexico has strong leadership in all of Latin America and the Caribbean region. We have not only commerce. We have a lot of cooperation even in natural disasters, in education, in sports.
If you see the Pacific Alliance as an agreement, it's amazing because only 30 per cent has to do with commerce. It makes for all goods and services and capital and everything, but that's only 30 per cent. The other 70 per cent has to do with cooperation.
The idea of the Pacific Alliance is to create a different kind of instrument that goes to really thinking about a stronger future between the four countries that designed this instrument agreement — Chile, Peru, Colombia and Mexico. It has been slower than we thought, but it's having good results. For example, in the integration of capital markets, it's going well. On the migration issue, it's also going really well, as well as on cooperation and security.
I believe the Pacific Alliance is amazing, but we also have to be realistic about the political conditions in South America and even the humanitarian conditions in Central America.
I believe that sometimes many governments make mistakes because they are more focused on commerce than on choosing different opportunities for an integrated agenda with another country. For example, we have a free trade agreement with Central America, but the agenda also has to do with the humanitarian issues that are happening in what is called the Northern Triangle of Central America — Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. There is a lot of violence, a lot of people being displaced from their homes also due to climate change, not only violence. They are also facing a lot of problems about persons in mobility situations.
There is also, in South America, this complex situation called Venezuela, and that's polarizing, ideologically, all of the region. You're going to see, probably, what's going to be a huge debate in the next meeting in Cancun, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. I believe Venezuela's going to be a huge and polarized debate.
I believe that's the position of Mexico and my government. We need to look deeper into what is unifying us than what is dividing us. I believe the only thing that is really dividing us is Venezuela.
We also have to seize opportunities regardless of the political conditions. For example, for us, now there is a great opportunity with Brazil. This is the first time that we are really taking a serious chance to make what is not going to be a free trade agreement, but almost, with Brazil. Even if our business people in both countries are really suspicious about this agreement, I believe that's going to set a new agenda for the region, because if Mexico and Brazil can have agreement, that means that the two biggest countries in the region are going to write a different future.
Maybe not in the short term can we have this complete agenda with Central and South America, but I believe that maybe in two or three years the conditions are going to change a lot so that we can start building a bigger agreement with all Latin American countries.
The idea, of course, is that Mexico can be a good door and a good bridge to the Central and South American markets. There is a lot of food production, metals. There is a lot that we produce in Central and South America, but I believe that our region needs the strong leadership of Mexico to unify different positions that have been separating the countries during the last 15 years.
Senator Marwah: Thank you. I'm glad to hear that, because I think the more you strengthen your relationships south of the border, the better it is for Canada.
Ms. Cuevas Barron: Thank you.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for being here. This is very interesting. As two of the three partners in NAFTA, we share unease or concern about what the future is going to hold and what will happen in discussions with the American administration.
Is the average Mexican engaged in terms of concerns about the relationship with the United States? I know you're right on their border. We're on the northern border and you're on the southern border. Are average Mexicans concerned about the future of NAFTA and, indeed, the relationship with the United States with this new administration?
Ms. Cuevas Barron: Yes, a lot. To give you some numbers, one out of three persons in Mexico has family or friends living in the U.S. For example, my grandfather is living in L.A. Like me, 30 per cent of Mexicans have family or friends living in the U.S. So, yes, they care not only because they worry about our country. They have very human worries. They care about what is going to happen to their families or friends with this new migration agenda designed by Donald Trump.
But there is another way to measure that. For example, I was speaking about the reactions at the football game. It goes directly to the heart of Mexicans.
Also, if you see the new detentions that the border patrol is making in the U.S., that's also hurting public opinion in Mexico. If we are going to have protections regarding criminals, okay, there's nothing we can do, but, for example, they just deported a lady had lived in the U.S. for 22 years. She has two American sons and has never committed a crime. She was asking permission every year of the CPB office in her community, and when she went to ask for her new permit, they put her in jail.
These kinds of stories tell you that the relationship is not going in such a nice way from a human perspective. If you see that in numbers, or even with industries, sometimes the news is not put in the best way to improve or have any enthusiasm for the U.S. agenda from the public.
We just had a negotiation about sugar and it was not a good one. That's an important industry for Mexico. Of course, we also read what is happening in Canada, and that is not making us motivated for this renegotiation. But we have to deal with it.
I think that we can improve what we have if we are smart and we maintain a good perspective. That also happens from a societal point of view. There are a lot of communities where the name is the same on both sides of the border. You have Nogales in Sonora, and from the other side you also have the same name. You cannot divide reality between Juarez and El Paso. They are almost the same community, only divided by a wall.
That's going to grow, because the U.S. said that next March or April they are going to start the new part of Trump's great idea for this wall. It has been useless all of these years, so I have no idea why they think it is going to be a good idea.
Of course, this hurts. It hurts, for example, because of money. If you ask about the GDP of the southern states of the U.S. and the northern states of Mexico, that's the fourth economy in the world. That's the size of the challenge of putting a wall between these huge economies.
That's why I was also saying it's going to be part of the campaign and part of the public narrative next year, because Mexicans are hearing the President saying that you're a rapist or a criminal, and of course that's goes to your heart.
Senator Cordy: You're here in Canada speaking to our committee, but is there any dialogue between members of your Mexican government and members of Congress or senators on an individual basis? And are you getting any support? I think of Senators Cruz and Rubio, who would have ties to Mexico. Are you getting any support from them or any members of the House of Representatives or the Senate?
Ms. Cuevas Barron: I don't believe having a Spanish last name means that you have any good agenda regarding Latin American. Speaking especially about Mr. Ted Cruz, he is not a pro-Mexico person.
Yes, we have a strong dialogue even with persons like Senator Cruz, and we found very good friends there. There are, of course, some worries. I believe that's natural in the dynamic complex relationship we have at that border. I believe you also have a complex situation in some issues with the U.S., but there is a lot of solidarity even with Republican senators.
I just went to Washington in February, and I made a trip to different states. I spoke with governors, mayors, local authorities and federal authorities. We also had a meeting with the President and a ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. They were very sensitive about the idea of the wall.
We are also worried about this idea of taxing remittances and that it's not only something that affects a country; it directly affects 5 million Mexicans. They were very sensitive.
So what I did that visit was to give brochures to the different senators about how NAFTA benefits each of their states and how commerce and investments have been growing every year for the last 22 years. They were very surprised. Their eyes were opened by this report because the numbers say we must be together — Canada, the U.S. and Mexico — but I think we have to do that lobbying. I believe there's also an opportunity for Canada to show how NAFTA affects their own states and the people they represent.
Maybe we can design a joint delegation of Canadians and Mexicans to go to the U.S. Instead of this bilateral interparliamentary arrangement, we could ask for a trilateral intergovernmental meeting and speak about commerce and investments, but also about migration. Let's speak about education. Let's speak about drugs, because there is a lot of misinformation. In the U.S., they believe that overdose deaths are caused by Mexican drugs. And not surprisingly, it's not the fault of Mexican drugs.
But we can start a different kind of dialogue. If you would like, we can propose to have a trilateral meeting and discuss the future of our region from the interparliamentary point of view.
The Chair: You said the election is coming in your country, and that the parties are from the left and the right.It would seem that the parties are not in the centre. Is there any commonality between the parties on how to approach NAFTA, or will that be a debate about how to approach NAFTA and each party is going to have their own position?
The reason I say that is if there is a common approach from Mexico, from all parties, that's one thing that we can deal with because we're entering these debates pretty quickly now with the United States. If there are going to be differences, we have to factor that in.
Have there been discussions between the parties? Are you unified towards your approach to the negotiations of NAFTA, or are there marked differences between the parties?
Ms. Cuevas Barron: That's a difficult question, Madam Chair. Mexico started with free trade and global issues about 30 years ago. Since that time two parties have been the Mexican government, the PRI and PAN. I am a PAN member. These two parties have a very clear point of view about free trade and the role that Mexico should play in the international arena. That has been proven in our governments.
There has been a lot of continuity in the agreements. For example, a PAN government started with the TPP and with the Pacific Alliance, and the PRI government concluded the negotiations and approved both agreements. So the position between PRI and PAN is clear and it's really in favour of these kinds of agreements.
But from the left, which is now the most visible candidate, I'm not sure about his position on the U.S. He has been very careful about making any declarations about Donald Trump, and that is surprising from a person from the far left.
About free trade, I'm not so sure about the content, but he's somehow against it. This candidate is always speaking about protectionism. He's kind of our Donald Trump in a leftist way, but it's a similar perspective and a similar way of acting. He's very good at media and very popular with some sectors of the population, but he has been saying that Mexico is wrong about this strategy but never says how.
One of the things that worries me about this guy is that he doesn't think that the foreign affairs agenda is important for a country. He's always saying that the best foreign affairs policy is an internal policy. Maybe he doesn't take any decisions and thinks that's not important and never goes on a trip to another country on business. I'm not sure. What I'm sure about is that PRI and PAN have clear agendas. I'm not sure about the leftist agenda on the agreements.
We were speaking about uncertainty. I believe we are going to live in uncertain times for the next year, until June.
The Chair: Senator Cuevas Barron, thank you for coming to the committee and sharing some of your perspectives. Certainly on your last note, not only do we need to watch every action from Congress and from the President's administration in the United States as we go forward, but we're going to have to look very much more closely at the changes within Mexico as you are facing an election.
These are very interesting times, very uncertain times, but with that can come perhaps new initiatives and new opportunities. I think that our bilateral relationship has been strong. We've noted that in our reports, but we also know there is a lot more we can do in different ways both bilaterally or trilaterally. I think it is going to rest or your shoulders and ours in finding creative ways to help our citizens towards a prosperous and better situation for themselves and their children in both of our countries.
We look forward to working with the new ambassador as soon as all of the paperwork is out of the way. No doubt we'll have more opportunities and more need to build on this relationship at a parliamentary level.
On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you and the other senators who met with us in Mexico. We appreciate the opportunity to meet with you today. Please give our best back to the senate in Mexico.
Honourable senators, in our second hour we have before us Ambassador Blanchard. I will introduce him shortly.
The committee is authorized to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to foreign relations and international trade generally. Under this mandate the committee has invited Mr. Marc-André Blanchard, the Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations, to discuss issues relating to his mandate and UN issues in general.
Ambassador Blanchard presented his credentials to the then UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in April 2016 and has served since then as our permanent representative.
Ambassador, thank you for coming before the committee. As I indicated to you, it's an extremely busy end of the session, but we had been pursuing getting our ambassador here, so we're very pleased that you are here today. It's important for us to be updated on the UN issues, particularly with the new Secretary-General and many other issues that confront the international order as it plays out in the United Nations.
We welcome you to the committee. You're accompanied by Ms. Wendy Drukier, Director General, International Organizations, Global Affairs Canada. Welcome also to the committee.
If you have an opening statement, the floor is yours.
Marc-André Blanchard, Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations: Thank you, Madam Chair. Stop me if I go on too long. I have more than your usual five minutes. I have between seven and ten minutes. I'll try to make it as short as possible.
Thank you for the opportunity. It's a privilege to be here and meet all of you.
It is a great privilege to be your Ambassador to the United Nations, particularly at this time as Canada is re- engaging internationally and when there's the arrival and the appointment of the new Secretary-General at the UN and a lot of reforms are on the way. It's a privilege to be making a contribution there.
What are our challenges? The global challenges we face are immense; adaptation and mitigation to the consequences of climate change; intractable conflicts such as the war in Syria; the largest migration crisis in history; the struggle of the middle class; rising peacekeeping needs and new threats; the rise of violent extremism; and the ever-growing gap between humanitarian needs and our collective capacity to respond, just to name a few.
When you look at these challenges, one thing is clear: none can be resolved by any country acting alone or even bilaterally. All challenges call for enhanced multilateral action.
I don't have to tell any of you that this is not the multilateralism of the old days. The world is increasingly multipolar. International engagement is not necessarily predictable, and progress can be extraordinarily difficult to achieve.
Big powers like Russia, the U.S. and China, all view the UN differently. There is no uniform view of the UN and its role. Increasingly, in order to move forward, we must find our like-minded coalitions on an issue-by-issue basis. To get things done, to build coalitions, we must be innovative and be attentive to a diversity of member states.
The UN has many successes, many of which go unsung. Poverty has been reduced, more people have access to humanitarian assistance, fewer people are dying from preventive diseases, in many places women have better access to maternal and child health care, and the UN's ability to respond to natural disaster is stronger than ever before.
But, of course, it is an imperfect organization. Like any massive institution, there are inefficiencies that must be addressed, stovepipes that need to be broken down and improvements that can be made.
Yes, the UN needs reform in many areas, but let's never forget that we put on the UN's lap some of the worst problems of humanity. Let's also not forget that it is the member states that for the most part make decisions at the UN.
In spite of these challenges, there are opportunities. First, let's start with leadership. As of January 1, we have a new Secretary-General, António Guterres, and he is the right person for the job. António Guterres is a strong leader. His deputy, Amina Mohammed, who was until recently the Minister of Environment for Nigeria, who was in Ottawa also recently, is also the right person at the right time. We couldn't be more fortunate than to have her in the role of Deputy Secretary-General.
It is early in the new mandate, but the Secretary-General's commitment to transparency and reform within the organization on peace and security, development and management issues is commendable. So too is his commitment to gender parity at the senior ranks of the United Nations.
Now, it is our job to hold the UN leadership to these commitments, and we need to get behind Mr. Guterres and Ms. Mohammed in support of their effort. At the end of the day, these reforms will come down to the collective will of member states.
The second opportunity I see is that we have the plan, the 2030 Agenda. If you only remember one thing of my presentation today is a discussion about the 2030 Agenda.
Two years ago the world negotiated a far-reaching agenda aimed at pulling millions of people out of poverty by 2030. This achievement cannot be underestimated.
It is called the 2030 Agenda. It is a strategic plan for the planet, developed and adopted at the UN by the 193 member states. It's 17 sustainable development goals, with clear, measurable objectives to be met by 2030. It's the first time in history.
It is one of the most significant multilateral achievements in years. With the Paris agreement the same year, those are two key instruments.
If we get this right, millions of people globally will join the middle class and have access to better jobs. Girls will go to school and not be forced into marriage, women will be empowered, and there will be real economic opportunity.
The world will be a safer place. This is the plan to take the world away from the cliff of unsustainability where it currently stands.
Third, we are working collectively to achieve global compacts on refugees and on immigration. On the latter, we are pleased that Canadian Louise Arbour is at the helm. I couldn't think of a more capable and driven person than Madam Arbour to take on this critical challenge at this critical time.
Fourth, increasingly there is an understanding at the UN that peace, security and sustainable economic development are inextricably linked. This is at the heart of the prevention and sustaining agenda of the new Secretary-General. These are words, but this is a revolution for the UN. This will mean reform of the organization and how the UN does things.
How do we approach our engagement? For a country like Canada, multilateralism is in our DNA. At our very core, we understand that in order to advance issues, partnerships are essential. As Minister Freeland recently said:
. . . as a middle power living next to the world's only super power, Canada has a huge interest in an international order based on rules. One in which might is not always right. One in which more powerful countries are constrained in their treatment of smaller ones by standards that are internationally respected, enforced and upheld.
Let me give you a few examples of the engagement. First, on financing the sustainable development goals, the Agenda 2030 I just talked about, this is a fascinating area. If you ask me where is the cutting edge in international affairs these days, it's in there. It's how we're going to move from billions to trillions in development and how we're going to push more investments in emerging markets. How are we going to have more investments in sustainable development? How are we going to align our financial markets more with sustainable development?
This is a phenomenal, great challenge. There's urgency to act and actually Canada is leading the way. I'm thrilled to be part of that leadership.
What we're doing is we, together — and that's part of the partnership and the way Canada works at the UN — we've joined with the Jamaican ambassador. We are leading a group of friends on financing of the SDGs. More than 55 countries have joined us and are working with us. It's a novelty at the UN because the group of friends are not only made up of ambassadors and countries; it's also made up of people from the business community and the finance community, where we have a discussion on these important and critical issues.
When you go to Africa, when you talk to leaders of the developing countries, one of the first things they raise is this issue of economic development, of opportunities for their people, and how Canada can be of assistance in ensuring that we have more trade, more economic development and that it creates more opportunities for young people.
Remember that in Africa most countries have 70 per cent of their people below the age of 30 years old. Half of them are unemployed. According to some surveys done by the Aga Khan Foundation, 50 per cent of the unemployed actually are susceptible of engaging in all sorts of criminal activities, including terrorism. In Africa, you have a continent that between now and 2050 will double in population — just imagine.
At the same time, the President of the World Bank told us that two thirds of the jobs that now exist in developing countries will disappear within the next 15 years.
You have a perfect storm, and this is a real threat to security. If we don't get this right, this will be a huge issue for all of us on this planet.
You have that, and as a cornerstone of the Agenda 2030, as you heard last week, is gender equality. Canada's feminist international assistance policy will enhance Canada's leadership in the implementation of this agenda. Advancing gender equality and promoting equal rights for women and girls is the most effective way to reduce poverty.
[Translation]
The second example I would like to give you is that of Syria. Canada played a key role there with the UN last December. There was deadlock in the Security Council, when Russia exercised a veto six times. The problem arises when one of the parties, which is involved in the conflict, is also a member of the Security Council and has a right to veto. That creates a lot of deadlocks. Unfortunately, that's the case with Syria.
Canada acted differently. We actually saw the deadlock in the Security Council as related to our credibility on the refugee issue. Our Prime Minister showed leadership, as thousands of Canadians have welcomed 40,000 Syrian refugees over the past 18 months. That deadlock is also explained through the image of the Prime Minister welcoming the refugees at Pearson Airport, while other world leaders reacted in a completely opposite way. Canadian leadership on this issue was immediate, as was our credibility.
That's what enabled us to bring the world onside and send a very strong message to 122 countries. Nearly two-thirds of the General Assembly trusted Canada to show the way toward that resolution in favour of Syria in order to provide barrier-free access to humanitarian aid for Syrians who needed it. Yes, it was too little, too late for several million Syrians — if we want to be cynical — but it was important at the time. According to observers, that UN resolution helped the Security Council agree on a ceasefire resolution. It was also Canada that opened the door to the resolution proposed by Liechtenstein and Qatar on accountability for serious crimes against humanity perpetrated in Syria, and we hope that resolution will enable us to bring the perpetrators to justice. Those are examples of Canada's engagement at the UN. This concludes my remarks, and I am available to answer your questions.
I would have liked to talk about the role of Haiti and the Security Council, but I assume that you will have questions on those issues. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. As you indicated, you're going to cover a lot of areas. You'll probably have to come back because this topic cannot be done in one hour.
Mr. Blanchard: With great pleasure.
The Chair: I have a long list, so I want to make sure that the senators get their questions in.
I feel like I'm chairing a committee back at the UN, trying to get too much in and hear from everyone. I'm going to try to do my best.
Senator Dawson: I already apologized to the ambassador because I'm hosting Madam Cuevas at the Parliamentary Restaurant. She's already there and I'm here, so I'll be short.
I'll give you my opinion on the SDGs. I'm giving a speech next Tuesday, Mr. Ambassdaor, and I'll have it sent to you so you know my opinion. I totally agree with you on the importance. I think Senator Ataullahjan will be speaking on the same subject.
One thing you did not mention was the UN Security Council campaign. The last time I met you, I told you that we have parliamentarians here who sit on —
[Translation]
— the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the APF, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and those are tools Canada's ambassador to the United Nations can use to support Canada's candidacy. For many parliamentary associations, the difference between Parliament and government is very small.
Mr. Blanchard, what can be done as part of your campaign to help bring Canada back to the UN Security Council?
Mr. Blanchard: Thank you for your question, Senator Dawson. In my capacity as ambassador to the UN, what I want, as a sherpa and the person responsible for the campaign designated by the Prime Minister, is for the entire country to be behind Canada in this campaign. I think this is the time for all of us to rally behind our flag and carry it high. Everyone has a contribution to make. I always say that, to win an election and the trust of two-thirds of the Security Council members, the principle is simple.
[English]
I always say it's like the campaign is about being Canada. The Prime Minister said it when he came to the United Nations last September. His message was very clear: We are Canada and we're here to help.
Do you know what? The reputation and the brand of Canada around the world is that we are a country that actually can make a significant difference.
I'll tell you a story. I met with the leader of the UN in Africa last August, with the Minister of Defence. The leader told us, "I'm so glad to see that Canada is back. It brings us a lot of hope.'' I said, "Why?'' He said, "Because Canada is trusted.'' I said, "But there are many countries that are trusted.'' He said, "No, the difference for Canada is that not only are you trusted, but you are able to do things that other countries on the planet cannot do because of your friends, because of your history, because of your current leadership, because of your values, because of your resources and because of your society, your history, your bilingualism, your diversity.''
We need all of that to demonstrate to the world in the coming three years and to win the confidence and trust of the world in order to sit around this most important multilateral table in the world.
What you can do as parliamentarians is develop relationships with other members in other parliaments, in other legislative bodies. Every part of our government is important: the judiciary, the executive, the legislative branches.
I was in front of judges two weeks ago. I told them that their contribution to the development of the rule of law throughout the globe in emerging markets is crucial in what we're trying to do to bring more investment to emerging markets. The rule of law is one of the best exports that Canada can have, actually.
These are the kinds of things that we need to be creative in our approach to this. I welcome your contribution. We can make it easier for you by giving you information about the relationships we have with some of these countries where you will be travelling and will be representing Canada. Remember that by representing Canada you're part of the campaign and what we're trying to showcase to the rest of the world. It's a very significant and important contribution.
Senator Oh: Welcome ambassador.
Peter Thomson, President of the UN General Assembly, said at the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation hosted in Beijing on May 14, 2017, that the "Implementation of the UN 2030 agenda will require development of global partnerships such as this ambitious Belt and Road Initiative.''
The United States also set up a belt and road working group. What should Canada's role be in this picture?
Mr. Blanchard: Thank you very much for this very important question.
The One Belt, One Road project is going to be one of the most significant infrastructure and development projects. These days we cannot talk like we used to when we were saying 50 years, because you never know what will happen. However, it is one of the most important development projects in the world, and Canada needs to be part of that.
Regarding the conference that you're referring to, our ambassador and one of our parliamentary secretaries were present at that conference representing Canada at the senior level. This is why Canada has joined — and I may have it wrong, because there are two and I don't know which one — the infrastructure bank that was set up by China in support of that initiative. We are taking an active role in that as far as I know.
From a UN perspective, I was with Peter Thomson yesterday. To give you an idea of the work we do for partnerships and for financing the SDGs — and this is not in respect to China — we had discussions for two days with representatives from Bangladesh, Kenya, Jamaica, Benin and a fifth country. We brought in people from the private sector, from world banks and from multilateral development banks and worked together to try to unlock and develop new partnerships. It's all about thinking of new partnerships and new coalitions and being innovative.
If you were to ask me what has been the most striking thing since I have been at the UN, it's actually that we need to build coalitions as Canada has been known to do in the past. We need to reach out differently to various parts of the world. We need to ensure that we build our coalitions with a great diversity of partners. That's very important.
What you're referring to in One Belt, One Road is one dimension of that.
Senator Eaton: Mr. Blanchard, I find your optimism wonderful. Unfortunately, I see a couple of stumbling blocks, one of which you mentioned yourself, namely, the right of nations to veto. You could have a consensus of the whole Security Council, but one nation vetoes it, and forget your hard work.
The second one that comes to mind is the lack of teeth that the United Nations seems to have now in the face of terrible situations like Syria, the mass migration coming out of Africa, trying to get to Europe, trying to find food and security.
I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s. When the United Nations convened, the world took it seriously. Something that disturbs me to no end — and perhaps I'm just naive — is that the United Nations Human Rights Council has countries like Saudi Arabia and Libya, or perhaps that's old news now.
Who chairs the United Nations Human Rights Council right now?
Mr. Blanchard: Let me talk about the right of nations to veto, senator, and the lack of teeth in the face of situations that you've mentioned.
I can talk about the Human Rights Council. Obviously, Canada is an ardent supporter and promoter of human rights. Canada is perceived as a beacon of human rights. When you judge the UN now, the UN is not perfect; but let's take the refugees.
Senator Eaton: Finish with the Human Rights Council. Who chairs the Human Rights Council?
Mr. Blanchard: I don't know who is chairing it. I know we're not part of the Human Rights Council at the moment. It's the ambassador in Geneva who is coordinating our participation in this. It's not done out of New York. I'm sorry that I'm not able to tell you who is the chair.
You are raising good points. Let's talk about the convening power.
The convening power of the UN is still exceptional. I think that, rather than being less relevant, it is more and more relevant. Why? Because none of the other forums are as inclusive as the United Nations. Yes, it's sometimes more difficult to get agreements, because there's a greater diversity of participants. However, it's the only forum where 193 countries of the world sit together and try to make it a better world.
As the second Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjöld, said, the UN was not created to take us to heaven; it was created to make sure we wouldn't go to hell after the Second World War experience, or something like that.
Yes, it's not perfect, senator. However, the issues we have to deal with now include the most important refugee crisis in the history of humanity and the biggest security issues that we have faced in a long time. The UN was built by member states. It was built to help with security when our understanding of conflicts was states against states. We now have conflicts of states against states, but we also have conflicts within states, where all sorts of terrorist organizations are involved.
Senator Eaton: I know all that.
Mr. Blanchard: But that makes it difficult for the UN.
Senator Eaton: I know.
Mr. Blanchard: It's not because the UN is not playing a role or that the UN doesn't make a significant contribution. Tonight, we're all going to go to sleep, but there are 125 soldiers, servicemen and servicewomen, who are coordinated by the UN in 16 or 17 different conflicts around the world. They are fulfilling a role that, in most cases, no one else would want to do in terms of operations like that.
In terms of the right of veto of some nations, the institution was built like that. At the moment, Canada is supporting France in its pursuit of making sure that when there are allegations of crimes against humanity, the veto cannot be applied. Will we be successful? It's tough to say at this point. However, we are part of trying to reform this institution and make it work better.
Every analogy is a bad one, and don't judge me for making a simplistic analogy and reducing it to this; it's not that at all. I use this analogy when I make speeches in Canada at our schools and universities. I say there is a limit to what we can blame — the Air Canada Centre in Toronto or the Centre Bell in Montreal — for the defeat of the Maple Leafs or Montreal Canadiens. At the end of the day, the member states are like the players of the team who make the game, and it's the member states who have to agree and who have to do things.
It's tough and it's a challenge, but what's the alternative? There is no alternative. If we were to say that tomorrow the UN should be abolished, we would create it the day after, because of all the issues we're facing, none of them can be addressed bilaterally and none can be addressed by one country.
I've been there for a year, and I've been very impressed by the convening power of the UN.
I'm also very impressed by the UNHCR. They are managing 23 million refugees at the moment, and they do it with fairly limited resources. The system is strained, but they're able to do a lot of good. Imagine if it was not there and if it was not organized the way it is.
That's why I still have hope. I have hope because Canada can make a difference and can make it better. That's why we're running for the Security Council, to improve the UN and make a significant contribution to the world. With regard to much of what the world needs and many of the challenges the world is facing, Canada has a lot to bring to the table in terms of expertise, resources and savoir faire. This is a huge opportunity for Canadians and for our middle class.
Senator Eaton: I'm glad you're there and I'm not. I remember going with the Speaker on a summer trip to the UN as guests. We were briefed on the peacekeeping operations and what a mess they were. As I said, I'm glad you're there, with your optimism, but I think it's a huge mess.
Mr. Blanchard: Please let me know when you come to the UN and we will meet.
Senator Eaton: Thank you very much.
Senator Woo: Thank you, ambassador, for that very robust defence of the United Nations.
You mentioned in your opening remarks that we are in a multipolar world. One of the characteristics of a multipolar world is that the new poles, the emerging powers, are not so happy with the status quo institutions. They're not so happy with the world as we know it that was created after the war — of course, created by the winners and by the then-dominant Western powers.
I want to ask you for your reflections on how you see the emerging powers, China in particular, but we can include India, Brazil, Nigeria maybe, and Indonesia perhaps. Give us your reflections on how you see them playing the system. I don't mean playing in a bad way, but how are they trying to shape the system in a way that reflects their interests and in a way that, as they would put it, rebalances the rules of the game so that they have a better chance of succeeding? I'm not taking their position here; I'm just stating what I see is happening in the world today.
Any thoughts on that? It is a big question, I know.
Mr. Blanchard: It's a big question but it's a fascinating one.
Senator Woo: I should say that this was an implicit theme in Minister Freeland's recent speech. She doesn't actually say this, but she essentially recognizes that part of the change in the world — Trump, in a sense, is a small part of it; and Trump, in many ways, is a reaction to what is happening in the world.
The biggest story, of course, is the rise of the emerging powers and the fact that they're not fully satisfied with the status quo. They want to recreate and reshape the world in the way they see it, and the UN is one arena. I would love to hear your thoughts.
Mr. Blanchard: This is a fascinating question because one thing that surprised me when I arrived at the UN is the multipolarity of the world. That's why I believe there are a lot of opportunities for Canada in this context. That's why I mentioned that we have to make sure in the way we build coalitions that we have a diversity of partners and that we innovate in the way we build those coalitions now and in the future.
Countries like China, Indonesia and Nigeria and many smaller countries play a very important role in the UN. Just think about Singapore, for example. I could give you a long list.
China is interesting. They are taking more and more space at the UN and in the debates, and they engage way more than they ever have. They engage and they want to partner with countries. We see that in peacekeeping. We see that in many areas of development. They want to engage with us also to talk about best practices and do things even together in third countries.
In the group that I chair, China is present on the financing of the SDGs. I was surprised to see so many references to the role of the private sector in the comments China made in the General Assembly on financing the development.
On the other hand, for the reform of the organization, it creates a lot of rigidities. I would say they are one of the biggest obstacles to the reform of the Security Council because they are part of the P5. Other members of the P5 are also not so much in favour of reform. They're not alone in that camp, but they're probably the most rigid about that.
It's not a complete answer to your question, but that's what I see at the UN.
The UN is a lot about the agenda of Africa. Africa is still perceived by some OECD countries as a continent in crisis. If you're at the UN, you may think it's all in crisis because you hear about Mali, Central African Republic, Congo and all these places, but there are also other stories around Africa that are phenomenal opportunities for development.
I was at the UN 25 years ago as a student and as an intern, and the quality of representatives from Africa is day and night. When I meet some of their members of government, it is day and night from what it was 25 years ago.
So we need to partner more with some of these governments in Africa to do things. We need to think about how we're going to do it because there are some things these governments do that we disagree with strongly and don't represent our values.
For me, when you think about the role of Canada in the world, when I wake up in the morning, I'm always questioning myself. I come from the private sector, and I'm questioning myself. I strongly believe that when Canada is more relevant in the world, it creates more opportunities for our people in Canada and abroad. It's about our relevance in the world. If we don't build these coalitions in the new multipolar world you're talking about, we could become quickly irrelevant.
This is something we need to continue to work on and develop. I think we've done phenomenal things in the last 18 months on this issue to actually build coalitions and do things, but we need to continue on that road.
It's interesting how some of the countries we've talked about see some countries of the traditional "West.'' They question their relevance in the debate and in the world.
It's very interesting when you hear that, and sometimes I get a glimpse of that in discussions. This is something that in the mid to long term we in Canada need to think about.
It's a fascinating question and discussion.
Senator Marwah: Welcome, Mr. Blanchard.
I want to touch on a couple of points that have been raised by yourself and by Senator Woo. There has been much talk about some elements of the UN not working well or needing reform. I think you referred to it several times. That includes threats by the U.S. to reduce their funding because it doesn't add leverage to what their will is.
Can you talk about whether that reform really does have traction and what elements of reform? What are the priorities of reform? Is it the Security Council; is it veto power? What elements of reform have traction? I hope it's not just administrative matters that have little meaning in the substantive matters. What elements of reform are being looked at seriously?
Mr. Blanchard: Security Council reform is being looked at seriously; there is continuous discussion on it. It is very important, and it would be a phenomenal thing if we could succeed in getting to results on this. On the other hand, it could take some more time. For me, the most important part is how the UN works on the ground. That is the most important part of the reform.
I kind of disagree with the premise of your question. It's not purely administrative. I'll give you one example. You've come from a very large organization, one of our greatest organizations in Canada, Scotiabank. In a big organization like that — as good as it is — you had some silos in the organization and you were always trying to get better coordination.
Senator Marwah: I hope not.
Mr. Blanchard: In my small law firm of 1,500 people, I considered I had some when I was managing.
The UN is an organization that is huge and where there are some silos, and agencies are competing for funding. Sometimes the incentives are wrong the way they are and get us to the wrong result on the ground.
It's going to be tough in an organization as big as the UN, but we need to make sure that the UN can deliver as one on the ground. It's not a question when you have a conflict. It's not just the military operation that matters. Well, what could have mattered a lot was prevention and looking at the root cause of conflict, then the military operation and, after that, peace building.
I can give you an example. Peace building is very important. Once you have resolved the conflict, if you don't build peace and you don't stay there until the peace, then you have done nothing.
I'll give you a personal example. I have two, and that's why I wanted to talk to you about them: Sierra Leone and Haiti. I chair the United Nations Peacebuilding Commission on Sierra Leone as the Ambassador of Canada. What do we do there? We're an advocate for Sierra Leone within the UN system to make sure they have the right support. This is a country that was in a civil war for 10 years. This is a country where the economy was based on iron ore. We all know what happened to the price of iron ore. This is a country that had an Ebola crisis that killed thousands of people. It's a fragile state.
It's a success of the UN. It's too bad Senator Eaton is not here. It is really a success of the UN, because it went successfully through two elections so far. The country is rebuilding itself.
I went there last summer. I sat with the 18 agencies of the UN around the table that are present on the ground, and I could see immediately that they were not talking to each other. They were doing their work in their silos and not talking and coordinating themselves in the way they should.
So we need to give stronger power to the resident coordinator in each country where the UN has such a significant presence and actually have a say on the talent that is brought by the agencies to the work that they need to coordinate.
To tell you the truth, it is somewhat of a revolution within the UN world, as we speak. It's tough to have the Government of Canada work as one. It's also tough to have the UN work and deliver as one. It's a challenge. But this is something we need to be doing because we have to stop saying, "This is a crisis,'' and we manage the crisis. No. The UN will need to be relevant to manage the prevention, the crisis and the peace building or the rebuilding of the country after that.
This takes an integrated vision. That's the vision that has been put. It sounds simple, but it's a huge shift in mentality. That is a vision that is pushed very much by the new Secretary-General. Delivering on this will be tough.
The example that I gave on Haiti, I went there and chaired the ECOSOC Ad Hoc Advisory Committee for Haiti, where we advised on the future development of Haiti. A UN mission was there for the last 14 years. It actually did a lot of work on security and humanitarian assistance. There have been 87 natural disasters in the last 10 years, and an earthquake took away 20 per cent of the GDP. The UN was there to help with security because it was such a fragile position, and then humanitarian. Now the UN wants to shift that to more of a development mission. A new mission will be started in October focused on the development of the rule of law and the institutions to allow the economic development of Haiti.
I was there, but it's going to take a very long coordination. I think there were 22 agencies of the UN on the ground. I can tell you it's going to take a lot of work to shift the theme from a security and humanitarian mentality to a mentality of development. You need different talents and agencies.
That's what we need to do better at the UN. A lot of the action that the UN does is on the ground. The real life of the UN is in the operations. What you see is from a political point of view.
Does the Security Council resolution have teeth, and what is the process there? Yes, it's very crucial for the security part, but there are three main legs of the UN: development, government/human rights and security. To ensure development of a better world, we need to work on these three pillars at the same time. The Security Council focuses a lot on the security part, but we need to work on the two other legs with a lot of intensity and resilience as well.
That's the reform that we need. We're working on the institutional reform that you're referring to, the Security Council, and we're working on the operational one. But I submit to you, with all due respect, the operational one is key.
Senator Marwah: I must admit I do agree with you that the UN is focusing on issues on the ground. I'm reminded of the saying that failure is very seldom related to failed strategy. It's invariably because of failed execution, what you're talking about, executing on the ground.
Let me go one step further. I'm glad they're doing that, and I do tend to agree. When you talk about reform of the Security Council, what direction is that taking and what do we mean when we say "reform''?
Mr. Blanchard: I will go there, but I want to make one comment on your last question. That's why I'm focusing so much on the financing of the Agenda 2030, because I believe that if the UN is not relevant in that discussion and cannot make things happen to ensure the implementation of Agenda 2030, then it's going to be a failure of the organization, and it's going to be a problem for the credibility of the organization. That's why I think we should focus on that.
But it's a little bit of a change. Imagine, you have countries that are resisting the presence of non-member states present around the table, and so that's the shift you have to make. That's why we argue for more representation from Aboriginals.
[Translation]
Aboriginal representation is important when an issue affects First Nations within UN bodies.
[English]
That's part of institutional reforms, the presence of Aboriginal people in matters that are actually in relation to them. We see the pushback regarding financing from the states I was talking about, who don't want to see the private sector too close. They're using the same argument against enhanced Aboriginal representation. That goes to the institutional reform.
When we're talking about the reform of the Security Council in a very strict sense, Senator Marwah, are we adding new members to the Security Council to ensure better representation of the council? There are five permanent members, five members with veto; ten elected members for two years on a rotational basis, representing five or six regions. The P5 are France, the U.K., Russia, China and the U.S., and the other ten members.
When you talk about reform, you have a group of states — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — arguing that they should be permanent members of the Security Council, and they should have a veto. Then you have some African states who say they should have two representatives of Africa on the Security Council in a permanent manner, or one. Some argue one; some argue two.
What are the terms of these members? Are they permanent or not? Do you enlarge the council from 15 to 25 — that's one proposal — or 15 to 24? I've seen two scenarios. Do you give new members longer terms or shortened terms? Are you adding to the permanent members? And what do you do with the veto? Do you give the new members a veto, or do you take the veto out? There is the scenario about the veto.
When we talk about reform of the Security Council, those are the main parameters that we're talking about.
The Chair: Ambassador, it was a difficult time this week, and the topic is too complex in the one-hour timeframe that we have. We've started a dialogue, but much more needs to be done and said.
I have not asked any questions. As you see, between the questions and answers, we've run out of time.
I looked at your CV. Interestingly, I think I was engaged in the United Nations before your birth, if I may say. That is an actual fact.
The reform of the Security Council, the issues of making the agencies work together, is not a new issue. This has been a struggle within the UN. There has not been the political will to make the changes.
I hope that now we will be able to make some changes with your position there. I'm not optimistic that all of the problems facing the UN will be solved that quickly. It continues to be a work-in-progress. Canada has had a role to play in the past, and we trust we will continue to have one.
The strength of the UN is in its agencies, but its weakness is that it doesn't work in a coordinated way. Those were statements made 40 years ago, and they're being made now. I see progress and then I see regress, and it seems to be the way it goes.
I'm pleased you raised Sierra Leone, and I hope we can have a conversation about that. I've also been engaged in Sierra Leone for quite some time. It has its own unique issues.
This is the dilemma: every crisis and every country is really not a template for the next one. That is part of the issue.
If the attention is on the Security Council and on the General Assembly, it's in the right place because if there is no political will or consensus amongst the states, not much else can happen.
That is the struggle we have. How do we build an order that everyone buys into?
So I wish you well in an extremely complex field. I can't think of any other case that you could address in any form that would be more complex than this.
Thank you for taking the time to be here. I hope you will take our invitation to come back on more specific issues so that we can dig down a little deeper.
Thank you for your presence here.
(The committee adjourned.)