THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 27, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met with videoconference this day at 10:29 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to foreign relations and international trade generally.
Senator Peter M. Boehm (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Peter M. Boehm. I am a senator from Ontario and the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
[English]
I invite committee members to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Coyle: Senator Mary Coyle from Antigonish, Nova Scotia. Welcome.
Senator Adler: Charles Adler from Winnipeg, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ravalia: Good morning. Welcome. Mohamed Ravalia from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Ataullahjan: Good morning and welcome. Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
Senator Robinson: Good morning. Mary Robinson, representing Prince Edward Island.
Senator Pupatello: Sandra Pupatello, Ontario.
Senator Woo: Good morning. Yuen Pau Woo from British Columbia.
Senator Wilson: Good morning. Duncan Wilson, British Columbia.
Senator Harder: Peter Harder, Ontario.
Senator M. Deacon: Welcome, team and minister. I’m Marty Deacon from Ontario.
Senator Al Zaibak: Mohammad Al Zaibak from Toronto, Ontario.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Treaty 6 territory, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Martine Hébert, from Quebec. Welcome, Minister.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. I would like to mention that Senator Pupatello, Senator Robinson and Senator Muggli are here as visiting senators, so thank you for joining the committee today.
[Translation]
Also, Senator Youance, from Quebec, has just arrived. Thank you.
[English]
I wish to welcome all of you and those who may be watching us across the country on ParlVU.
Colleagues, today we are meeting under our general order of reference to discuss Canada’s foreign policy priorities, and we have the honour of welcoming, for the first time at this committee in her current portfolio, the Honourable Anita Anand, Minister of Foreign Affairs. Minister, thank you for taking the time to be with us today. The minister is joined by senior officials from Global Affairs Canada: Sandra McCardell, Associate Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs; Alexandre Lévêque, Assistant Deputy Minister, Europe, Middle East and Arctic Branch; Cheryl Urban, Assistant Deputy Minister, Africa Branch; and Weldon Epp, Assistant Deputy Minister, Indo‑Pacific Branch.
Before we hear the minister’s opening statement and proceed to questions and answers, I would ask everyone present to please mute notifications on your devices and please observe the regulations that we have on the card in front of you with respect to microphones and earpieces. We want to avoid any audio problems or damage in that sense.
Minister, we’re ready to hear your opening remarks, and these will be followed by questions from senators. You have the floor.
[Translation]
The Honourable Anita Anand, P.C., M.P., Minister of Foreign Affairs: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
[English]
Thank you for the invitation to discuss Canada’s approach to foreign affairs and international trade.
[Translation]
We need to recognize that the world has changed. Today, the international order is being challenged by the actions of certain powers, such as hostile moves, rising protectionism that undermines free trade and threats to sovereignty.
[English]
As the Prime Minister recently said:
. . . the United States has fundamentally shifted its approach to trade — threatening jobs and casting businesses into a climate of uncertainty.
Many of Canada’s strengths — based on close trade ties with the United States — have become our vulnerabilities.
Today, I want to pause because this next part will be critical throughout this testimony. We are living in a time of rising geopolitical tensions, economic uncertainty and rapid shifts in global power.
I would like to take a moment and thank the Senate and the Senate committee here today for your thoughtful and careful analysis of issues relating to foreign policy. I’ve spoken with many of you, and I know the seriousness with which you take these issues, and I thank you for your contributions in that regard.
[Translation]
To us, our priorities are clear: We must protect Canada’s sovereignty and ensure our prosperity in the short and long term.
[English]
We have a new government, a new prime minister and a new approach to foreign policy. Budget 2025, passed earlier this month, is our government’s plan to transform our economy. We are transforming it in the following way: No longer will we be 80% dependent on one economy. We will diversify our trading partners, we will strengthen our domestic economy, and we will ensure that we double non-U.S. trade over the next 10 years.
Canada’s foreign policy is anchored in three priorities: economic resilience, defence and security, and the promotion throughout of our core values. These priorities represent our vision for Canada on the world stage, and they reflect our commitment to keep Canadians safe, creating opportunities for our businesses, advancing a future that is safer, more inclusive, more peaceful and more sustainable. That is why we have been so engaged on the world stage, as I’m sure you have seen, over the past six months.
[Translation]
In today’s uncertain economic climate, we need to diversify our trading relationships, strengthen our supply chains and position Canada as the best place in the world to invest.
[English]
In today’s global climate shaped by supply-chain disruptions and exacerbated by climate pressures and shifting global and geopolitical alliances, we cannot afford to be complacent. My recent travel to meet with counterparts in Europe, Asia and the Americas has focused on deepening partnerships in strategic markets and reinforcing Canada’s presence where it matters most.
I’ve met with counterparts, business leaders and civil society organizations, and I want to speak a little more slowly here because what I hear regardless of where I am is that Canada is a trusted, stable and well-positioned partner to lead in key sectors from critical minerals to agri-food, from clean energy to advanced technology and AI.
Let’s take, for example, Canada’s new partnerships with the EU and Mexico, our new agreement with Indonesia or ongoing engagements in the Pacific and across Europe, all of which clearly demonstrate our commitment to building stable and beneficial trade relationships with allies and partners who share our values. These agreements strengthen our resilience and prosperity. They are a sign of our commitment to a global economic system based on rules. We are determined to forge new economic partnerships and leverage our competitive advantages, our talent, our natural resources and clean energy.
Looking ahead, the Gulf region is a priority for upcoming engagement on economic diplomacy, and as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I intend to use all the diplomatic tools at my disposal to support Canada’s economic priorities and to ensure we are protecting our economy from external threats.
Investing in defence and security is another pillar of ensuring a stronger and a more self-sufficient and resilient Canada, and that includes investing in the Arctic. One of the differences between our approach and the approach of other parties the House of Commons, for example, is that we believe strongly in doing the work in the Arctic side by side with Indigenous Peoples, that the work we are doing has to respect the path toward reconciliation and ensure that at all times that is a work that we will do together. The region is facing, of course, security threats alongside climate change, and Canada has to respond, especially given that the Canadian Arctic covers 40% of Canada’s territory and more than 70% of its coast line.
I hope you saw some of the salient features of Budget 2025, one of which was that we are pledging $80 billion in defence spending. I have been at this committee before in previous positions where I have been asked about our defence spending. Indeed, as the Minister of National Defence, that was one of the questions I received frequently.
In this budget, we are putting forward $80 billion. We will meet our NATO 2% target this year, and we will achieve 5% of GDP by 2035. Colleagues, that is significant, and it is a priority for our government.
Canada’s Arctic Foreign Policy will strengthen our engagement in the North, and we will not rest until we ensure that all of Canada, including the Arctic, is as protected as it needs to be to keep our population safe and secure. In that vein, we recently appointed an Arctic ambassador, and the role of the Arctic ambassador is to ensure that the priorities of the Arctic and northern communities are reflected in our foreign policy.
[Translation]
At the same time, we’re strengthening our relationships with northern and indigenous governments and organizations. Also, in the new year we will open a Canadian consulate in Nuuk, Greenland, to expand our diplomatic presence in the Arctic. In my conversations with foreign ministers of Arctic countries, I can see that they share the same ideas. We all agree: Now is the time when we must be present and engaged in the Arctic. This is not just a Canadian objective: All Arctic countries—except Russia, of course—need to work together to ensure that the Arctic is adequately protected. We’re going to do it with NATO countries. I will be there next week to work with our NATO counterparts.
[English]
Let me say a word about emerging technologies that are reshaping the landscape of conflict. Canada is redefining global norms to navigate the risks and seize the opportunities ahead. These aren’t abstract issues; they will shape the next generation of global security.
I’d like to also underscore that Canada has made unwavering support for Ukraine a priority of our G7 presidency this year. We are steadfast in standing with Ukraine, having committed close to $22 billion in multi-faceted assistance to Ukraine since Russia’s illegal and unjustifiable full-scale further invasion, which is at the core of a peace process unfolding before our very eyes. Canada is participating through the Coalition of the Willing. I am deeply engaged with my counterpart in Ukraine, Minister Sybiha, with whom I spoke yesterday on ensuring that Canada is doing whatever possible to support Ukraine. We are also working through the G7 to ensure that we do this collectively.
Before concluding, I’ll say a word about our core values, which underpin and are infused in our foreign policy overall. Our priorities are clear: protecting Canada’s sovereignty and ensuring our long-term prosperity and economic robustness. Our values remain integral to the pursuit of these goals, and they remain integral to who we are as Canadians. Canada continues to stand for democracy, the rules-based international order, human rights, gender equality, environmental protection and reconciliation. Our values are our North Star; they are a source of strength. There will be detractors, internally and externally, in terms of the pursuit of these values, but we will never retreat from the values that make Canadians Canadian.
I have listed some of those; there are others. Rest assured that our foreign policy will reflect Canada’s values, including support for the rules-based international order, multilateralism, human rights, gender equality, environmental protection and reconciliation.
Our new approach to foreign policy, therefore, is both strategic and pragmatic. It reflects who we are and what the world needs from Canada at this moment, as well as what Canadians expect from our foreign policy.
The issues that we face together transcend borders. As G7 president, Canada has rallied support to advance issues that align with Canada’s priorities. Just last week in Niagara, G7 foreign ministers demonstrated the power of multilateral cooperation by securing key commitments from advancing global peace and security to strengthening economic resilience and supporting Ukraine. We broadened our discussions with other key players and outreach partners: Brazil, India, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Ukraine. Their contributions were invaluable in bringing additional perspectives to the conversations that the G7 partners were having.
We are clear as a country that as countries retreat toward unilateralism and protectionism, we will double down on multilateralism. We saw it at the G20 summit in South Africa, where countries viewed Canada as a leader and stable partner on the multilateral stage. We found strong unity on a variety of critical issues at the G20, as well as at the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting and the G7 Leaders’ Summit in Kananaskis in June.
[Translation]
We are here with Canadian diplomacy, which is multi-faceted and pragmatic. Our diplomacy is there to strengthen our strategic autonomy and deliver tangible benefits to Canadians: a more secure border, a stronger economy and a world that reflects our values.
With that, Mr. Chair, I’m happy to take your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.
I wish to inform members that we have a 90-minute panel today, but that the Minister and the Associate Deputy Minister must leave at 11:30.
[English]
Mr. Lévêque, Ms. Urban and Mr. Epp will stay until 12, so we will have an extra half hour.
Colleagues, we have a full house. I’m really going to stick to the three-minute rule in terms of trying to manage this meeting, so please keep your questions very precise — no long preambles; get right to it — and that will allow the minister more time to respond.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Welcome, Minister. Thank you for being available.
As you know, in March of this year, Canada announced a new strategy for Africa. This is a step forward that the diaspora and businesses operating in Africa have applauded. However, at the first-ever G20 summit held on African soil, the Prime Minister said that Africa was not one of Canada’s top priorities. How do you explain this contradiction between Canada’s Africa strategy, which your department set in motion, and the Prime Minister’s surprising statement to African leaders on African soil?
Ms. Anand: Thank you for the question. I’d like to start by thanking you for your input on this.
Africa is very important to us. The Prime Minister has made it clear that Africa is a priority for the government. Strengthening our relationship across the continent is one of the many items on our ambitious trade agenda. As we already discussed in October, I hope that we can have further conversations. It’s important for us to continue to have multilateral and bilateral relations with African countries. This means advancing our strategy, as discussed, and highlighting our priorities set out in the Prime Minister’s mandate, strengthening economic co-operation, developing mutually beneficial relationships with reliable partners and protecting Canada’s security interests.
For example, I met with the foreign minister of Nigeria. We discussed the need for further negotiations and discussions on those relationships, because in some countries on the continent, like Nigeria and South Africa, we can’t just advance Canadian economic interests. We also have to discuss how we can support their supply chains, their businesses and their objectives. It’s a two-way street. We have a strategy for Africa. I will continue to advance that strategy. I hope we can do it together.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you, minister.
You said that Canada stands for democracy and human rights. I’m really happy to hear that. With so many armed conflicts going on, unrest and wars, and women and children bearing the brunt of them, do you feel that Canada’s foreign policy should be and is still linked to a country’s human rights abuses? We used to stand for human rights, and we were known for that throughout the world.
[Translation]
Ms. Anand: Thank you for the question.
I don’t agree with the assertion in your question at all. We’re a country that has values centred on respect for human rights and advances those rights not only across our nation, but also on the world stage.
For example, I was at the UN with the Prime Minister in September. The UN is a multilateral organization that will continue to promote human rights.
Your questions don’t imply that we’re a government that believes in human rights. However, we’re a government that will foster a rights-based foreign affairs policy. That means we will always be there with other countries to advance human rights.
I respectfully disagree with your question. We always promote human rights. My job is to implement our strategies and priorities, while pursuing the goal of advancing human rights. It’s necessary.
In addition, we have other priorities. However, that means we have to promote human rights alongside our government’s other priorities. That was my message to the UN, my message about our foreign policy and it’s my message here today in response to your question, as I said, with all due respect. We need to recognize that here at home as well. We continuously advance human rights. Canada is a leader in this area. Given the geopolitical realities in the world right now, going backwards is not an option. Canada will work tirelessly with other countries to promote human rights.
[English]
The Chair: I would like to note that Senator Cardozo of Ontario has joined the meeting.
Senator Harder: Welcome, minister and team. I certainly endorse the words you used to describe advancing our values and interests and recognizing where we are in the power relationship among nations.
I want to ask whether it’s time to establish or re-establish diplomatic relations with Iran and Afghanistan, for different reasons, of course, but I would have argued that it was unfortunate that we withdrew from Iran; it was one of the areas where the Five Eyes welcomed Canada’s participation. With respect to Afghanistan, my view is that our presence there could be of assistance to those continuing to deliver development assistance, and we can better learn by being there in a diplomatic sense.
So, is it time, and if it isn’t, what needs to happen for us to be willing to re-engage in these two difficult spots, for all of the reasons that you’ve already articulated?
[Translation]
Ms. Anand: Thank you for the question. I could start with Iran and then turn to Afghanistan.
I understand the question. At the moment, international relations will continue to be developed. That’s very clear.
Canada encourages Iran to re-establish diplomatic relations and engage in talks with the United States and the European Union. That’s the most sustainable way to resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear program.
First, it’s important to recognize that Iran’s nuclear proliferation activities have long been a major threat to regional and international security. It must be pointed out that it’s important Iran have a non-proliferation program. This is an international goal and a message from our international and multilateral partners. Canada supports the group decision on the right to trigger the UN Security Council mechanism to reinstate sanctions against Iran.
I understand the question. However, at this time, it’s important to send a clear message that we are in favour of nuclear non‑proliferation. We will continue to say that.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, minister, but we have run out of time for that segment.
Senator Coyle: I sincerely thank you, minister, for your leadership and service, and that of your team, at this very difficult and complicated time.
At the G20 summit, the Prime Minister stated, “. . . I wouldn’t describe our foreign policy as feminist foreign policy.” That effectively ended an eight-year initiative that you supported as a cabinet minister under previous Prime Minister Trudeau.
Stephen Brown, a professor at the University of Ottawa, has called this a “retreat from values” and said it was:
. . . a major setback for Canadian foreign policy. Women’s rights, and human rights more broadly, remain key challenges all over the world. . . . While Canada has not completely abandoned its contributions in those areas under the Carney government, its massive shift to hard security and economic self-interest exacts a heavy price.
Minister, why has your government shifted away from a feminist foreign policy, knowing that there are growing setbacks around the world on the human rights of women and girls? Does this statement by the Prime Minister indicate that Canada will abandon its Feminist International Assistance Policy, which has been successful and much admired?
Ms. Anand: I want to begin by stating that feminism is a core value of our government, and it is an important part of our foreign policy.
You are correct. I have spent most of my life ensuring that whatever I do, whatever work I’m undertaking, reflects feminist values, human rights and core values relating to gender equality. That was the case when I was the Minister of National Defence and fighting for women who had experienced sexual harassment and sexual misconduct, by transferring those cases to the civilian justice system. That was the case when I was the president of the Treasury Board, ensuring that non-discrimination was a foremost principle of the internal policies of the Government of Canada —
Senator Coyle: We’re a little short on time. My questions —
Ms. Anand: If I could move to what specifically about our foreign policy reflects our commitment to feminism and gender‑based equality, I would like to be clear that Canada’s commitment to the empowerment of women and girls, to removing barriers, to achieving gender equality, to condemning all forms of discrimination and ending gender-based violence is unwavering. This will never change. I have outlined this in several conversations, including my speech at the United Nations. Feminism is a core value of our government and an important part of our foreign policy.
If you take a look at some of the programs that we have advocated for and funded, you will see the commitment: support to the Global Fund for Survivors of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence, $5 million; support to UNICEF and UNFPA for their global program to end child marriage, $35 million. The list goes on, and I can provide a comprehensive list to you —
The Chair: Thank you. I’m sorry to interrupt, minister.
Ms. Anand: Canada has been pursuing a deliberately framed feminist foreign policy since 2016, and that continues. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you for being here today.
Minister, with the effective dismantling of USAID and the loss of tens of billions of dollars in humanitarian and development financing globally, how will Canada prioritize where to step up, whether in humanitarian response, global health, climate adaptation or democratic governance, given our own reduction in our aid package?
Ms. Anand: Let me begin, Mr. Chair, by saying that in the fiscal year 2024-25, Canada provided $797 million to respond to the life-saving needs of those affected by conflict and natural disasters around the world. Canada continues to be at the forefront of responding to natural disasters and conflict. I will also mention our humanitarian aid to Sudan, which has come to about $300 million since 2021, and for Gaza, which is at about $400 million.
Taken together, over 300 million people need humanitarian assistance in 2025, but Canada will continue to provide urgent humanitarian assistance where it is needed most through international organizations and humanitarian partners, including the UN, the Red Cross, the Red Crescent Societies and Canadian and international NGOs. It is a priority for us, and I know that the secretary of state who holds purview over many of these files believes deeply as well in our international humanitarian assistance.
We’re working to advance priorities with partner countries. We are also seeking to reduce poverty by supporting humanitarian assistance and advancing gender equality, and we are, as I mentioned, working with a wide range of trusted partners.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Wilson: My question bridges foreign affairs and international trade. First of all, I should say I’m a big supporter of the government’s agenda with respect to advancing Canada’s trade aggressively, having spent my career doing exactly that. However, I am concerned that recent meetings in the United Arab Emirates, or U.A.E., for example, did not include discussion — at least not publicly — about Sudan. I’m also concerned — I do believe we need to re-engage with China, but I want to know that it’s going to be done in a good way that we will maintain Canadians’ confidence in our trade and foreign affairs agenda.
Finally, you mentioned Indigenous reconciliation. Here at home, I’m concerned — and we have seen it with Bill C-5, and we’ll see it probably again later today — that we are talking about things before we have gone out and met with First Nations. If there is one thing that we have learned over the last decade in reconciliation, it’s that we need to start the conversations with First Nations. There is a real understanding right now that we need to move quickly as a country, but I’m worried that we are leaving some of those communities behind when they should be more part of the discussion. Both internationally and domestically, I would be interested in your perspective.
Ms. Anand: I want to correct the record on Sudan. We are the third-highest bilateral donor, with $144 million in humanitarian aid since 2023 —
Senator Wilson: I meant in respect to the U.A.E.
Ms. Anand: I know. I just wanted to correct my previous statement. Hopefully, Mr. Chair won’t take that away from your time.
The Chair: I’m being very generous, just for the record.
Ms. Anand: I will respond to the international file first, given that it is my portfolio. The conversations that I have had with my counterpart in the U.A.E. have raised human rights issues. We have also discussed many other issues, so the point I want to make is that you will recall that the Quad is leading the effort toward peace in Sudan, and there are four countries that are part of the Quad. The U.A.E. is one of them, as is Egypt, of course, and the United States. And we have got to ensure — and I stressed this at the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting — that we support the efforts of the Quad, first, for a ceasefire; second, for the lasting peace, which is phase 2 of the work of the Quad; third, for humanitarian assistance. That has been my message inside and outside meeting rooms. Canada has been on the ground with partners for humanitarian assistance, and we will always do that.
We are also supporting multilateral efforts to address the atrocities that are occurring in Sudan. I want to reiterate that that approach does reflect our values, contrary to the implication in your question. Our values are to stress humanitarianism. Our values are to stress peace. Our values are to stress a ceasefire. That is my approach in every conversation.
When you mention here at home, it was our government that adopted the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s report, that has adopted the commitments to truth and reconciliation, and I note and wonder why we didn’t begin this session with a land acknowledgement, which is very important wherever we are, whenever we are speaking and gathering together on the traditional, unceded territory of Indigenous Peoples. This is part of reconciliation.
I think your question, however, was tied to economic projects that the government is undertaking and the need for us to undertake consultation with Indigenous Peoples —
The Chair: Thank you. I’m sorry; I’m going to interrupt. We are way over time on that segment.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you, minister and the team surrounding us, for being here today. I greatly appreciate your clarification on the Quad.
Over the last few weeks, we have, in committee and out of committee, listened about atrocities in Sudan and in Haiti. They have been our conversations around the table to more deeply understand. With respect to Sudan, I’m looking today at Canada’s export controls. We know — and we are told — that they are one of the strongest export controls in the world, yet it has been credibly reported that Canadian-made rifles have surfaced in Sudan’s conflict. When Canadian-origin weapons show up in an active conflict, what concrete things happen after that? What are the steps taken? Are permits suspended or revoked as a result of these Sudan findings? What consequences might be considered both for companies and for the government involved in this kind of diversion?
[Translation]
Ms. Anand: I could start by saying that Canada has one of the most rigorous export control regimes in the world. Human rights and respect for human rights are enshrined in our export control legislation.
As you mentioned in your question, all permit applications for controlled goods are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. If a significant risk of serious human rights violations is identified, the export permit is denied. Exporting controlled goods or technology without a valid permit is a violation of Canadian law that can result in penalties, including fines, seizure of goods and criminal prosecution.
There are therefore penalties in the act, and we have very strong legislation. We continue to ensure that all businesses that have received a control permit, for example, strictly comply with their obligations.
I have Mr. Lévêque with me. He will be able to add some comments.
Alexandre Lévêque, Assistant Deputy Minister, Europe, Middle East and Arctic Branch, Global Affairs Canada: I have nothing to add to what the minister just described.
[English]
Senator Woo: Minister, thank you for being here. I am very pleased to hear your positive report coming out of the G20 meeting in Johannesburg, led by South Africa, of course, which is a champion of multilateralism, as we are. You have just said that. We’ve just heard from President Trump that he will not invite South Africa to the G20 meeting in Miami next year. Given your statement about the support for multilateralism and the need to diversify, can we be assured that Canada will insist on South Africa’s participation at the next G20 meeting or find other ways in which South Africa can participate fully in this important multilateral forum that we are a part of?
[Translation]
Ms. Anand: Thank you for the question.
Of course, Canada always favours multilateralism, not only the G20, but also the G7, as well as NORAD, NATO and the United Nations.
To answer your question, with Canada presiding over the G7, it’s important that we continue to set an example for multilateralism. It’s not just South Africa; all of those countries need to know that Canada will always be there to address important issues around the world.
For example, I had a meeting with the South African foreign minister here in Canada, because I invited him to the G7 leaders’ summit, but also when we were in South Africa —
[English]
Senator Woo: If I may, minister, that is not answering my question. It is about South Africa’s invitation to attend the G20 meeting in the United States: Do we support South Africa’s right to be at the G20 meeting in the United States next year?
[Translation]
Ms. Anand: We always support multilateralism. We continue to engage with South Africa. As I said, with him and with the President of South Africa, we continue to have the required conversations in all possible forms, not just within the G20 but with all of our partners in other multilateral organizations. We also have a strategy for Africa. It’s important for Canada to have the countries at the table to co-operate and collaborate. Those remain Canadian values. We continue to highlight those messages
[English]
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you, minister and your team, for being with us today here. Given the Prime Minister’s recent visit to the United Arab Emirates and the growing opportunities in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries and the Arab world in general, how is the government integrating the Gulf into Canada’s trade diversification strategy as a priority market and as a nucleus to tap into an economic bloc of 450 million people, which is the Arab world? What sectors does Canada see as offering the strongest near-term potential in all of those countries? Thank you.
Ms. Anand: I want to take a step back in answering this question to talk about the approach to foreign policy in this geopolitical environment and in an environment where countries are retreating toward protectionism and unilateralism. The world trading order has been upset and reorganized, and everywhere we go, countries are adopting a policy of trade diversification, and they see Canada as one of the strongest if not the strongest partner with whom they can cooperate. That’s why you saw the Prime Minister land a $70-billion pledge from the U.A.E. in terms of investment for Canada. That’s unprecedented. It is the largest foreign investment commitment in Canadian history. This should give you the example needed to stress the importance of the Gulf region, first, and the importance of trade diversification, second.
I will be travelling to the Gulf region in the new year to further emphasize the importance of that region in our foreign policy. But make no mistake: The efforts to diversify trade, for the benefit of the domestic economy, do not stop at the Gulf. They are throughout the world, including in the Indo-Pacific. A free trade agreement with Indonesia; the work we are doing on a free trade agreement with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, for conclusion in 2026; the SAFE agreement with the EU in terms of industrial defence cooperation that will allow Canadian suppliers to participate in procurements that European companies are able to do; the work in South America on Mercosur — these are efforts that indicate Canada’s current foreign policy.
As I outlined in my UN speech and in this meeting that we’re having here today, defence and security, economic resilience and trade diversification, and at all times respecting our core values, that’s the summary of our foreign policy.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Minister, thank you for being here. In your opening remarks, you mentioned the importance of Canada diversifying its exports and establishing mechanisms to attract investment. We’ve seen you on the world stage forging diplomatic ties with certain major economies, such as India. There’s also China, with whom we’re seeing our diplomatic relations warm up to a certain extent. We know there’s a meeting coming.
Where are we going with those economies, China and India, when we look to the future and our ambitious goals to diversify and attract investment?
Ms. Anand: Thank you for the question. It’s important to continue this conversation about the economy here at home. That means that in our foreign affairs policy, we must promote closer ties with a number of countries, including India and China. Right now, there are economic threats around the world. We’re going to respond with a new foreign affairs policy. I want to thank my colleagues, the officials at Global Affairs Canada, for their work.
When it comes to India, our government is committed to making Canada a viable trading partner. That’s very clear. That’s why the Prime Minister is taking a leadership role on the world stage to secure new agreements and expand our partnerships.
The Prime Minister announced this weekend that we will launch negotiations with India around a new comprehensive economic partnership agreement. I’d like to add that this is not the only avenue being considered for negotiations with India. The first step in our bilateral relationship is to respect public safety and dialogue between countries. Once we’ve established that dialogue, we’ll decide if we want to initiate further economic ties. First, I was there in October to make a joint statement on co-operation in agriculture, energy — all kinds of energy — AI, technology and B2B trade. I’m talking about India. There’s a path there, but we’re going to start with public safety.
Where China is concerned — and I do hear you — Canada is gradually realigning our relationship with China to advance our interests through constructive pragmatic commitment. That’s our goal. High-level interactions show China’s renewed willingness to reopen channels through the government. We’ve had a number of conversations with their government, but again, we’ll be looking at those relationships step by step.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Thank you to the minister for being here.
Madam Minister, when you gave your initial statement, I did notice that there wasn’t much discussion in your statement about our most important relationship, which is with the United States of America. You mentioned we have 80% of our trade there. We want to double our non-U.S. trade; that’s a good idea, but it may take a long time to do that. Two thirds of our business with the U.S. is small- and medium-sized businesses. They may find it more difficult to trade in different parts of the world and across the border.
What are we doing to address the, I believe, unacceptable relationship now between Canada and the U.S.? What is our government doing to try and smooth the waters and get back to a good working relationship?
Ms. Anand: Thank you, senator, for the question. I agree: Canada and the United States share the world’s most integrated and mutually beneficial trade partnership, exchanging nearly $3.6 billion in goods and services daily.
We stand ready to resume discussions on reshaping our economic and security partnership with the United States. The Prime Minister will be travelling to the United States next week, for example, and will see President Trump at that time. In the meantime, I will continue to engage with Secretary Rubio, and my counterparts across the Government of Canada will do the same with their counterparts in the United States. We will continue to preserve CUSMA benefits, protecting the Canadian market from future tariff risks. That’s part of the reason why trade diversification is so important.
You said it would take a long time to double non-U.S. trade. Yes, it will, but we have set the target of 10 years, and we are making progress in terms of trade diversification.
In terms of the United States, we will take the time to negotiate a good deal for Canada. We will defend Canada’s interests, and we will do what’s best for Canada and the Canadian economy at all times. This is a deep relationship; it is a complex relationship; it is one that demands and deserves the attention that the Prime Minister has been according it, and at all times we will put Canadians’ interests ahead.
You will have taken note, I’m sure, of the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday of supports for Canadian industry, Canadian steel and Canadian lumber. That announcement is a direct result of our view that while these negotiations are occurring, while we are seeking the best deal for Canada with the United States, we also need to be there for the purpose of the sectoral tariffs that are very difficult for Canadians, understanding that about 80% of our trade is covered under the CUSMA at the current time.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. I’m sorry, senator; there isn’t any time left in your segment.
The last question will go to Senator Adler. I know there are other senators, including visiting senators, who would like to ask questions, but the minister is on a tight schedule. You can pose those — we’ll go through the list — with the senior officials who will be staying behind.
Senator Adler: Thank you for joining us, minister. It is clear from both the body language and the language of Mr. Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, that they will have to give up Ukrainian land for peace.
Since the Russians are serial invaders, if this agreement calls for some sort of increased protection of Ukraine, would it involve Canadian boots on the ground?
Ms. Anand: I have been closely engaged with this file since February 2022, when Russia illegally and unjustifiably further invaded Ukraine. The question of boots on the ground has been one that I have been focused on for some time, recognizing that the Canadian Armed Forces’ Operation UNIFIER, which we renewed in January 2022, before the further invasion, has allowed 44,000 members of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to receive training from the CAF.
The point that you make in your question of it being clear is one that is being negotiated now, so I do not agree that it has been decided, given what I know, and, indeed, I have been speaking with members of the Ukrainian government over the past number of weeks about this very issue.
The negotiations are fluid, and our National Security and Intelligence chief Nathalie Drouin was in Geneva this weekend with her European counterparts to address some of the points in the 28-point peace plan that was originally on the table and then the revised and updated version of that plan that parties are working with, but there has not been finality. Canada’s point, however, is not one that continues to push Canada’s sole interests but rather is based on what is best for Ukraine. In terms of Canada’s foreign policy, it is to support Ukrainian interests.
The Coalition of the Willing that the Prime Minister has been participating in is undertaking planning for support to Ukraine post-ceasefire, and that includes offering security guarantees.
Senator Adler: No Ukrainian land will be transferred to Russia?
Ms. Anand: The minister will say that the decisions relating to Ukrainian land rest with President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people.
Senator Adler: Thank you.
The Chair: I will say thank you very much, minister, for being with us today. You’ve covered a broad swath of foreign policy interests. We appreciate that and we look forward to having you back to delve into some of these other issues that were raised today.
On behalf of the committee, thank you very much; we appreciate your testimony.
Ms. Anand: I’m looking forward to coming back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Pupatello: I was delighted to see the re-engagement with India, and I’m curious about the status of an accord on nuclear energy and how we can — speaking to a couple of other questions — integrate the trade discussion with the diplomacy, where Canada has a huge opportunity for economic growth back home, including what we might invest elsewhere, a huge supply chain from Ontario in nuclear, for example, and they have adopted our Canadian Nuclear Energy Technology, or CANDU, as well.
That is one example. Are there others in the world where we are integrating the work your ministry is doing with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, with those opportunities to help our companies transform to potentially do work in other areas?
Given the economic urgency, I’m wondering what is happening at that ministerial level where there is engagement with economic opportunity.
Weldon Epp, Assistant Deputy Minister, Indo-Pacific Branch, Global Affairs Canada: Perhaps I’ll start, and then I’ll turn to colleagues for other examples. On India, this is an area where, in the last six months under the new government, there’s been renewed interest internationally and alacrity in terms of our ministers of trade, our Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister’s conversation with partners. I had the pleasure of travelling with Minister Anand to India, where we heard from a range of interlocutors, both at the national and at the subnational level.
If you look at the growth rates in India and the energy needs, they will be diversifying and looking for transitional clean energy. They do see the track record with Canada on CANDU; they are very interested in small modular reactors, or SMRs.
To the senator’s initial question, this is an area where conversations are happening and where we are working closely with ISED, the Province of Ontario. We’ve had a number of delegations from the region in the last year alone. I won’t name‑check them, but from the Indo-Pacific, three very serious high‑level industry-government delegations are coming, and this is a key sector. That would be on nuclear energy.
I’ll give one other example from the region. The question is very on point. Promoting diversification is a team sport; it is a contact sport; it’s not just a Global Affairs Canada enterprise. We are working closely with other departments, ISED being one, Natural Resources Canada being another, but also Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, or AAFC, in the context of the Indo‑Pacific Strategy and ongoing deployment.
A lot of those deployments, I would say, are the most important or game-changing — it’s maybe a bit of an overstatement — enabling or having expertise from department to department. An office in the Indo-Pacific region of AAFC, deployments of people from those departments are really essential.
Cheryl Urban, Assistant Deputy Minister, Africa Branch: Maybe I would add, if you point to South Africa, we just had the G20 in South Africa. Our Prime Minister had a meeting with President Ramaphosa, and they announced several deliverables from that, and one of them was the conclusion of negotiations on the Canada-South Africa Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. South Africa is in an energy transition, and this is a real economic opportunity for us. I think it provides a really good example of how we can use our diplomacy to advance economic interests of Canadians.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you to the witnesses.
A Haitian civil society and diaspora think tank concluded that the situation in Haiti illustrates the complexity of a crisis rooted in decades of instability, influence, fragility and successive natural disasters.
Despite the failures, there are several signs of a more favourable context, including the G7 joint statement on UN Security Council Resolution 2793 about the publication of electoral calendars.
Could you tell us whether the government plans to commit more to supporting Haiti? What concrete action is Canada going to take to answer the call from the G7?
Mr. Lévêque: I’m going to take the liberty of answering Senator Youance’s excellent question.
You have before you three of the four assistant deputy ministers: Together, the four of us cover the whole world, but unfortunately your question falls under the purview of the fourth, and that assistant deputy minister is not with us.
That said, I can tell you that the historic person-to-person relationship between Canada and Haiti runs so deep that our political leaders and our department are extremely concerned about it. So what I will commit to doing for you today is to come back with a full concrete written response as soon as possible.
Senator Youance: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lévêque, you always adjust.
[English]
Senator Coyle: I’m conscious of who remains at the table, so I’m adjusting my questions, and this one is for you, Mr. Lévêque; it’s about Ukraine.
I wanted to follow up on our short discussion earlier on Ukraine, and my question relates to the cuts to foreign assistance in general. Ukraine has been a very significant recipient of Canada’s foreign aid. And we know that with the reconstruction the needs are going to be even greater. Hopefully, we will get to that point soon. Could you speak to the relationship between these foreign aid cuts announced and what the implications might be moving forward with Ukraine?
Mr. Lévêque: Absolutely. Thank you for the question. I’m glad to touch a bit on that.
The first thing I would say, and you’ve heard me at this committee before talk about the multi-faceted nature of Canada’s support to Ukraine over the past three and a half years. The multi-faceted nature means it is a lot more than just development assistance that has benefited Ukraine. There have been military support, development assistance and humanitarian assistance. A lot of Canada’s contribution has been through macroeconomic loans, very long-term loans.
So in this sense, whatever reductions to Canada’s development assistance that might be expected as part of Budget 2025 will be more or less relevant given the plurality of instruments we have to continue supporting Ukraine.
Having said this, given the priority this represents to the government, we do not anticipate the traditional envelope that is used to support Ukrainian development — we do not anticipate any reductions to that.
But on your very important question of reconstruction, I think the latest number we have seen — the assessment of the cost to rebuild Ukraine — is in the $550 billion to $600 billion. This is obviously not an amount any combination of governments of states around the world can provide for this reconstruction. What it means is it will require partnership with the private sector, particularly for — I’m going to use a term here “nation-building infrastructure projects” that can offer return on investment for the private sector. And where governments can help is in de-risking some of those investments.
These very things, despite the war continuing to rage on, are being discussed, are being planned for. As a matter of fact, right now in Kyiv a Canadian delegation is there to talk about these very things. Once a year, there is a reconstruction conference that happens typically in a European capital where private sector, institutional investors, et cetera, are invited to look at how to kick-start this once the fighting stops.
Senator Harder: Thank you to you remaining here.
I want to raise an issue that is increasingly of concern to me, and it has an effect in all of your geographies, but in some it’s more pronounced. That’s the issue of visas. I’m worried that our visa policy is having foreign policy implications. I wonder if you can respond to what your level of concern is, what can be done that is appropriate. And I appreciate whose responsibility it is, but foreign policy is your responsibility.
And I’m particularly concerned about cases where individuals have gone to the United States and have not been allowed to come to Canada. They were invitations that I was very much aware of. And they’re not just China; they are also — Ismail Mohammed’s — award winners for prizes weren’t able to come for visa restrictions. It seems to me there is a foreign policy issue that you must grapple with, and I’d be happy to assist if there were private ways.
Ms. Urban: Thank you for the question; it’s indeed very pertinent and something we deal with on a regular basis in our positions. As you know, the responsibility for these visas falls outside of the mandate of Global Affairs Canada.
But we recognize that there are cases, for example, when Canada is hosting meetings and inviting people to those meetings, or where we have representatives from political organizations who want to come for legitimate meetings in Canada. Where there is a need for us to coordinate with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, and make sure we facilitate that, especially when we have an agenda for economic cooperation and advancing Canada’s interests, we need to move things forward.
One thing I will say is we do have a working group between Global Affairs Canada and IRCC, and we meet regularly. We are advancing discussions to better work together and make sure that we streamline some of those issues we’ve had in the past.
The other thing I would point to is we will be hosting the FIFA World Cup. This is perhaps an example where if we can establish some best practices during this time, working with FIFA, this will allow us to carry on those best practices moving forward.
The Chair: Let me just add to that. This particular problem that Senator Harder has highlighted has been around for a long time. I certainly remember in my previous career, whether on a posting or in Ottawa, I would often get an earful.
I agree with you, Ms. Urban, that the FIFA World Cup presents an opportunity; it’s maybe even a test case. I know that other countries are dealing with this too. The U.S. will have its own way of dealing with it, but in Mexico recently that was the subject of discussion I had with Mexican legislators. So it’s an important point.
Senator Woo: I would like to pick up on Senator Harder’s question. From the angle of national security review and security clearances, and that is a different department as well, which I’m sure you’ll remind us of, but it’s the foreign policy angle that I’m interested in.
I have encountered more and more cases of individuals looking to do government jobs, maybe work for a senator or an MP, having their security clearances rejected or not responded to at all, on the face of it, because they come from the People’s Republic of China and have the most tangential links to the Chinese Communist Party, or CCP, or some government organ.
Again, you can’t comment on how the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, does its review; I understand that. But I suspect the problem is a foreign policy framing issue — maybe this is more a comment than a question — but in the same way that Senator Harder has offered to help in thinking through how we frame the visa problem, I wonder if we can also think about how we frame the national security problem in terms of young Canadian people who happen to be immigrants, who want a career in the public service, working for an MP or a senator, and they are blocked. They are blocked for almost seemingly no reason. Can you comment on that?
Mr. Epp: I’ll take a stab at that. I won’t bother reminding because I think the members of the committee are well aware of respective responsibilities for departments and agencies. I think it’s a terrific question. It’s a really important point and bang on in terms of one of the challenges of how we do a couple of things at the same time. I have experienced the kind of examples that you mention.
For my part, particularly as you mentioned countries from the region I’m responsible for, I would say one of the reflections is the importance to try to get the balance right — and I’m not going to profess that government always gets it right — but also to factor in considerations for duty of care for individuals whom the Government of Canada, the Canadian society would not identify based on their heritage but foreign governments would. For certain sensitive areas of work in the government, it is important for us to be realistic and find ways to make sure that individuals aren’t put in positions either in Canada or abroad where we would make it likely that they would become targets not by Canada but by foreign governments.
I know that it is not the background to all of the cases that might come to your table, but it is the background to some of the cases that we deal with. Thank you.
Senator Woo: So we deprive them of a job so that we protect them in that way? Is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Epp: Mr. Chair, I don’t think I said anything like that. The point I want to make is that one of the considerations — and, again, these are not led by Global Affairs but which come across our desks sometimes — has more to do with considerations for intent by a foreign government with respect to profiling. We need to be aware of that with respect to individuals and their family members as we look at positions they may be put into. That’s an ongoing discussion, and trying to get that balance right is important.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Obviously, it does have foreign policy implications, but this is more on the national security side, which is within the purview of another committee of the Senate.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for staying with us today. It is greatly appreciated. My question is around the ceasefire in the Middle East and the next steps.
We know that the ceasefire, despite accusations of violations on both sides, has mostly held, but next steps include developing an international body to govern Gaza and oversee reconstruction. I’m wondering today what plans or conversations Canada has in this phase, not just rebuilding buildings, but the effects of the famine, for instance. When food becomes available, it will take years to undo some of these effects, partially, greatly for young people. Do we see ourselves having a role in Gaza on the ground in these next phases?
Mr. Lévêque: The question is very timely, and what I would say as a starting point is that Canada is very much at or in the centre of discussions, planning. We’re at the design phase of what comes next. So you rightfully made reference to the International Stabilization Force that will need to be set up, under the mandate and decision of the United Nations Security Council. There are several venues and vectors for Canada to get involved.
Last week, the European Union co-hosted, with the Palestinian Authority, a senior officials’ meeting followed by a ministerial conference of donors to Palestine to look at the plurality of issues facing Palestine, starting with the reforms required to make sure that the Palestinian Authority continues to have the credibility to continue to operate, focused on the technocratic committee that will have to be set up underneath the Board of Peace, focused on the International Stabilization Force.
Canada was present at that conference and made a contribution. The Civilian-Military Coordination Center, or CMCC, that has observed the ceasefire, based just outside of Gaza in Israel, has Canadians embedded in it. We have three Canadians, a mix of civilian and military, who are liaison officers and on a daily basis contribute to the thinking of the next steps.
This is, as you said, a ceasefire that is extraordinarily fragile, that is holding for the most part right now, and we are now seeing both the civilian and the military planning that will inject into the next phases. Canada is right at the centre of this and is making a contribution.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Instead, I’m going to address the issue of economic diplomacy. With the new objectives set by the government, we’ve seen that trade support programs are to be refocused and the services offered are to be modernized, particularly through the trade commissioners, but also at the various Canadian consulates and embassies around the world. Could you tell us what that means in more concrete terms?
Mr. Epp: I can start, Mr. Chair.
It’s true that it’s an extension. A lot of work has been done over the years to provide support to Canadian businesses to ensure they can diversify. It’s a government priority. We’re implementing a new strategy and new tools at the department to foster economic diversification.
We can talk about that a little later. This affects a type of support for businesses in priority sectors, including defence. We can anticipate that this will be a priority sector in the Indo‑Pacific region and in Europe, for example. We also talked about the nuclear sector. Those are a few examples of sectors that will be given priority.
Mr. Lévêque: I’d like to say a few words.
Yes, it’s at the very heart of the foreign policy, and therefore of the export diversification policy Minister Anand referred to earlier.
I want to add two things.
In order to successfully double our exports and direct our trade away from the United States, two things need to happen: We need to focus on the most promising markets, so where we already have a major base, because that’s where trade relationships and certain supply chains are already established, and we need to explore sectors of economic activity that have been underexploited.
With that, I’ll pick up on what my colleague Mr. Epp was saying: The defence industry sector has particularly recognized cutting-edge technology; that sector exists in Canada, but it’s been underutilized and underdeveloped in terms of the support that’s been provided to those companies in the past. Several tools have already been negotiated and continue to be negotiated, and they should have a huge impact on the defence industry, including SAFE, or Security Action for Europe, a tool within the European Union that’s being expanded for Canada and the United Kingdom so that Canadian defence industries can have access to contracts that will be awarded to European governments.
[English]
Senator Al Zaibak: I have two questions. The first question follows Senator Harder’s and is related to visas. While we are pursuing new market opportunities, some countries are demanding reciprocity with respect to visas. I’m referring specifically to Saudi Arabia, and I was quite encouraged by the announcement yesterday giving Qatar that kind of reciprocity. Why not Saudi Arabia?
My other question relates to the agreement with Indonesia. I understand it is a creative and unprecedented agreement whereby we open a new market in exchange for providing development assistance or international development. Given that the budget reduces the international development funding, I don’t know how we can reconcile that and how we can replicate the success in Indonesia with other countries.
Mr. Lévêque: Thank you for the opportunity to come back to this question because, obviously, we are out of our lanes. This department does not decide on such policies. However, one of the reasons why it is so complex is because the responsibility for assessing the risks and for developing the policy is with multiple departments. You mentioned an important word, senator: “reciprocity.” By design, the decision to grant visa exemptions is deliberately not based on reciprocity. It is based on the risk that it represents to Canadian security and, of course, later down the line, economic issues.
Far be it from me to make a recommendation, but this committee has a proud history of having commissioned studies in the past, and I’m hearing the budding idea of what could turn into an interesting study to look at how these various departments, through their policies, have an influence, deliberate or not, on foreign policy considerations.
The Chair: Thank you very much for the suggestion, and we will take it under consideration, of course.
Mr. Epp: I won’t add to the proposed homework of the committee, but I will try to be brief in answering the question.
Insofar as Indonesia is concerned, you are correct to note the new approach in implementation. Effectively, this fits in a transition for not only Indonesia but also several of our closest bilateral development assistance partners in the Indo-Pacific and I think elsewhere around the world. You will see the Government of Canada look to use our development assistance, our trade promotion and our trade policy tool kits together. I think it’s appropriate for an emerging lower-middle-income economy like Indonesia where we have high trust. We have a close partnership in development assistance. That can now transition to a partnership that is more about economic growth for both sides.
In the case of the free trade agreement, it is about supporting their capacity to meet standards, be it labour or environmental, and I think you will see a similar approach to finalizing negotiations with the ASEAN. Thank you.
Senator Wilson: My question builds on what I asked the minister earlier, which is that as we are trying to advance our aggressive trade agenda globally, one of the things I’m quite concerned about is us eroding support at home for that agenda, because there is a lack of visibility of us carrying the message with respect to human rights and other issues, whether it be in the U.A.E. with Sudan, in China or elsewhere. I’m just curious to know — and I appreciate part of it is a very political answer that you can’t give — in terms of what is actually happening on the ground in those kinds of conversations, can you assure us that those things are still being paid attention to, that those values are still being reflected?
Mr. Epp: I can assure you that the work that the Global Affairs Canada team does continue. Here are a couple of quick examples. In the case of our relationship with China, it has always been informed by structured and ongoing consultations with those in Canada who watch issues of human rights generally and in specific communities quite closely. Those consultations have been happening for several decades. They happened again recently, but also with respect to crosswalks to the business community as we look at free trade agreements in the region. This committee heard from my colleague Aaron Fowler yesterday, if I’m not mistaken. In the consultations we will be doing with respect to new free trade agreements in the region, we will continue to hear both from industry and from broader communities. Thanks.
Ms. Urban: Canada will continue to be a multilateralist and to invest in the multilateral system, and that is a place where we can, with like-minded entities, voice concerns about human rights, and we participate in the actions of the Human Rights Council. By maintaining partnerships, it provides us an opportunity — including when we have discussions one-on-one — to have frank discussions, and having those discussions allows us to address, in the context of Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, various conflicts.
Finally, I would just add some of the activities that we do have always been a little bit under the radar. I’ll point to LGBTQ issues. These are things that we have done quietly on purpose but continue to do so.
Mr. Lévêque: To add a word to complete this, I will absolutely double down and say that yes, human rights considerations remain absolutely central to our foreign policy and to our global commerce.
The approach we’re typically currently taking is one that focuses on effectiveness rather than on how loud the public message is. In my experience, getting a message across to countries that have issues of human rights abuses is much better received and more constructively received when it is done diplomatically behind closed doors. I can give the example of consultations I have held with Saudi Arabia and with a number of other countries in the region that I cover where, in the context of structured consultations, we raise this, and we actually get much more progress and more concrete answers to our concerns than if we use “megaphone diplomacy.”
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’re at the end of our time, so on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank assistant deputy ministers Epp, Urban and Lévêque for joining us again. All three of you are frequently at this committee as witnesses. We appreciate and admire your professionalism and that of your teams, so thank you for being with us.
Colleagues, before we adjourn, please keep an eye on your inboxes, as the confidential draft report on our Africa study — I see Ms. Urban is paying attention — is expected to be distributed tomorrow, with consideration planned for our in camera meeting next Thursday, December 4. Since Ms. Urban is here, we will have the report out, and of course, we will expect a governmental response to it.
(The committee adjourned.)