Foreign Affairs Committee on Sept. 27th, 2006

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Well, my initial response, subject to advice from this committee, is that we would embrace that type of approach. I think we can do more in fact to go about promoting some of these democratic institutions within our own country that do a lot of work in partnering with the private sector. I think in some cases they provide more independent advice.

Mr. Axworthy is obviously a very scholarly person on this subject. And there are others; there are many in the country who I think have a lot to offer. Having those types of foundations, which in some cases do require some resources, in my view allows us to have the necessary reach, the necessary factual base upon which to work.

All governments, even vibrant democracies like our own, can sometimes become too insular in their thinking. That's why I think that partnering with universities and promoting these types of democratic institutes has a lot of merit. That would be something that I think we would support.

We would obviously want to hear more of the detail about how they would function and the costs associated with that type of foundation. As well, I think we would want to know more about how they would govern themselves, what their purpose would be, what their membership would look like, and what their founding principles would be in terms of how that would fit with the promotion of democracy abroad.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have three minutes left.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I welcome that openness. The one observation that I think others have made is that the Americans do a lot of this, but Canadians, in terms of political parties, are actually better equipped, because American elections tend to be focused on spending a lot of money. Canadians have a much more volunteer-reliant base and a lot of skilled expertise, and being able to mobilize them would be a good way of doing that. I'll simply make that observation in passing.

I also make the observation that there are various different models for where we're trying to promote democracy. There are some countries that are eager recipients--if we look at a lot of the former communist ones that were very easy to work with. There are some countries that are, I might call them, democracy challenged. We saw what happened in Ukraine. I think Georgia and Moldova are places where progress is happening but there are also threats of it being rolled back.

There are some that are clearly hostile or moving in the wrong direction. Cuba, for example, would be hostile. Then you get into the failed and fragile states, where it's a question of what do you do in a difficult situation?

If Canada were to look at its democracy promotion from a big-picture level, do you think any of those areas are better worth our focus? Do you think we should focus in a regional way? Do you think we should focus, or should we try to do everything everywhere?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Hearkening back to what I said a moment ago to an earlier question, first of all, I don't think there's one size fits all or any perfect democracy or model that we have to point to as being the only way it can work. Very importantly, democratic models can be consistent, for example, with other cultural beliefs and other institutional practices. There's no imposing of one style of democracy. It depends very much on the specifics of how the country itself has evolved. Historical context is very important when you're looking at ways to promote democracy.

As well, regional interests are one thing, but the country itself has to be willing to embrace what Canada might have to offer. So the basic principles that we believe in, that we're prepared to defend, have to be shared, to a large degree, I would suggest, before we're going to be able to provide any meaningful assistance. Efforts to promote regional reform around democratic principles require a delicate and thoughtful approach. I think it involves being consultative, open, and transparent about what you're trying to achieve. In years past, I think many democratic countries did this in a very quiet and almost nefarious way. If they were seen to be promoting democracy in other countries, this was seen to be undermining other countries' forms of government. I don't believe that. I think if you're very upfront about what you're hoping to accomplish and what basic good can flow from democratic practices, you learn very quickly whether the country you may be interested in is ready to embrace that.

So I think our efforts to promote democracy are predicated very much on the willingness of the country itself, and what is uniquely Canadian about the way we would do it and the way we have done it successfully is that we do it less intrusively and more inclusively, where we offer assistance, as opposed to taking an approach that says we have all the answers for you and here's what you should do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

It looks like all we will be able to get to, colleagues, is one round today.

Madam McDonough, for ten minutes, please.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you very much.

There's not nearly enough time, but I appreciate the minister coming before the committee and I want to pursue three subjects that have been raised.

The first subject is concerning Maher Arar. I think the discussion about democracy is an easy one in terms of agreeing as a committee from all sides about the importance of democracy, but I think the test is what do we really mean by that. I think people from not just within the country but across the world look on with some horror at the Arar injustices, at the unbelievable events that occurred to his life.

I would ask you to address further the continuing refusal, in fact in your own comments again today, to simply acknowledge the apology owing, the formal governmental apology owing, and secondly, to give a clear statement of commitment to just compensation. To hide behind lawyers because there could be some battles around this down the road does not serve as an acceptable excuse for not making a clear, unequivocal statement about fair compensation owing and a clear formal apology. I want to ask if you would comment on that briefly.

Secondly, you referred, I think with some justification, to the fact that Canada has an advantage among the nations advancing democracy because of our positive reputation in the world. But you will know, I'm sure, that before this committee, again and again and again over the last several years, we've had testimony from many respected international NGO representatives, diplomats, academics, and so on--including, by the way, the current president of CIDA--that in fact Canada's reputation has dwindled, declined, deteriorated significantly, because, among other things, of Canada's failure to deliver in any significant way on our overseas official development assistance obligations with timetables and targets, with serious steady progress towards the long overdue 0.7%.

Very specifically, in view of the fact that democracy is really an empty concept, an abstraction, unless in fact people can see the conditions of life improving, and those are indeed the positive conditions in which democracy is likely to flourish, I want to ask about your government's commitment to finally bringing in the legislation your leader committed to and that this committee unanimously proposed to government should be supported--in fact Parliament unanimously endorsed--a year and a half ago. What is your government's commitment to follow through on that?

Thirdly, with respect to Afghanistan, which you evoked several times as an example of good progress, and you specifically referred to the improved status of women, citing 27% women in the parliament, I know that you must know that in fact the conditions for women are utterly horrifying in many parts of Afghanistan.

Just to cite briefly a really appalling example of something that happened right here under this roof, we had President Karzai address us. I and several of my colleagues had an opportunity to talk with a number of Afghani Canadian women following the address to ask, “If you had an opportunity to make a statement, to raise questions in the House, what would they be, given your commitment to advancing the status of women and democracy”, and they said to ask about the incredible amount of violence, brutalization, raping, bribing, and killing in some cases, by drug lords, by the Northern Alliance, and an acknowledgement that the Taliban are not the only threat to the safety and security and the status of women in Afghanistan. What we heard was jeering. What we heard was heckling from the government benches from one end to the other at such a question.

I want to ask if you could address that question in an honest and forthright way, because it remains a very serious concern that is raised again and again and again by women and on behalf of women in Afghanistan today in many parts of the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madam McDonough.

Mr. Minister.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Ms. McDonough, I thank you for the question.

You and I were in Afghanistan together, and we saw, I would suggest, the significant progress that is being made, particularly in Kabul. Is there more work to do? Unquestionably.

Are there still atrocities taking place? Are women still being exploited? Do they have an equal footing, an equal place in society inside that country? No, they don't.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

At the hands of somebody other than just the Taliban. I think that's what people are desperate to hear this government acknowledge, because it seems as though it's an unmentionable truth.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

The truth that I know is out there is that the Taliban were one of the most vicious, repressive regimes that have ever darkened the door of any country, and what we have seen is significant change in the circumstances and progress of women's rights inside the country. That's undeniable. Is it enough? Is it sufficient? Is there still work to be done? Absolutely, there is, but I don't think somehow overlooking the fact that women are in a better place today in Afghanistan than they were five years ago.... It betrays the reality, and it also supports the contention that we should somehow pull back; that we should abandon our mission in Afghanistan; and that we should stop providing the defence and the security and the protection, keeping in mind Canada's longstanding promotion of the responsibility to protect. If we were to leave, then the Taliban are going to come back just as quickly and begin those oppressive practices again.

Is there work, particularly in the south, where the struggles remain very fierce? Yes, and we're committed to continuing our presence there to do all of the good things that you and I both want to see happen for women and children and human life.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Minister, what makes it unmentionable that there are serious abuses towards women by the Northern Alliance, the warlords, and the drug lords?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam McDonough, just let the minister finish.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

It's not unmentionable. You've mentioned it, and that's one of the great things about this country.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I'm hoping the government might be following me.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

One of the great things about this country is that you and I can both have opinions, and we can express them freely. We can have disagreements publicly. We can debate them on the floor of the House of Commons and here at committee.

People inside Afghanistan didn't have that right five years ago. To suggest that there are warlords, that there are people still involved in some of the bodies that are still functioning inside Afghanistan who are committing atrocities--nobody denies that. But what we're there to do, obviously, along with a UN-backed NATO mission, is to bring about the type of stability that will allow democracy to flourish; that will allow further development; that will allow the important work of the provincial reconstruction teams to take hold; that will allow the provision of aid, micro credit, infrastructure spending, the building of institutions, including a judiciary, a police force, and an Afghan army; and--back to Madam Barbot's question--that will eventually allow the people of Afghanistan and their democratically elected government to walk on their own. Then, and only then, can we talk about an exit strategy. I would suggest that to do that prematurely is to abandon the very things we believe in, in terms of promoting democracy and everything that flows from it.

On CIDA, our commitment remains very real. In fact, we've increased CIDA's budget by 8% a year, and it will double by the year 2012. We are still very much moving toward the 0.7% commitment. It's clear to me that CIDA's programs are making a difference in many corners of the world, just as, I would suggest, a lot of Canadians are who work in NGOs and in other organizations, even those that are not necessarily originating in our own country. The International Red Cross has a lot of Canadians working abroad. Many youth organizations are the beneficiaries of Canadian participation.

Do we have an obligation to do more? Is there progress being made? Yes, absolutely there is. It's not perfect. It's not fine-tuned perhaps to the extent that everyone would want it to be, but it's done with the best intent. I would suggest that the talented and very committed people in CIDA are always looking for ways to do more with the resources they have at their availability.

On your last question, about Mr. Arar, let me just say that it was horrible. It was absolutely deplorable what happened to him, what they did to him in Syria, and we communicated that very clearly. How that came about was a subject of another democratic principle that we embrace in this country, which is to have judicial and public inquiries when there have been instances when our system breaks down and fails Canadian citizens like Maher Arar, and we have to improve upon that based on lessons learned.

There is another principle here, and that's the rule of law. Mr. Arar has a $400 million lawsuit against the Government of Canada. I'm not going to say anything today that's going to jeopardize that lawsuit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We're going to adjourn now.

Again, just to underscore, Mr. Minister, we appreciate your coming to this committee. I want to remind you that this fall we look forward to having you back again. We will be discussing the estimates and the supplementary estimates, and we look forward to your being there for that.

The meeting is adjourned.