THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 20, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met with videoconference this day at 4:14 p.m. [ET] to study foreign relations and international trade generally.
Senator Peter M. Boehm (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Honourable senators, my name is Peter Boehm. I am a senator from Ontario and the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Before we begin, I’m going to ask the committee members participating in today’s meeting to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
Senator Greene: Stephen Greene, senator from Nova Scotia.
Senator Ravalia: Welcome. Mohamed Ravalia from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood, British Columbia.
Senator Woo: Yuen Pau Woo, British Columbia.
Senator Harder: Peter Harder, Ontario.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario. Welcome.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
Senator Richards: David Richards, New Brunswick.
The Chair: We have just been joined by Senator MacDonald from Nova Scotia.
I wish to welcome you all, senators, as well as those who are watching us from across our country today on SenVu.
Colleagues, we are meeting today, under our general order of reference, to discuss Canada’s commitments and obligations under the United Nations. To discuss this matter, we’re very pleased to welcome, by video conference, the Honourable Bob Rae, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations in New York, as well as two officials from Global Affairs Canada, who are in the room here to support Ambassador Rae. They are Emi Furuya, Director General, International Organizations; and Johanna Kruger, Director, United Nations Bureau. Thank you for joining us.
Ambassador, before we hear your remarks and proceed to questions and answers, I wish to ask members and witnesses in the room to please refrain from leaning in too closely to the microphone, or remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff, particularly our interpreters who are wearing earpieces.
We have also been joined by Senator Housakos of Quebec, so we have the full committee here.
We are ready to hear your opening remarks, Ambassador Rae. Those will be followed, as per our usual practice, by questions from senators. You have the floor, sir.
[Translation]
Hon. Robert Rae, P.C., Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations in New York, Global Affairs Canada: Honourable senators, I want to start by thanking you for welcoming me here this afternoon. I’m very pleased to speak to the committee about Canada’s role in the United Nations. I will be speaking in both English and French, particularly since today is Francophonie Day at the UN, so it’s important for me to start my remarks in one of Canada’s two official languages.
[English]
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. I appreciate very much the chance to speak with you, and I’m happy to take your questions.
We often take for granted that the United Nations, or UN, is the centrepiece of the rules-based international system and the backbone of multilateralism, but, nevertheless, it is the backbone. That’s what I really want to talk about with you today.
The United Nations, which was founded in 1945 after long negotiations in San Francisco, seeks to foster cooperation among Member States on peace and security, international law, human rights, sustainable economic and social development, and humanitarian cooperation. It establishes global norms and standards that are critical to our domestic interests. But it is important to realize that there are unprecedented challenges today in the multilateral system. Literally dozens of serious conflicts exist around the world, including from certain Member States who use the UN quite illegitimately to advance their own agendas, and who seek to limit human rights and gender equality.
In this context, Canada’s place in the United Nations is as important as ever as we work to ensure the UN is effective, efficient, relevant and accountable in delivering on all of its mandates.
In 2022, Canada was the sixth-largest contributor to the UN system — from the most recent, reliable stats that we have — with over $2.49 billion on an annual basis. That is quite extraordinary. People sometimes say that Canada is not punching above its weight; I would suggest to you that it is.
This degree of contribution and level of commitment from Canada comes with a responsibility for us to be present and to hold this system to account.
I might also say that I’m a very proud Canadian on the day that we pay — in full and on time — our contributions to the UN. We do so exactly that way — in full and on time — which is something that I can assure you is valued immensely by the United Nations, given the many chronically late payers and some non-payers to the UN system.
Yet Canada’s presence and engagement here in New York and our headquarters here, as well as in other UN capitals, have not kept pace in size to match that of most of our G20 counterparts. I can honestly say that our UN resources here in New York are stretched to address our many critical global issues.
My first point is that the UN is essential to advancing Canadian foreign policy objectives — many of which we simply cannot achieve unilaterally. This is, if you like, the logic of multilateralism. We are a middle power, but we are not a power that can easily set the rules for others. It’s important for us to negotiate to achieve rules and laws which protect our interests as they protect everyone else’s. That’s what the word “multilateral” is all about.
I believe that the UN, while it’s imperfect — and I know I will be asked about those imperfections — still remains the best platform to address the many global challenges we face, including multiple overlapping geopolitical crises. When I say “multiple overlapping,” I mean political, military, social and economic all coming together in one go, such as Gaza, Haiti, Sudan, Myanmar and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine — and the dramatic consequences of that invasion not just for Ukraine and neighbouring countries but, indeed, for the entire world. We are also grappling with the effects of climate change, post-COVID economic recovery and the need to better mobilize financial resources for economic development.
Among the greatest achievements of the UN is the development of a body of international law, which did not start in 1945, but it certainly has grown exponentially since that time, with a massive number of agreements. These are all essential to promoting economic and social development, as well as advancing international peace and security through treaties, conventions and standards.
Canada is a steadfast supporter of the International Court of Justice, which is the principal judicial organ of the UN. We believe the court plays a critical role in facilitating the peaceful settlement of disputes between states, and maintaining and promoting the rule of law.
I remind you that Canada was one of the prime drivers in the process of creating the Rome Statute, starting in the 1980s, and in building the treaty of the Rome Statute which was the basis for the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Both these courts, of course, are based in The Hague, but there are many other mechanisms that have been created by the UN, particularly those for Syria and Myanmar, where Canada has been playing a critical role in saying, “If we can’t agree on the court process, let us at least agree on the way in which we will gather evidence for crimes against humanity and war crimes.”
On peace and security, we have been a champion of the UN peacebuilding architecture since its very inception. We support ongoing efforts to enhance coherence and partnerships for peacebuilding across the UN system.
We’re still widely recognized as a leader on peacebuilding by other Member States and across the UN system. Canada, for example, chairs the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, or C-34 — also known as the “Committee of 34,” because it doesn’t have 34 members. This is thanks in part to our consistent support which includes — but is not limited to — our membership on the Peacebuilding Commission since 2008, as well as mediation and support programming to the United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs. We have supported UN peacekeeping since its inception, and we continue to provide specialized expertise, training, capabilities and personnel — as we are doing now, for example, in the multinational mission which is being established for Haiti — as well as funding for new projects and contributions to continue supporting UN peacekeeping operations.
Through all these contributions, we support efforts to increase the meaningful participation of women in peacekeeping, the protection of civilians, the safety and security of peacekeepers and the effectiveness of peacekeeping operations. We are the eighth-largest financial contributor to UN peacekeeping operations through assessed contributions. We are the third-largest provider of voluntary funding.
We’re also leading the charge on multiple policy matters involving peacekeeping through initiatives such as the Elsie Initiative for Women in Peace Operations and the Vancouver Principles on Peacekeeping and the Prevention of the Recruitment and Use of Child Soldiers.
With respect to sustainable development, let us just say that we are working very hard on the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Canada is committed to fully implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and accelerating progress on the Sustainable Development Goals throughout what we call the “Decade of Action.”
We know we have to work closely with the United Nations — working on what we do in Canada, as well as what we encourage other countries to do. We work with UNICEF, the United Nations Development Programme and key partners in the implementation of Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy.
On human rights and gender equality, this has always been at the core of our commitment. We have just finished celebrating the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which John Humphrey, a Canadian from New Brunswick, was deeply involved.
We have extended our interests, including championing the rights of women, girls and children, as well as 2SLGBTQI+ people, Indigenous peoples and human rights defenders. We also strive to promote freedom of expression, both online and offline, and freedom of religion or belief, as well as abolishing the death penalty.
We will continue to focus our efforts where human rights violations and abuses are especially egregious, such as in Afghanistan — I think the Afghans have managed to create a new crime against humanity, and that is gender apartheid — as well as in Iran and Russian-occupied Ukraine.
We also prioritize efforts to eliminate all forms of gender-based violence. We support UN efforts that promote gender equality as being essential to achieving prosperity, sustainable development, justice, peace and security.
[Translation]
This year, Canada will play an even more important role at the United Nations. On July 27, it will be my honour to assume the presidency of the UN Economic and Social Council, or ECOSOC, for a one-year term. It will be an opportunity to promote Canada’s values and interests within a group of 54 diverse countries.
The Summit of the Future, an event that will bring together all the heads of state and government of UN member states to discuss global issues, will be held during the UN General Assembly’s high-level week in September. This summit is an opportunity for Canada and all member states to strengthen multilateral cooperation, address gaps in global governance, reaffirm existing commitments and, finally, move towards a reinvigorated multilateral system.
Honourable senators, Mr. Chair, I hope that these brief remarks will convince you of Canada’s important role in the UN. The multilateral efforts in which we’re engaging through this organization are more important than ever. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your comments, ambassador. We now move to questions and answers. I wish to inform the committee members that, as usual, you will each have a maximum of four minutes for the first round. This includes questions and answers. Therefore, please be concise. We can always go to a second round if we have time.
[English]
Senator Housakos: Thank you, Ambassador Rae, for being with us, and thank you for your service.
Earlier this year, ambassador, our government announced an arms embargo against Israel, which was re-announced a few nights ago — actually on Monday night — after what I consider to be a repugnant motion on the floor of the House of Commons. The motion essentially delegitimizes the right of Israel to defend itself, and also legitimatizes what we know to be a terrorist organization: Hamas. This is one of my questions, ambassador: Why is Israel a more worthy ally than, for example, Turkey, which is a nation where we just lifted a military embargo that we had, while some of us believe — and you had rightfully shared your view a while ago — that Turkey and Azerbaijan were carrying out an ethnic cleansing campaign in Nagorno-Karabakh? Why would our government do something so inappropriate at this time — multilateral relationships are so difficult — and why would we be so confused in terms of our moral values when we deal with an ally like Israel and an ally like NATO, and take contradictory action? I would like to have your views on that, ambassador.
Mr. Rae: Senator Housakos, I’m in a difficult position because you are asking questions concerning a resolution that was passed in the House of Commons, and you are asking me questions about policy changes that were announced by the government. If I may say so, I think they are very political in nature. There was a time when I would have answered you differently in a different context and in a different forum, but, in this forum, I can’t really answer the question as you have posed it, because it is a direct question about policy, which is best asked to your colleagues in the Senate who are speaking for the government, as well as in the House of Commons, where these answers can be given.
I will just briefly answer it this way, if I may, and that is to say that, from my perspective, as I state the policy of the Government of Canada in the United Nations, I can only say this: Canada was present at the creation of the State of Israel in that we included Israel and voted in favour of Israel’s membership in the United Nations. Israel is a member of the United Nations. Israel is also a country with which we have established very strong ties of friendship and engagement, and those ties continue. I can tell you, in the United Nations context, they continue on a daily basis. We work very closely together with the Government of Israel on a number of issues.
At the same time, it’s important to recall that as far back as 1947, Canada was one of those countries that was asked to figure out what to do with the former British Mandate for Palestine. It was a Canadian judge — Ivan Rand — who was a member of that committee, and said that there should be two states for two peoples and those two states should be living side by side in peace and security. At the time, that proposal was rejected by many Arab countries, and there was then a war between Israel and its neighbours. Israel was able to get through that war, and remained a nation-state and remained a member. Ever since that time, we have struggled with this question: How do we recognize and create two states?
The war that is now under way between the State of Israel and Hamas has cost thousands and thousands and thousands of lives. It has created a humanitarian disaster in Gaza, and it has led the government to make certain decisions — policy decisions — that I think are a reflection of its assessment of how best to respond to what has happened as a result of the terrible attack that took place by Hamas on October 7.
The Chair: Thank you, ambassador. I’m going to interrupt.
Mr. Rae: I have one last point: Hamas is a terrorist organization, as designated by the Government of Canada, and I make that clear every day I speak in the United Nations on this subject.
The Chair: Thank you. We have gone over time on that segment.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you, everybody, for being here today. It’s very appreciated.
Ambassador Rae, in 2010 and in 2020, Canada ran and lost bids to secure a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council. I wonder if there are any lessons that have been learned that we could take away from these failed bids. Are there things, in your opinion, we may have done wrong and could do better next time moving forward? That’s the first part of my question.
Mr. Rae: I’m sure there are. We consider these questions on a regular basis, senator. I happen to think that one of the primary things we have to decide is this: How do we do the very best we can to ensure that within the group from which we are being elected — that is to say, the so-called Western European and Others Group, or WEOG — we can give ourselves a fair chance? I wasn’t even remotely present in the 2010 vote, but I can tell you that coming in after the 2020 vote, we came into that race late in the day, and, by the time we came into it, many countries had already committed to two other countries: Norway and Ireland.
Whatever we do, it has to be well planned, as well as planned well in advance, and it has to be part of our long-term planning for joining the UN Security Council. It’s not easy to do. We have only two seats for WEOG that change every two years, and there are, overall, 193 countries in the UN. It’s just more difficult for us to get elected than it was in the early days of the United Nations, going back to 1945.
We also have to recognize that the relevance of the UN Security Council is now seriously challenged by the geopolitical situation in which we find ourselves. The UN Security Council is paralyzed. It is incapable of providing very much leadership, and the fact that we’re not on the UN Security Council in no way affects our ability to influence events, or to be a valuable member of the organization, and I see no sign that Canada’s views are, in any sense, lesser because we don’t happen to be on the UN Security Council for a two-year period at any given time.
I have been here for nearly four years now, and the weight of not being on the UN Security Council is not a thing for me. It just doesn’t exist.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. Just in looking at the whole thing — the UN and perception, and perhaps even it being considered a little bit of a political football here at home — as you know, we have had an MP prominently go public to say that Canada should leave the UN. It’s not far-fetched that this opinion could be shared by others in a government in the year or two ahead.
I’m wondering how we can convince Canadians that it is in our best interest to not only stay in the UN, but also commit resources to strengthen it when headlines might say something different.
Mr. Rae: Well, I would be the first one to say, senator, that the UN is not perfect and, in fact, sometimes it can fail to do what it needs to do for the simple reason that it’s made up of every country in the world, and for the one institution — the UN Security Council — that’s been created to deal with peace and security, five countries on that council have a veto, including Russia and China. It’s not very hard to say, “How easy is it to get a consensus that will allow the UN to respond effectively?”
But the fact is it’s the only game in town. There are no other global institutions that match it for its reach, as well as for the comprehensiveness of the obligations that we have to it and the obligations that we try to encourage others to take on.
To be short, I don’t think, “Stop the world, I want to get off” is a very good basis for Canada’s foreign policy. And I’m quite sure that most Canadians would agree with that statement.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to our witnesses with us here today, and thank you very much, Ambassador Rae, for being with us and also for everything that you do. You make us proud that you are there representing us at the UN. And I’m sorry I missed you last week when I was there for the UN Commission on the Status of Women. I came in a little late, so I missed your briefing.
My question is about Haiti. I know you are engaged in the Haitian file right now. As you probably know, I am also engaged in Haiti at a very different level.
Could you give us a state-of-the-moment picture of where things are? What is being done? What is Canada doing? What are our allies doing to help move this next, important stage forward for our counterparts in Haiti?
Mr. Rae: Senator, Canada — and, therefore, me — serves as the chair of the advisory committee to the UN Economic and Social Council, or ECOSOC, which is the council that I’m about to become the president of. By the very nature of that chairmanship, every ambassador to the UN from Canada plays a role in Haiti. I have visited the country many times. I was in Jamaica last week for the meeting on Haiti. It is a very dire situation.
I will try to be as brief as I can because I want to give you a chance to ask another question, if you have one.
The situation is enormously serious. Half the people in the country are dependent upon assistance for any kind of food. There is a humanitarian crisis that is growingly important.
The crisis focuses around Port-au-Prince. It is not true to say that the whole country is in total chaos. The situation in Port-au-Prince is extremely grave. The risks of not responding to the situation are also grave.
That is why we — Canada — have been involved in the discussions about the multinational police force that will aid the Haitian National Police. We are now getting to the point where, once a transition is effected — the political transition that was negotiated last week — and completed, I do believe that there will be progress in getting the multinational force on the ground.
We had a meeting today of our Haiti committee, where we heard directly from the people working for the UN in Haiti as to the seriousness of the situation — the critical nature of the situation. I can only say that we’re hearing these reports in real time. It is one which is going to require an additional intervention in order to be effective. It is essential for us to recognize that. We have committed and transferred some money to the trust fund for the international force.
We are committed to working with training the Haitian National Police, which we’re doing. In Jamaica, we have established a place where more training can take place for Caribbean countries so that they can help us to intervene.
The Caribbean Community, or CARICOM, has been very involved, which is the Caribbean organization. Kenya and Benin are committed to sending a large number of troops. It is getting going. It is taking time. Frankly, in my opinion, it is taking too long, but it is what it is.
We need to go step by step in every direction. I will leave it there to say it is an urgent situation. I do think we need to do more to get the world to pay attention to the extent of this crisis, because it will represent a major security crisis for the region if it is allowed to deteriorate further.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you, Ambassador Rae. Thank you to the staff for being here.
Ambassador, in navigating the complexities and challenges within the United Nations, such as the divergent interests amongst many Member States, how does Canada maintain a sense of neutrality and fairness as opposed to the perceptions that we sometimes hear that perhaps our Eurocentric values are at the expense and needs of developing nations?
Mr. Rae: That is a good question, senator.
I would try to parse it out this way: I don’t think that the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights expresses a Eurocentric view. I do not think that the view that the rule of law matters, that individual conscience matters, that freedom of religion matters and that individual dignity should not be at the centre of everything we do — the dignity of each of us — which is the foundational principle of the rule of law.
I do think there is sometimes a mistake made in saying, “Well, that is a Eurocentric point of view.” And you say, “Well, no, we think that it is broader than that.”
We also have to recognize that in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there are important statements about collective rights and community rights, and the importance of understanding that not only is freedom important, but solidarity is also important, as well as compassion and the ways in which we respond to one another in a community.
There was a conscious effort — at the time of the discussion around the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — to show that we would understand that it is about individual rights and also about the rights of communities, and how we balance between those two things. That has been the basis of our policy, certainly as I have expressed it, with the support of the government here.
I don’t mind saying there are some areas — for example, on gay rights — where Canada takes a principled position; it is not shared by all countries. We don’t shy away from expressing it. Why is that? It is because of our experience as Canadians. We know that the suppression of human rights to gay people has caused pain — not only to gay people, but also to their families and everything that they have represented. We know how painful that is.
We also know that there are gay people everywhere. Gay people are not confined to a certain spot in Europe, Canada or the United States. People are gay in every country in the world and in every culture in the world. We don’t think those people should be suffering pain, wherever they live.
We do take positions that sometimes are not accepted by some countries. You may remember that, notoriously, the president of Iran came to Columbia University, and told Columbia University students there are no gay people in Iran. Frankly, that is a ridiculous statement. It is also a cruel statement. When he says that, he is denying the dignity of people who live in his country — many of whom had to flee the country, and many of whom have been killed or executed.
We need to understand that the path we follow is not always an easy one. We try to be respectful. We try to listen. You will appreciate that listening is a good idea in whatever parliamentary forum you are in. It is also very important at the UN. We also have to stand for the values that we think are based in reality and based in our consciences.
Yes, when somebody asks me, “Are you neutral about gay rights?” I say, “No, I’m not neutral. I am supportive, because I believe that they are inherent in what it means to be a human being.”
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Ambassador Rae, welcome. I want to come back to Senator Deacon’s question on the lessons learned following the failure to obtain a seat on the UN Security Council. In 2020, during Canada’s campaign in February, the Prime Minister went to the African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa to meet with a number of African leaders. Some felt, as you said, that it was a bit late.
In your opinion, were those efforts to reach out to African countries enough? What else needs to be done so that the next time — Even though you said that not being on the UN Security Council hasn’t prevented you from getting things done at the UN, it’s still symbolic. Do you think there’s something else that Canada could do, specifically with African countries, which have 54 votes within the institution where you represent us?
Mr. Rae: Senator, I have the fortune of being on extremely good terms with my francophone and anglophone African colleagues and throughout the region. We meet quite frequently. We share our perspectives on many important issues, and the UN is an extremely important forum in which to establish a strong dialogue with the African countries. As I said earlier, the vote in June 2020 was by secret ballot. We’ll never know who voted for whom. It’s impossible. I ran as a candidate 11 times and when I won the election, people said, “I voted for you, Mr. Rae.” Thank you very much. If everyone who told me that they’d voted for me had, I would have won 90% of the vote. That’s not what happened.
It’s my impression that many African countries supported us. I know that many European countries didn’t vote for us, because their votes were already committed. They had decided to vote for other countries before we joined the race. It’s not about campaigning for two years or a year and a half. It’s about the persistence of Canadian diplomacy throughout the world.
It’s important to assume our responsibilities. Canada is a member of the G7 and the G20, the Francophonie and the Commonwealth. It has ties in the Asia-Pacific region and Europe, and significant ties in Africa. People from many countries come to tell me that they’ve gone to college under the Canadian Experience class, that they know Canada well, that they have family in Canada and so forth. Africa is the future. We’re talking about very young countries with very young populations, and it’s essential to recognize that they are an important part of our planet’s future. They will still have a huge population in the future, during our lifetimes, so it’s very important for Canada to recognize the importance of Africa. That’s all I can tell you.
The Chair: Thank you, ambassador.
[English]
Senator Richards: It’s good to see you again, ambassador. Thank you for being here.
My question was first posed by Senator Deacon. I thought that I would reword it, and it was reworded by Senator Gerba, so I will forgo it and let someone else have my time.
Mr. Rae: Senator Richards, if I may say so, it is always a pleasure to see you, even if only virtually. It is great to see you.
Senator Richards: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, senator, for your generosity.
Senator Harder: Ambassador, it is great to see you, even virtually. I want to return to the whole issue of humanitarian assistance. It seems to me that humanitarian assistance has been primordial in our interests, as a Canadian government, to utilize the instruments of multilateral organizations to exponentially compound our contributions and be able to focus on many of the world’s areas of need without necessarily having the Canadian-unique expertise. Yet I find that support for humanitarian and multilateral assistance is not what it once was, and I am not sure why that is.
You travel the country often. Can you describe the challenges of trying to make the case for multilateralism in Canada and, perhaps, speculate on how parliamentarians, and even senators, could contribute to this debate?
You referenced earlier the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which I think is very important, and yet it really has not galvanized any public attention the way that the environmental, social and governance, or ESG, factors did a decade or more ago. Could you comment on these thoughts?
Mr. Rae: First of all, when you look at humanitarian and development assistance, it is critically important for Canadians to understand how lucky we are. I know this is not always a popular view. All of us should give thanks every day for the fact that we’re Canadian. When you hear, as I did — I spent an hour and a half over the lunch break today in a meeting on Haiti — you listen, see, look at and understand the problems. In a meeting yesterday, it’s the same thing on Myanmar. You can go down the list: the crisis in Gaza, and the pain everywhere in the world. We need to understand we’re blessed.
At some level, we have all been taught that when you are blessed, you share, you care and you respond to people. That spirit is, sometimes, absent. We need to keep it alive.
We also need to understand that it is partly a sense of what our moral obligation is. If I may say so, you come from a community that has this value — this ethic — deeply ingrained. I think we all do, from different backgrounds. Whatever our faith background or non-faith background is, we are all affected by the sense of how we express the solidarity which is so important to allow for not only humanitarian assistance but also development assistance, and to allow people to succeed economically.
The second thing is that it is actually in our interest. It doesn’t help the world to be in the state of insecurity that it is at the moment. It leads to extraordinary movement of populations. We’re seeing more people displaced and moving around than ever before. We are seeing more people desperately seeking to get on boats, and desperately seeking to find a place, a shelter or a place of security. We — in Canada — like many countries, say it’s fine, but it has to be done in a way that is organized and in which we can deal with it. Every sovereign nation has to be able to deal with it in an effective way.
I can tell you directly that if we don’t deal with the security issues that we are seeing around the world — and allow people the opportunity to stay where they are, to live in their own homes and situation and to improve that — and if we do not think that is going to impact us, we are sadly mistaken. The world is small. The world is getting smaller. It is very short-sighted to turn away from that.
The Chair: Thank you, ambassador.
Senator Woo: Thank you, Ambassador Rae and officials, for being with us.
I wanted to pick up on your comment about how the UN is the only game in town, even if it has flaws; I share your sentiment. I wonder if you could comment on whether the institution is facing a death by a thousand cuts in the form of alternative fora that are emerging to try to deal with the political insecurity — never mind the economic concerns — in different parts of the world. I think about minilateralism, which seems to have proliferated in recent years. Could I get your perspective on whether you see that minilateralism in regional or sub-regional solutions to political, social and economic challenges is starting to take the place of what the UN could — or should — be doing, and whether that is a threat to the UN system?
Mr. Rae: Senator, I think that is a very good question, because it gives me a chance to say that the UN has nothing to fear from the growth of regional organizations. I strongly believe that they are natural and they did not start yesterday.
NATO was formed in 1949 in response to Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. The UN could not have responded to that because of the Russian veto at the UN. So NATO was born, the Warsaw Pact was born and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, or SEATO, was born, as well as other defence organizations, et cetera. We’re now discussing with the African Union how we can work more closely with them to regionalize some of the responses to global problems; I think that’s a good idea. I don’t think for an instant that represents a threat to multilateralism.
I think the threat to multilateralism comes from something else, and that is the growth of what I would call isolationist, nationalist and even — if I dare use this phrase — imperialist thinking that makes some countries feel that the rules don’t apply to them, or they can do whatever the heck they want. That’s the threat to multilateralism. And it’s isolationism, because it really means it’s this attitude of “Well, I don’t need to care. Why should I care about Haiti? Why should I care about this or that?” That is a mindset that we have to continue to work against and talk through with Canadians and other countries around the world and say, “You know what? It matters.”
The UN was founded in 1945 by countries that had learned the hard way through the loss of millions of young men and women who were killed in the war and all of the chaos that had preceded the war — the 20 years between the end of World War I and the beginning of World War II. We applied those lessons in 1945. We have to keep reminding people why we have these institutions. I will tell you why: Without them, we’re going to end up with an even deeper and worse conflict than we have with them. Yes, there are problems with the institutions, but we have to try to fix them, and make them better and work more effectively.
I must say, in my own experience, I have become a much more engaged internationalist than I ever was before, because you see the logic of it and you see how it affects people. But that doesn’t mean that Asian countries getting together, or any group of countries getting together, represents a threat to the UN. Anything that expresses solidarity that goes beyond national borders is a good idea. Where we really face problems is with those countries who think, “None of your rules apply to me. We don’t care what you think.” That’s a real problem because it speaks to an attitude that has no sustainable outcome other than chaos.
The Chair: Thank you, ambassador. I’m going to interrupt and move on to the next senator.
Senator MacDonald: It’s great to see you, ambassador. Full disclosure for my colleagues here: I used to do a lot of work with the ambassador when he was a member of Parliament. We worked together on the Canada-U.S. file; we did some work in Washington together. The last time I saw him was when he received an honorary degree from Cape Breton University, and I went down to attend it. It’s hard for me not to say “Bob,” but, ambassador, it’s great to see you.
Ambassador, we are inundated, as you can imagine, with emails regarding the situation in Gaza, particularly the number of civilian casualties. Is there a source of information we can trust? Do you have information that you trust and can share with us about the situation on the ground in Gaza?
Mr. Rae: Well, I do. We have very reliable information from the UN organization called the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, or OCHA; I would encourage you to go online and check out their information. It’s the body that’s responsible for coordinating all humanitarian assistance across the UN system. They are telling us that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is absolutely dire. It’s terrible. The vast majority of people have lost their homes. They have nowhere to live except for tents. The war is still ongoing, and fighting is still continuing. There are various land mines and other things that are strewn everywhere. Most of the infrastructure is gone. The hospitals have been bombed out. From a purely humanitarian perspective, it is an undeniable catastrophe.
That has to be understood by everybody, because in all the debates that I’ve heard — and some I have participated in — there seems to be a real concern that we have to do this because of this, but you say, “Well, yes, but what are the consequences of that? What is the inevitable consequence of deciding that this is the way that this war has to be fought?” I think that’s the challenge that’s leading to Canadians expressing concerns and governments expressing concerns. It’s not because anybody has somehow gone soft on terrorism — not at all. We just think you have to look hard at the consequences — and the long-term consequences — for any kind of peace or reconciliation process. This is going to be essential to get to the establishment of two states which Canada, as I said before, has believed — since 1947 — is the way in which we should be aiming. I still believe we should. The Palestinians have a right to a place that they can call their home, and they have a right to their national self-determination. I think it’s important for Canada to continue to reaffirm that as surely as we reaffirm our commitment to Israel and its right to live in security.
Senator MacDonald: There has been a lot of discussion about providing funding for relief. Do we have any foolproof way to ensure that the relief is going to relief purposes, and not military purposes?
Mr. Rae: First of all, regarding the participation of anyone working for any agency, either the UN or any other relief agency, and the idea that they would be allowed to maintain their employment at the same time as they are working for Hamas or any other terrorist organization, that’s not on. Everyone has made that clear. The UN has made it clear. The UN Secretary-General fired 12 people who were alleged because he felt it was important to establish the rule very quickly. The UN Secretary-General has told me personally that anybody for whom we can be shown proof that they are, in fact, members participating in Hamas will be fired on the spot. That’s an assurance, and we have now increased the level of accountability. We have increased the amount of oversight with respect to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, or UNRWA, and we’re getting new reports every day from the former French foreign minister. I’ll be meeting about this question tomorrow morning. I’m hoping to have more information on this.
I do think that we have to recognize that UNRWA is the largest humanitarian organization in place that has the ability to distribute. The problems of distribution are not just tied to UNRWA. They are tied to, frankly, delays at the checkpoints with the Israelis, as well as many other ways in which people are having difficulty getting through. The sheer difficulty of getting people through crowds that are desperate for food creates an insecurity on its own.
When you ask, “Is there a foolproof way?” we’re doing everything we can to ensure that the aid is getting to the people who need it. The difficulty is actually getting it to people, and, right now, that’s the crisis that the UN system is facing, and that the people living in Gaza are facing.
The Chair: Thank you very much, ambassador. I’m going to use my privilege as chair to ask a question. As you know, I spent well over three decades in the Foreign Service, but my very first assignment was in the United Nations institutional division, as it was then called. At that time, the big file that I was given was UN reform. UN reform has been around for a while. Much of the focus in public terms has been on the UN General Assembly, or particularly on the UN Security Council. There have been various proposals over the years.
But I wanted to ask you about the specialized agencies. We never hear much about the specialized agencies unless there is a pandemic, a big labour issue or an agricultural failure and the like. Do the specialized agencies require reform as well? Are they in good shape? Is the demographic okay in terms of younger people coming to work in the International Labour Organization, or ILO; the World Health Organization, or WHO; the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO; et cetera?
Mr. Rae: I’m glad you asked that, senator, because it’s an important discussion.
My view is based on the experience I have had here. One of the reasons I wanted to take on the presidency of ECOSOC is it gives us a chance to look at the agency structures. The UN is facing a financial crisis at the moment because of the non-payment by certain countries for different reasons, and the UN is a cash flow organization — it can’t borrow money, and none of the agencies can borrow money, so they rely on voluntary funds and various forms of fundraising.
I think we’re overdue for a review of all the agencies, as well as looking at where there may have been a point in time when certain things could be established, but maybe they need to work more closely in cooperation. A number of donor countries are continuing to talk about this because it becomes critically important for us to make progress, and to ensure that we’re not seeing duplication where money is being spent and that there is greater cooperation.
I would add that there has to be even greater cooperation with the international financial architecture: the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund — which work across the street from each other in Washington, and where we’ve finally begun to establish a real dialogue between the UN and those agencies to determine what they are doing that we’re not doing. How do we ensure that we’re not doubling up the efforts that are being made? That’s one set of reforms that I think is required.
The other set of reforms is among donor countries. As Senator Harder pointed out, multilateral donation really makes a difference — it allows us to multiply our dollars. We need to work more deeply with our fellow countries that are donating, and we need to broaden the group of countries that are effectively donating in order to take in a number of very wealthy countries that, frankly, have not done anywhere near as much as we think they can afford to do and what their overall GDP would indicate is within their means. We need to work hard on strengthening these things.
Do they need reform? Yes, absolutely. I’m a great believer that nothing is beyond accountability and examination. We’re all better off when we’re being held accountable, as you are, frankly, holding me accountable. I think it’s important for people to question what we’re doing, and I don’t think we have anything to fear from it.
There is some defensiveness on the side of the agencies. There’s this view: “If you attack us, you are attacking humanitarianism.” No, we’re not attacking humanitarianism; we’re just asking how efficient you are. Plus, frankly, the size of the problem is greater than our ability to address it, so we need to understand how we can spend our money more wisely and effectively, and how to leverage more money out of the private sector and more money from private development. That will be critically important as we go forward. Countries don’t become rich from welfare; they become rich from work and from making a living in the world. That has been the history of economic development since the Industrial Revolution.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Colleagues, over the break, I must have lost my touch because we have gone over time on every single segment here.
Mr. Rae: I don’t think you’ve lost your touch; I think you’ve got the wrong guest.
The Chair: We won’t comment on that.
Senator Coyle: I just wanted to ask Mr. Rae if he could follow up on what he was telling us about Haiti. Timing-wise, what do you see as the next steps? I know there’s a council, but when do you think that council will be in place? What has to happen to get the council in place before we move to security in the country and to elections, both at the national and local levels?
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Housakos, you have the last word.
Senator Housakos: Ambassador Rae, last year when Azerbaijan was displacing 100,000 Armenians from their ancestral home, you declared that was ethnic cleansing. Were you expressing that point of view as Canadian ambassador, or was that just a personal opinion?
The Chair: Thank you. I saw Senator Greenwood quickly put up her hand.
Senator Greenwood: This has to do with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP. Last year, the Department of Justice created the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan.
Point 72 states that Canada will:
Co-develop with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis right holders or their national designates distinctions-based, whole of government policy guidelines on fully and effectively engaging Indigenous peoples on international issues affecting them, with a commitment to explore the development of policy in specific areas where appropriate.
Ambassador Rae, can you share your perspective as to how this item in the action plan will both support Indigenous peoples in Canada and support Canada’s presence at the UN?
The Chair: That will be very easy for Ambassador Rae to respond to in about two minutes.
Ambassador, I would suggest you maybe make a very quick response to the three questions, and then if you have the time, I think we would welcome a written response to the committee through the clerk, if that’s all right.
Mr. Rae: Sure. I’d be happy to do it.
First of all, on Haiti, Senator Coyle, yes, the transitional council needs to be established so we can get to an effective transition from one government to the next government, which is required in order for us to get moving on the multinational force and then moving to elections. The deadline for the elections has been set as August 2025. That’s a date we should continue to see as an objective. How quickly can this be done? I hope as quickly as possible, but I can’t give you an exact date on any of these things because, frankly, it’s up to the Haitian people and other factors that are out of my control.
Senator Housakos, on ethnic cleansing, I was speaking for myself. I don’t think it’s an unfair statement, and I would stand by it. You should ask any member of the government whether they agree with that assessment, but, yes, I was making an assessment.
On UNDRIP, I think it’s very important for Canada to walk the talk. It helps us, frankly, in increasing our ability to talk to Member States here about the need to embrace some of the ideas that are in UNDRIP. It’s not universally embraced by even those countries that accepted the declaration, and I think it’s important for us to try to enhance Indigenous participation in the work of the UN and its agencies, as well as enhance the application of international law to what we’re doing domestically, which I think is what was behind the Justice Department’s decision to move forward.
International law is law, so we’d better figure out how we’re going to implement it. That was the meaning of our adhesion to the universal declaration. That’s the logic of it.
The Chair: Ambassador, thank you very much. I know we ran over time, so thank you for your time. Colleagues, thank you for your questions.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for joining us today, and thank you for the job you are doing for Canada in New York. I would like to thank Director General Emi Furuya and Director Johanna Kruger for being with us today. Your ambassador made it much easier for you to participate at this committee as witnesses.
Mr. Rae: Thanks very much.
The Chair: We will now move to our second panel for an update on the humanitarian situation in Gaza and regional issues. We are pleased to welcome back to this committee, from Global Affairs Canada, Alexandre Lévêque, Assistant Deputy Minister, Europe, Arctic, Middle East and Maghreb. That’s a big package. Welcome and thank you for being with us again. We would like to hear your preliminary remarks for about five minutes, and then we will go straight into questions.
Alexandre Lévêque, Assistant Deputy Minister, Europe, Arctic, Middle East and Maghreb, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you very much for the warm welcome. I promise there are other officials working at Global Affairs. Thank you for the kind invitation to come back to the committee and brief on a very salient issue, which is dominating much of the headlines and much of our preoccupation.
The Government of Canada is gravely concerned by the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which has deteriorated considerably since Christopher MacLennan, Deputy Minister of International Development, last briefed the committee in November. It is estimated that more than 31,000 Gazans have been killed — the majority of which are civilians. An additional 73,000 are estimated to have been injured, and thousands are reported missing under the rubble. Nearly 1.7 million Palestinians have been displaced — now multiple times — as a result of the Israeli military operation in Gaza. There is no doubt that too many innocent Palestinian civilians continue to suffer deeply.
Canada has been calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire since December, as well as more entry points and expanded access into Gaza so that aid can reach those who need it. Canada continues to be clear that international humanitarian law protects medical and humanitarian personnel and facilities.
Catastrophic famine is imminent in the north of Gaza, and there is a real risk of famine across the entire Gaza Strip. Virtually all households are skipping meals every day, and adults are reducing their meals so that children can eat. One in three children under the age of two is acutely malnourished in the north.
Minister Hussen and Minister Joly have recently returned from the region, where they witnessed the effects of the conflict on Palestinians and Israelis. Minister Hussen met with key humanitarian actors and witnessed first-hand the logistical challenges of delivering aid to Gaza while visiting the Rafah transit point. Minister Joly has committed Canada to joining the international coalition working to open a maritime corridor to deliver much-needed additional humanitarian assistance by sea. We are currently exploring options to support this initiative; however, it is clear that neither airdrops nor the sea corridor can satisfy the immense needs in Gaza.
While advocating for more trucks and more entry points to be opened, Canada has ramped up our own assistance to support humanitarian delivery. In addition to Canadian support to the World Food Programme — which recently completed airdrops of humanitarian assistance into Gaza with the help of the Royal Jordanian Air Force — the Canadian Armed Forces has donated 300 parachutes to the Royal Jordanian Air Force to replenish their stocks and support these airdrop efforts.
Canada remains one of the largest contributors of humanitarian and development assistance to vulnerable Palestinians, with contributions of $100 million in the past year to address the current crisis in Gaza — $13.8 million of this was to match the Humanitarian Coalition, leveraging the generosity of Canadians. The remaining amount was allocated to Canadian organizations and experienced UN partners, such as the World Food Programme, the World Health Organization, UNICEF and UNRWA. Canada will continue to rely on these land routes to deliver the bulk of its international assistance through its partners.
[Translation]
Following serious allegations that staff members at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, better known by its acronym, UNRWA, were involved in the Hamas-led terrorist attacks against Israel on October 7, 2023, Canada made the decision at the end of January to temporarily pause its funding to that organization.
In response to the allegations, the UN put in place a number of important and rigorous procedures to examine the allegations and reinforce the zero-tolerance policy on terrorism within the UN, including within UNRWA. Canada has reviewed the interim report of the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services on this matter and looks forward to the final report.
Canada also welcomes the independent review of UNRWA which is ongoing, and the immediate measures taken by UNRWA to strengthen oversight, accountability and transparency. UNRWA plays a vital role in Gaza by providing humanitarian relief to over two million people, in addition to its crucial operations supporting four million people in the region. Under the circumstances, Canada decided to lift the temporary pause on funding to UNRWA.
[English]
We also cannot lose sight of the fact that, since the horrible terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hamas on October 7, there remain over 100 hostages still in captivity. Canada continues to call for their immediate release.
Let me close by emphasizing that we are hopeful that an agreement will be reached for a humanitarian ceasefire leading to a sustainable ceasefire. This ceasefire cannot be one-sided. Hamas must lay down its arms and release all the hostages. With a view to a longer-lasting ceasefire, Canada is engaging with the international community and partners to coordinate efforts for post-conflict peacebuilding and reconstruction. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lévêque. We will go right into questions. Colleagues, please keep your questions as precise as you can, and, in that way, we can get more information from our witness.
Senator Harder: Welcome back, assistant deputy minister. I would like to talk about the diplomacy that is under way to support the humanitarian efforts that you have described. Could you tell us how we are communicating with the government of Benjamin Netanyahu to express Canadian concerns? Have we expressed support for statements made by senior American administration officials, who have been very blunt, and do we continue to push for a two-state solution in the region?
Mr. Lévêque: Thank you, senator. What I can say is that our diplomatic efforts are firing on all cylinders. What I mean by that is it’s through multiple channels that we convey very specifically the messages you are alluding to. This is happening at the leader level in which the Prime Minister is engaging Prime Minister Netanyahu and also President Herzog of Israel and other members of the Israeli war cabinet, including Benny Gantz. This is happening through ministerial channels. As I mentioned, Minister Joly was in the region just last week and met with a multiplicity of ministerial and other actors inside the Israeli government, as well as, of course, on the Palestinian side and elsewhere in the Arabian Gulf.
There are our ambassadors on the ground, and we — senior officials — are engaging at all levels; my Israeli counterpart in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs happens to be in Ottawa right now. We have had lengthy conversations. I am not even counting the long conversations I have had with the Israeli ambassador.
This builds common understanding — not just of what can sometimes be perceived as repetitive, rigid messages, but true understanding. We have a chance to go deeper into the meaning of our messages, and where it is coming from, and the fact that it is not just — like I said — rigid lines, but reflective of the sentiment of Canadians whom we consult and from whom we hear.
This is always conveyed in a friendly, respectful way, but always in a very firm and unambiguous way. It is the only way that we can do it. It is the very purpose of having diplomatic relations. As I said, it is not just toward Israelis that we send these messages. As I alluded to in my remarks, this is not a one-sided conflict. We know it is decades old. When we meet with Palestinians, we say to them, “What is your vision for the future? What do you need to contribute to this?”
Senator Harder: And with Washington?
Mr. Lévêque: With Washington as well — absolutely — and our European partners. There is a group of senior officials of like-minded countries in Europe and the U.S. who periodically get together to discuss this and coordinate messages.
You asked about a two-state solution. I absolutely want to put on the record that Canada still sees the future of peace in the Middle East going through the creation of a Palestinian state. At what point this happens needs to be a part of the equation and a part of negotiations.
We have repeatedly heard from counterparts — contacts in the Middle East, including in the Gulf — and what we are telling Israelis and Palestinians is that the long-term security, well-being and safety of these peoples will be achieved through living side by side and having the institutions that support them to do so.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Coyle: Thank you, Mr. Lévêque, for being with us and for laying out the situation on the ground. I will not probe any more there.
I am curious: You spoke about a humanitarian ceasefire hopefully leading to a sustained ceasefire. I will get my questions out: First, is there anything right now that is giving you hope in terms of movement?
Second, what are the conversations going on with the Palestinian leadership — I am not talking about Hamas, but the Palestinian leadership as it is now? What does that look like now? I’m talking about Canada with Palestine — the Palestinian leadership — and particularly Canada with the other Arab neighbours in the region.
Mr. Lévêque: Thank you for the questions, senator.
I will readily admit that given the current circumstances and the human tragedy that is unfolding, it is difficult to remain hopeful.
To be honest, what I find is that there are two things that continue to give me hope: One is the fact that partners of Israel and Palestinians — Canadians, Europeans, Americans and partners in the Gulf — have not given up. There is an immense trust deficit between Israelis and Palestinians right now — not just between governments and terrorist organizations, but between ordinary people.
They do not live a post-traumatic situation; they live a traumatic situation. They are still very much in the middle of the trauma. The channels of communication directly between the two sides — and, again, I do not mean terrorist organizations, but I mean the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government — are strained, if existent at all. That is when third parties and partners need to step up and continue to inject hope, and maintain that the only way to ensure a longer-term peace and security in the region is to re-establish a framework that will lead to negotiations, a political path and a political process. That is our role right now. It is the role of other friends of Israel and friends of Palestinians. That gives me hope because none of us are giving up.
The other thing that gives me hope — having been to Israel and the Palestinian territories twice in the last three months — is talking to the civil society voices. They are not very loud these days, but we can find them. It is possible to reach out to think tanks or idea leaders who still believe that there is a path forward. Those are the voices we need to engage. These are indigenous voices; they are local, and they are the ones who are working toward something that should resemble peace in the longer term.
To your second question, conversations with Palestinian leadership are just as direct and blunt as the conversations we are having with Israelis.
What we are telling them is, “You need to do your part.” The Palestinian Authority is known to be corrupt and to not have served its people the way that it should have. It can blame many factors, but it also needs to take accountability. We have been pressing them to reform, and to begin with gestures of reform — something that we know that some of their neighbours are also pressing them to do and helping them devise plans for.
The first move has been the announcement of a new prime minister — more technocratic, et cetera. I can see you, Mr. Chair, leaning into your microphone. If I can have 10 more seconds on the last part of the question, which is on Arab leaders, I can tell you that Arab leaders from the immediate neighbouring countries — Jordan, Egypt and the Gulf countries — are very engaged and devising plans for what comes next.
The Chair: Thank you very much. On that theme, I suspect we will be coming back to it — it is the diplomacy theme that Senator Harder started with, and we’re continuing with that.
Senator Woo: Mr. Lévêque, what thinking is going on in the department about the possibility that the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court might come to the conclusion that there are genocidal activities and/or war crimes taking place in the conflict — not for the purpose of scoring points or making academic arguments, but for the purpose of communicating these concerns that we might have to the parties who are involved, and also perhaps to protect ourselves against any allegations of complicity in these horrible accusations?
Mr. Lévêque: Thank you. The question was, of course, very live a few weeks ago when proceedings were going ahead. We have a legal bureau that focuses on this. I’m not a lawyer. So I probably will not be able to do justice to the full thinking that goes on behind this.
The first thing that I would say is — and this has been communicated by the government in recent weeks — we support prosecutors and the pillars that have established international law, including the mandates that pursue the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. As has been expressed by the government, the premises that were brought forward by South Africa were not necessarily shared by the government, but we wait for the proceedings to follow and for the judgment to eventually come through. I cannot really talk in hypotheticals given the amount of time that this could take and the number of directions it could take.
We did note that the preliminary measures that were requested by the International Court of Justice were something we supported in principle. The rest will really come down to the time it takes to develop the arguments. We will have to do our own assessment of the arguments that are presented before the International Court of Justice.
Senator Woo: That is correct; we cannot prejudge what the courts will say. But if they do come to a conclusion that is not favourable, we need to prepare how we act now so that when that comes out, we’re not in the wrong position. To me, it strikes me as insufficient to simply sit back and say that we will wait for the jury to come to a conclusion.
This is really more of a comment than a question. I suspect your colleagues are thinking about it. I hope they are.
Mr. Lévêque: Absolutely. I appreciate the comments, senator. Let me perhaps just add that the case will be assessed on the basis of the merit of the arguments that will be brought forward.
Senator Woo: Yes, yes.
Mr. Lévêque: This is not something that happens in the abstract. Legal arguments will be presented by both sides to the court. We don’t have these legal arguments yet. When I say that we have to wait, it is not so much that we have to wait for the decision of the court, but it’s that we have to wait for arguments to be presented. So far, things have been preliminary. They are in the form of accusations. We are talking about months — if not years — of arguments and evidence that will need to be presented, and, in the absence of that, it is, of course, very difficult to make a finite opinion.
Your comments are absolutely taken on board, and I fully accept them.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Assistant deputy minister, it’s always a pleasure to have you here. You provide us with many details on a number of issues. I want to come back to the third parties, because, for a few weeks now, Egypt, Qatar and the United States, as you mentioned, have been trying to move negotiations forward. It was hoped that the negotiations would reach a conclusion before the start of Ramadan, which has now begun. Do you think it will happen soon? Is there any hope of a real truce? How is Canada involved or intervening in those talks with the third parties?
Mr. Lévêque: Thank you for the question. You’re correct: The main countries involved in the negotiations are Egypt, Qatar and the United States, and, by proxy, representatives of the Israeli and Hamas governments are talking through those intermediaries. We remain hopeful that a truce will be reached. Indeed, there was a sustained push to try to get something in place before Ramadan. It was not a deadline beyond which an agreement would have been impossible. Negotiations are ongoing and we continue to receive positive, albeit not yet conclusive, indications that the parties are at least negotiating around the same pillars. The pillars are essentially the release of a certain number of Israeli hostages in exchange for a ceasefire of a certain duration, in exchange for the release of a certain number of Palestinian prisoners.
Those are the three pillars or elements to the negotiations. A gulf still exists between Hamas’s demands and Israel’s demands, but at least they’re negotiating on the same platform and with the same elements. We’re hearing very encouraging news that things are progressing. Counter-offers are still being sent, so it’s not like negotiations had completely failed. The parties continue to step up their efforts.
Obviously, it’s important to keep attendance at these negotiations to a minimum. Adding partners or countries to the process wouldn’t necessarily help. Canada is making a contribution by encouraging, quite simply by demonstrating its support — we’re talking not with Hamas, but rather, with Israel. We’re participating by sending our diplomats — our top diplomat — by directly engaging with them in Jerusalem, by talking to Egypt and Qatar. We do that quite frequently to encourage them to find the balance that eventually needs to be reached to bring about a truce for several weeks, if not months.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Ravalia: Thank you once again for being here. It’s a pleasure to see you.
While our focus is naturally on Gaza and the terrible devastation that we’re witnessing, I wonder to what extent we’re monitoring the situation in the West Bank as well, given the high unemployment rate, the inability of people to cross into Israel and the settler violence. To what extent are we beginning to see some of the fallout in terms of food distribution, starvation, increased vulnerability and risk? Are we, in any way, tangibly involved in countering some of that?
Mr. Lévêque: Thank you for raising this, senator.
I will be honest: The situation in the West Bank is one of our biggest concerns as well because it is almost the unspoken, permanent tension that creates a situation that could spill over — that could blow up.
I will say that there is no imminent situation of starvation, famine, food scarcity or anything like that. Agriculture takes place in the West Bank. It is an area that is, of course, much bigger than Gaza. I hesitate to call it food self-sufficient, but there is enough food production and transportation within the West Bank — and, of course, the connection with Jordan — that allows for essential goods and medical supplies, et cetera, to be distributed there.
The worry is in the illegal settlement and extreme settler violence and activities, which the government has denounced over and over again. We continue to see funding being set aside for new settlements. Exactly a week ago — or eight days ago — I was accompanying the minister, and we went deep into the West Bank. We were in a valley, and you could see the settlements around the mountains or in the hills, and we were accompanied by people who said, “This is my house over there, and now it has been taken over, forcibly.” An Israeli flag had been put on it by an extremist settler. This is something that could really push Palestinians in the West Bank over the edge, and something that we see as a dangerous mix. It is important to continue pointing the finger toward what is going on there and to remind of the importance of respecting, again, the law — not just international law, but the illegality of seizing land and even encouraging some settlers to grab that land and sometimes even grab buildings on the land.
Senator Ravalia: To get back to Gaza, with the majority of the civilian population now in and around Rafah, it would appear that the United States has taken a stronger stance and perhaps drawn a little bit of a red line by saying to Israel, “Do not attack Rafah.” Do you think that position may expedite the potential for humanitarian aid to actually get into Gaza through some of the land routes?
Mr. Lévêque: You are absolutely right; I hesitate to use expressions like “red line” because of the historical connotations and what crossing them has actually meant or not meant.
You are right that the United States has been public and very clear about the extreme dangers — that we all see — in what a full-scale operation on Rafah would amount to. Just this morning, I saw a report suggesting that Prime Minister Netanyahu had offered or accepted to send a delegation to Washington to sit down with planners and explore the possibility of alternative strategies. This is the bottom line, and they have been very clear about this: The Israeli government wants to eliminate the military wing — the fighting part — of Hamas so that it no longer has a footprint in Gaza. They know that they are now concentrated in the Rafah area, and that is why they want to attack. These conversations are ongoing.
Whether that is going to help, there are many possible entry points to deliver humanitarian assistance. Rafah has been the main one, but we have also been encouraging Israeli authorities to consider opening other ones directly in the north in order to serve the most exposed-to-famine communities, as well as along the east side, and then, of course, there are the other ones.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for returning to the committee. I wonder if you could clarify the recent government announcement that they would be halting all arms sales to Israel. Specifically, will any approved sales still go forward? What about the sale of equipment that could have dual military use? While it is early in the game, are there official conditions that Israel would have to meet in order to have their arms sales restored?
Mr. Lévêque: Thank you, senator. I think you are asking all of the right questions. These are things that are being refined. As you said, the announcement was made yesterday, so this is being refined as we speak.
I do have clarifications to offer that directly address some of your questions. First of all, the intent here is not to cancel existing permits of exports that fall under the IPA legislation, so it’s only new permit requests for arms.
Second, I should explain that Israel is a major manufacturer. Not the government, but the country hosts a number of private sector manufacturers of all sorts of defence industries material. Supply chains, just like any other industry, are interdependent. Many of the goods under export control that Canada exports to Israel actually have these companies as an end-user. It is material that we provide that goes into the supply chain of military and defence equipment that then gets sold sometimes to ourselves and to other NATO allies. The objective is not to hamper this supply chain.
The announcement and the intent behind it, at this point, is to limit any exports that could go into arms — weapons that could be used directly in the conflict — until we get a better sense of how the very volatile situation on the ground is evolving.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. I will defer my time to the next senator.
Senator Richards: Thank you for being here. I am going to ask about the future.
None of us here would want to spend a day under Hamas authority. We know that. None of us would want to spend a night under Hezbollah authority either, or Iranian authority.
Israel is in a terrible position. I know that what is happening in Gaza is deplorable; I realize that. I see it every night. Speaking in Ramallah a couple of years ago — when I was fortunate enough to go with Senator MacDonald and Senator Ravalia — to the Palestinian Authority, they were saying that 50% of the youth on any given day would back Hamas because Hamas is talking about right of return and from the river to the sea.
No matter what happens here, there doesn’t seem to be any end date to this terrible crisis that we are in. In the long view, how do you think this will play out?
Mr. Lévêque: Senator, the person who can answer this question perfectly probably deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. Something in the cycle needs to be broken. Officials, experts and scholars all think very hard about what the first domino needs to be. There is probably no perfect answer to this.
There are things that are under Palestinian control. I alluded to the conversations we had with Palestinian Authority leaders just a few days ago. There is a lot of expectation that profound reforms need to take place inside the Palestinian Authority apparatus. That starts with eliminating corruption and demonstrating that a government can actually lead the people and represent them.
We have heard from senior Palestinian Authority individuals that they intend to direct things back toward elections very soon — something that has not been spoken about in quite a long time. We are encouraging them not to put cronies in place of existing ministers in key portfolios, but true experts — technocrats, as it were — important in that context. But it will have to go through education as well.
You’re right; for many Palestinian youth, Hamas now seems to be expressing out loud what their frustrations have been. We don’t necessarily believe that young Palestinians want violence and to perpetuate the cycle, but what they need is hope, education programs, employment opportunities, an opportunity to govern their own institutions and a genuine effort on the part of the leadership to deradicalize the elements of society that ferment this hatred and this cycle of violence. All of this needs to happen. Those are the conversations we are having with the Palestinian side.
These are the conversations we are having with the Israeli side: Where do you begin? Where does the slight openness of the door begin so that, again, a framework toward some conversation for a future political prospect can begin? What we are hearing from some elements in Israeli society and leadership right now is that a two-state solution is no longer an option. Again, given what we have seen historically in the region, we and many others believe that the only way to make this happen is through two states living side by side.
It is a cycle. Something needs to break it. The first domino needs to fall, creating that one little iota of confidence-building measures that can then be reinforced by more trust. That is the only way out of it, and not something that can happen overnight.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. I think that is a question that we will be coming back to often over the next while.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you. I want to return to the situation of the countries that are donating to the relief.
On January 26, we temporarily suspended our relief — our funding — while they were doing some research on UNRWA and the people who were involved in the October 7 attack. Then, in March, the minister announced that we were lifting our pause on the relief.
I am curious: How many donor countries were there to begin with? How many donor countries did not suspend their funding? Which countries were they?
Mr. Lévêque: Thank you for the question. I am not going to be able to answer in as much detail as you are requesting, but I can commit to getting that information to you in writing.
Senator MacDonald: Okay.
Mr. Lévêque: To give you a sense, I don’t know exactly the total number of countries that fund UNRWA. I can say, if memory serves, it’s 15 that announced a pause on their funding right after the allegations were made against the 12 employees. Since that time, I believe about five or six have announced the resumption of their funding, so it’s roughly a third. I may be off by one or two, but I know that since Canada has done it, I believe Sweden has also done it, and I want to say Iceland has done it and a couple of others. This has been the trend over the last couple of weeks or so, but we can get back to you with more specific numbers and a full —
Senator MacDonald: Please.
I had a supplementary question, and you answered a bit of it. I was going to ask you who has suspended and restored funding. Which big funders have not restored funding? Do you know?
Mr. Lévêque: I believe the United Kingdom, Australia and, of course, the United States would be amongst the biggest funders that have not resumed. The expectation from diplomatic conversations is that a majority of them are expected to resume. Waiting for a variety of triggers —
Senator MacDonald: Catherine Colonna’s report, maybe.
Mr. Lévêque: Catherine Colonna, the former French foreign minister, handed in her preliminary report today to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and we’ll get a sense of her recommendations in the next few days. Her final report will be tabled at the end of April — it’s April 20, if memory serves. These are all checkpoints, if you will —
Senator MacDonald: Stages, yes.
Mr. Lévêque: — along the road, where a number of countries will make their decisions according to what they see in those documents.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you.
Senator Greenwood: Okay, I’ll be quicker this time. I wanted to follow up on Senator Richards’s question. I’m just thinking that if there is no possibility of two states, then how do we — Canada — or how will they encourage a ceasefire, support the elimination of corruption and perhaps support the establishment of traditional governance and traditional relationships between Israelis and Palestinians? I ask that question because I’m an Indigenous person, so my family has lived the colonial reality; it sometimes sounds a bit like that when I hear people talk. So maybe there are lessons learned from here.
If we didn’t have two states, what would it look like then, and what would our role be? Two states drive political solutions — there will be some political solutions, but we may not get there.
Mr. Lévêque: Excellent questions. First of all, I would like to clarify. I hope I didn’t say — and I don’t want it to be interpreted — that there is no possibility of a two-state solution. It’s not an immediate possibility; that’s for sure.
Senator Greenwood: Yes.
Mr. Lévêque: Even when Palestinians ask for a two-state solution right now, what they have in mind isn’t necessarily what is feasible, and when Israelis are asked about this, they say, “Can’t think about it right now; now is not the time. Our focus is ensuring the security and safety of our people, and destroying the terrorists that brutally murdered our people.” But it doesn’t mean that it is not possible in time, and the reason why we advocate so strongly for a ceasefire is, obviously, it’s got to start somewhere and, obviously, no two camps can negotiate the future of cohabitation — living side by side peacefully — when they are still shooting at each other.
The most important thing is for the violence to end, for the famine to be very quickly stopped and for the normal replenishment of essential goods, medicine, et cetera, to enter Gaza.
You touched on two other important things: One is the governance of the Palestinian institutions, and I mention this because during the last round of negotiations for peace in the Middle East under the Oslo Accords — and we’re going back 30 years here — Canada played a key role on a couple of fronts. One front was on the refugee issue and the return of Palestinian refugees. We were actually the chair of the working group on this issue under the Oslo Accords. The second front was on developing governance of the Palestinian Authority. There is already a well-established track record of expertise that exists in Canada and a certain trust toward the Canadian expertise that could be provided.
When you talk about governance, this is very much what we have in mind when we ask, “What can Canada do about it?” In time, it’s about sharing that expertise and training and re-establishing that capacity.
This is the last thing I’ll say — because you mentioned your Indigenous roots, and I have to say this is something that was actually mentioned directly by Minister Joly and Minister Saks when we were in Jerusalem just a week ago. Simply to say, Canada has developed a road map and has developed — I don’t want to say “expertise” — at least experience in reconciliation. The two are probably not analogous, but the concept of reconciliation between people is at the core of it. There is a human element that is comparable, and, without creating false equivalencies, that offer was put on the table as something that is uniquely Canadian that we could also bring to a future peaceful settlement.
The Chair: Thank you. I want to build on Senator Greenwood’s question and go back to Senator Harder’s question from the very beginning. All of us in this committee know what quiet diplomacy is, and I think we also know what effective diplomacy is — effective diplomacy, of course, is having a result at the end.
You have mentioned a number of times about how you have travelled with a minister or ministers. You have gone to a number of capitals in the region, including speaking to partners who we haven’t been that close to over the past few years, but they are also influential and would be very helpful in a rebuild, in some sort of a restoration and certainly with respect to humanitarian relief.
At the same time, we know that there are malign actors in the region and extra-regional malign actors as well. Some of the countries, the governments and the officials that you met with, of course, are acutely aware of that. To the extent that you can, can you talk a little bit about these quiet diplomatic initiatives, and whether they are matching or in sync with what some of our other partners are doing? You and I have a history on the G7. It’s G7 season coming up. I wonder if you have any thoughts that you would like to share on that.
Mr. Lévêque: Many thoughts. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For the benefit of everyone here, I would say the first thing that is important in order to conduct effective diplomacy is being credible, and to be credible in a region where personal relationships and depth of expertise and depth of interest need to be demonstrated in person. Nothing beats travelling to capitals and breaking bread together. The Gulf states are known for their very generous hospitality. The most important conversations are held over meals. It’s about true listening — the majority of these visits start with Canada being an outsider to the region in order to listen to historical facts and what these various players have to bring to the table.
It would be simplistic to think that all these countries share a singular vision on how to achieve greater peace in the Middle East. There are inter-regional and intraregional rivalries that one needs to be aware of in order to adequately play one country — not against the other, but in complementarity with each other.
You haven’t put names on these actors, but I will, senator. Saudi Arabia is a major player in the region — one that has both the size of population and land, and a diversifying economy. Saudi Arabia is singularly focused on a vision of development in its country and in the region that requires that the entire world see the region as a prosperous and peaceful one.
You have all been hearing about the potential for normalization of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia primarily — and some of its neighbours — and Israel. Some analysts will say that this attack by Hamas was probably aimed to provoke a reaction by Israel so vivid and quick that it would derail the efforts at normalization. In our conversations with leaders in the region, however, the Gulf leaders still see that longer vision very much aimed at bringing normalization between their countries and Israel from which everything can start to percolate.
We heard a similar determination in the U.A.E. You are familiar with the Abraham Accords. Countries have invested a lot of political and social capital in their own countries to have Muslim majority populations accept and recognize Israel’s right to exist, and to want to remain in that process and not give up the fruits of their labour. We have significant allies. It’s not like we see eye to eye on everything with these countries, but, in terms of peace in the Middle East, we have solid leadership and vision coming from, at the very least, the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We now come to a quick round two. Only two senators have asked to ask questions, so I’ll ask them to pose their questions in sequence and then you can respond.
Senator Coyle: You mentioned engaging with the Israeli ambassador here. Has there also been engagement with Ambassador Mona Abuamara, the representative of the Palestinian delegation here?
The Chair: Just one moment. Senator Woo has left.
Mr. Lévêque: Yes, absolutely, and on a regular basis, through official démarches, informal interactions, phone calls, text messages and receptions.
The Chair: Anyone else?
If not, there is one portion of my question that you didn’t quite answer regarding the relationship with allies. Senator Harder mentioned that at the very beginning, but is there a collectivity there? You mentioned the group, and I think Canada is part of that group. You had a meeting in Berlin, as I recall. Maybe share a thought on that.
Mr. Lévêque: Coordination and sustainability of messages are absolutely essential. You alluded to a meeting of senior officials responsible for the Middle East and a number of foreign ministries that took place. One was in person in Berlin; another one was in Rome. Subsequent to that, a couple were done in a virtual format. This is ongoing. It’s allowed the sharing of information. We have certain entry points with Palestinians, Israelis, Saudis and others, and so do Italy and France. It’s a helpful format to coordinate and share information. This morning, both my German and U.K. counterparts were texting me and asking about our latest decisions and vice versa. We complement each other. We coordinate messages and we help divide the pie — who approaches whom, and who works on what topic. It’s a good division of labour to ensure that we are as impactful as possible.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Colleagues, this is a weighty and important topic. We will be returning to it again. In fact, we’ll be looking at the humanitarian aspects in Gaza again tomorrow.
I would like to thank Assistant Deputy Minister Alexandre Lévêque for his candid testimony today and for the great discussion we had. We will meet again tomorrow. Thank you again, colleagues.
(The committee adjourned.)