Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 18th, 2006

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

We have been told that in Afghanistan, for example, corruption is rife. What can be done to get aid to its intended recipients in such a situation?

[Gerry Barr]

The quick answer is that where it's not possible to provide aid in a proper fashion through government channels, you have the possibility of non-governmental organizations that can give you management and accountability. That's often the case where challenges of accountability have just reached the collapse point. But it takes a long while to get to the collapse point, I think—and perhaps rightly so—but that is the classic strategy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Barr.

Mr. Casey.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Broadbent, it's certainly good to have you back. I was just looking at your résumé here, and it says, among other things, “During his most recent term as an M.P. he was responsible for...Child Poverty.” I don't think that's a fair accusation.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

I had a most interesting discussion with a senior government official from Iran the other day. We got into a discussion about human rights and we compared Canada and Iran. He said you can't compare them because Iran has a different culture and a different religion, and their government is based on religion. That really brought home how difficult it is to advance the causes of human rights, equity for women, rule of law, and civil society if they don't believe there's a problem.

It was a fascinating discussion, but I was just wondering what we can do to try to break into that, to try to separate those in countries like Iran and other countries, where they just don't accept these things.

[Ed Broadbent]

That's a very tough one. I think we have to reply frankly that, yes, there are different cultures, there are different values, there are different religions, but there is one declaration that all members of the United Nations are committed to, and that's the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. When it was prepared, not only was it prepared by Christians and Jews, but Muslims and leadership from the Muslim community globally at that time. All religions and non-religious groups were considered in drafting this universal declaration.

I think that has to be stressed to leaders of authoritarian states and brutal states, like the one Iran is, especially in their treatment of women, but not just women. Yes, you have a different culture and you have a different religion, but where there is a clash between the cultural practice and a right found in the UN system, the practice should yield.

A wonderful NGO declaration on human rights was prepared by Asian NGOs in 1993—I think I'm quite right on this. It's worth tracking down. It's a wonderful declaration about human rights prepared, I repeat, by Asians, not westerners, and they make this point that is often made by, for example, ordinary Iranian citizens—and I know that in the case of Iran. In all these authoritarian societies, it's the heads of these societies who like to invoke their authoritarian tradition as an excuse for not complying with the elementary rights that their ordinary citizens would want.

Whether their ordinary citizens use rights language or not is another question. Young girls want to go to school as well as young boys, whether young girls in Iran say it's a right or not. They want to have the right to pack up and move down to the next town if they want. They want mobility rights whether they use rights language or not.

But those rights are, I repeat, in the universal declaration. Every member of the UN is obliged to comply with them. Finally, when there's a clash between a culture and a right, then the culture at some point has to yield.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Broadbent.

Mr. Van Loan, you have about two minutes left.

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

Mr. Broadbent, in your presentation, you did speak about something we've heard about from other witnesses, and that's the importance of civil society and democratization, and in fact democracy promotion having some kind of base within that society. You talked about how those kinds of groups have exploded in numbers on at least the human rights front, and presumably on other fronts too, in recent years.

You also talked about the need for funding, to the extent that we provide it, to be arm's length and so on. To what do you attribute that explosion in the funding from organizations? Whether it went through Rights and Democracy or the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy, or any of these other organizations, is that one of the causes of that explosion? Has it helped?

[Ed Broadbent]

It would be vain of those of us in the west to say we were a cause. It would not be vain to say we were a facilitator or that we helped. Many people I worked with in the nineties had their lives on the line in Guatemala, in El Salvador, in Indonesia. They were the risk-takers. I never was. I travelled on a diplomatic passport.

When we went in to help, it was because they were asking for help. They were trying, within their own societies, to develop what we call a rights-based society, a civil society. So it was not us who created this flourishing. We in democratic countries certainly helped. But the principal initiative, as it has always been historically, was that people in those countries did the pushing and the risk-taking in the demand, if you like, for freedom. We just helped a bit in making it possible.

I heard your earlier question about an arm's-length institution. If I may say so, because I'm not there now—another day maybe—we have in this country an arm's-length institution called Rights and Democracy, which was created as a recommendation of an all-party committee, through unanimous agreement; there were only three parties in the House at that time. It has a wonderful mandate. It's not a Canadian mandate; it's the whole UN family of rights mandate to build toward democracy.

I'm not there—it's not self-serving now—but I would personally have loved to see that institution significantly expanded. It could do some of the things it hasn't had the resources to do, like election monitoring and party-building, in addition to doing the fundamental civil society.

So to your point that I listened to earlier about arm's-length institutions, they are important. We have a unique one here in Canada in Rights and Democracy, and it gets most of its funding from Parliament, without political interference from any of the parties. I think it does a good job abroad.

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

Mr. Barr, we had an earlier witness speaking to us—you obviously wouldn't have been here to hear him—and he was a professor at the University of Toronto. I think he gave quite compelling evidence. One of the pieces of evidence he gave us was that $6,000 U.S. per capita income is the minimum threshold you want to see in a country if you expect to see democracy become sustainable, in order for you to apply your democracy promotion efforts in those kinds of countries. He said that's where you should focus. I was going to ask if you agreed with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

In thirty seconds or less, Mr. Barr.

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

So it's yes or no.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We know the bells are going to start ringing, and I want Ms. McDonough to have—

[Gerry Barr]

It's an empirical question and a very tough one. I don't honestly have a good answer to it, but skepticism is rolling forward as I hear your characterization of the position. Institutional weaknesses are the kinds of weaknesses one would look at, rather than GNP or an income number.

If I can take advantage of this—and I'll do it very quickly and very much in the interest of the committee—I know there was a lot of discussion about Afghanistan earlier on. There has been, of course, quite an important interdepartmental discussion going on now for more than a year. It has been a three-D discussion about Canada's policy with respect to failed and failing states. At the heart of this notion are issues of human rights, responsibility to protect, and humanitarian law. I would suggest to you strongly that there's this already quite mature work under way interdepartmentally. In the course of your study, you probably want to see that in front of you or have some of those involved in developing it come to speak to you as we are today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Barr.

We're going to go to Madam McDonough, for seven minutes, please.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm now going to fish for another compliment to this committee.

We appreciate your comments about the work we did together, collaboratively and across party lines. We reached unanimity in urging the government to move on 0.7%. I hope that resolve remains, because it was absolutely humiliating to be in the Nordic countries and the U.K. last week, as a committee, facing governments that are literally between 0.9% and 1% in some cases, having resolved to exceed the 0.7%.

But it's also true—and I say this in response to Mr. Broadbent's comments—that this committee urged that Rights and Democracy gain some increased funding after five straight years of the biggest slide in the resources they had to work with. By raising this, you've actually put me off my original intention to question in another direction.

As you may or may not be aware, Tom Axworthy and Jeffrey Kopstein appeared before this committee a couple of weeks ago, arguing for a new structure, a new agency, to be set up to engage in democracy-building work internationally. I'm trying to build on the repeated theme of the importance of democracy building really being about working with civil society in failed and fragile states, and also in developing countries that are, one hopes, moving toward democracy.

To really raise the question, if we have NGOs that are starved for funds, if we have civil society groups in those countries that are starved for funds to do the democracy building, do we need another new agency, or do we need to get on with delivering the 0.7%, get on with expanding Rights and Democracy's ability to do the job? Should we keep on trying, as a committee, to push forward on these fronts?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Ms. McDonough, I have a feeling Mr. Broadbent wants to answer this one.

[Ed Broadbent]

Yes, I do.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I'd like Gerry's comment too, because it's about civil society being funded as well.

[Ed Broadbent]

I want to emphasize my view. I don't think we need another institution. I think Rights and Democracy is there. It's beautifully structured and at arm's length from the government. It has a universal mandate, that being the UN system of rights and freedoms. It's focused on the kind of thing Gerry Barr has talked about, which is building civil society.

Most of Rights and Democracy, both when I was there and under my successors, has been working with groups. By and large, we left to CIDA or Elections Canada a lot of the election-related work or institution building--to ensure that you could have the rule of law and so on. I think that needs to be expanded, with an increased budget for Rights and Democracy, again with all party support.

I'll be political again here, if I may emphasize this, and give some credit to Mr. Mulroney as Prime Minister. When I became the first president, I proposed that we have a representative on the board from each of the parties; that is to say, they did not have to be active at that time, not MPs, of course, but there would be someone from each of the parties who had been active in political life and had an interest in human rights. That practice was maintained for many years, during all the time I was there. From all the parties in the House of Commons, there was some active person who at one time had been active in their party.

So Rights and Democracy is a political organization, but there was never a partisan decision made by the board, nor was there ever a suggestion made that the activity was partisan. The institution is there, and I urge the committee to look at maybe expanding the mandate somewhat, although I don't think that's necessary. It needs more resources, but new areas that they might work in could be discussed with the committee.

I'll shut up now and let Gerry get in on the question.

[Gerry Barr]

I'm sensitive to the fact that you're pressed for time. I would just say that although the roots of good political culture actually are in a robust civil society and pre-party, if I can put it that way, plainly the organization of social movements and political parties is an important part of the equation. To the extent that people are arguing for some attention to be paid to that, I think that's a good thing.

The question about vectors or channels is just about identifying efficient ones. If there is no efficient one now, then by all means, let's make one. It's a good emphasis, and an additional emphasis on some of the work that's going on now.

If I remember correctly the history of the discussion that went into the founding of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, it was just such a discussion. I think this was the discussion, in large measure, at the very beginning. The conclusion of people at the end of the day was to have something that would be somewhat broader in reach, if I'm not mistaken. Maybe historically I'm wrong, but I think that was the case.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Several times during our travels last week it occurred to some of us--I don't remember who, although we had a full discussion about it--that there might also be a more robust role for the Parliamentary Centre that could compliment some of the other work. Do you have any opinion on that? I never really thought very much about it before we were abroad.

[Ed Broadbent]

They can, should, and I'm sure would be totally willing to do more. I suspect it's a question of funding. I know they do good work.

To go back to my point, we already have that institution established. We have Rights and Democracy established. In fairness, I didn't hear Tom Axworthy's presentation, but I've heard the general argument before. I don't think we need another institution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Broadbent.

We want to thank you both for coming. It's a pleasure to have both of you here today. Certainly we're going to study your testimony. I know that as we travelled and looked at five countries, all of those countries were involved in democratic development. More specifically, I want to look into some of the organizations you've talked with. All of them were involved with the development of political parties in countries where people were not able.... They'd get elected, and some of them didn't even know the responsibilities of being a member of Parliament, and they didn't know how government works. To them it was like a job.

I'm certain we'll look at your testimony. We'll look at the mandate of some of those organizations that you've talked to, and we look forward to that.

We will adjourn.