Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 7th, 2019

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair]

Now we will move to MP Laverdière.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank both of you for your presentations this morning.

First, I'd like to speak to Ms. Eliadis, who is in Montreal, in my area.

First, I want to emphasize that I agree entirely with you that the issue of human rights must be at the core of democratic development, development policy, foreign policy and even trade policy, although that is another issue, of course.

You said that often, people do not turn to Canada, but tend rather to go to Sweden, the Netherlands or other countries like those. Is it a matter of expertise, or is the issue Canada's funding for this type of work?

[Pearl Eliadis]

Thank you very much for the question.

There are two answers to that question.

First, the fact is that expertise issues are intimately linked to financial issues.

This is what I want to say. When I am around the table in Tadjikistan or East Timor, people say that they have to pass the hat to see who will subsidize a project. In the countries where I have personal experience, everyone knew that Canada did not have the funds and that often, unfortunately, it did not have expertise at the official level, if you will, to go forward.

That said, what my colleague said is entirely correct. Canadian men and women are very involved and very present internationally. We have to be able to reach these people and rally them within the framework of a global institution.

In short, it seems very important to me that the funding be there, but also that Canada be present, and have an independent voice to express its values. It's important to contribute to the global financial effort, but often we lose our voice.

I would also like to say that I support the point which was just made.

I will switch to English for this second part because my thinking on this has been in English. A key point of funding has to be around core funding. This idea of project funding that became popular in the early 2000s, which characterizes government funding and sadly has bled into funding of major Canadian foundations, has condemned civil society workers and non-governmental workers to subsistence salaries. It means that we cannot be sustainable because we're always thinking about the next project and we're always building our way of behaving and doing around the next project. I would strongly urge this committee, especially if it is thinking about a foundation, to set aside the idea of project funding and really focus on human rights, to really focus on political governance, to really focus on what it is trying to achieve as a concept and as a holistic idea rather than this really retrograde idea of project funding.

You cannot projectize human rights. You cannot projectize political governance. These are broad projects that have to be engaged in holistically and, in my view, multilaterally.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you, and I totally agree.

Mr. Deveaux, you mentioned the role Canada could play in strengthening political institutions.

When we talk about strengthening political institutions, the participation of women in parliaments is a theme that often comes up. It's a file in which Canada is far from perfect. Only 20% of the members of one of our three major parties are women, which is vastly inferior to the world representation average.

So, how do we resolve this problem? I don't think that generally speaking, there are many countries we can preach to with regard to that issue. How do we overcome that difficulty?

[Kevin Deveaux]

I'm going to provide a very specific example that I share very often when I am working in the field of women's political empowerment, which I know may seem odd, but in the international field if you can bring the perspective of different countries it's valued no matter your gender. I often raise the NDP example of how the party—and I know it fairly well from my experience—slows down the nomination processes, how it tries to encourage and mentor women to come forward as candidates, and how that has had some success. I think there are examples in Canada that we can share that can have some value beyond our borders. Is it the only example? No, there are plenty of examples out there of other countries. I can talk about the Rwanda process and how they have succeeded in reaching over 60%. We can talk about the Swedish model, or the Scandinavian model, but I wouldn't necessarily dismiss Canada as not having any experience in this. I think there are examples from our country that can be brought forward, and people do want to hear about those, particularly in those countries that have a first-past-the-post electoral system like ours. They don't have a proportional representation system in which women are put on the list as party candidates. They have women who are trying to win seats in single-member constituencies, and I think that Canada does have some lessons on how we've done that.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much.

MP Sidhu, please, you have the floor.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you both for your testimony this morning.

Mr. Chair, I have a small correction to make on making friends around the world. I think the present government has made more friends by signing the CPTPP, representing 500 million people in 11 countries, and signing the new NAFTA agreement, the USMCA, representing another 500 million people. I think the present government is doing a great job making more friends around the world.

Getting back to the real issue here, the previous witness commented that fewer than 20% of the people around the world exercise a democratic right. Mr. Deveaux, you commented that Canada is not a serious player, despite the fact the present government is promoting gender equality and empowering women around the world. We have Elections Canada, a body for fair elections. With that 20%...where do they see Canada? Where do we fit in the puzzle? Are we seen as a leader in the democratic world, or not?

I'll share my time with Mr. Sikand after this.

[Kevin Deveaux]

Canada is seen as a country with long-standing democratic principles, ones by which we have managed a diverse country, a multilingual country. You have so many challenges, of course, to address. However, I think, as my colleague said, being a country that was not a colonial power does allow us at times to have a more honest conversation with those in other countries than maybe some of the others that are leaders in this field. There is opportunity for Canada to step forward and provide a perspective that is different—and it is different. I think we just need to be, as I said earlier, a little bolder about how we go about doing that, whether in political governance, human rights or many other areas.

Thank you.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I'll pass it on to Mr. Sikand.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

My colleague, Jati, just brought up trade and how we're really pushing for that. Pearl, I guess this question is directed to you. Earlier, we heard about value-laden statements, morality and the right things to do. We also heard about security. Could you speak to how access to resources, employment and maybe capitalism is tied to human rights and democracy?

[Pearl Eliadis]

Sure. Perhaps the best way of making that connection is through a tangible example. In the late 2000s, before the last civil war in Sri Lanka, I was invited by the European Union, specifically because I'm Canadian, to go into the country and do an assessment of the extent to which the Sri Lankan government was complying with civil and political rights.

It was a pretty fraught time, and the mission was actually not a straight human rights mission. It was tied to something called the GSP+, a codicil in the European Union documentation that allows the European Union to remove most-favoured-nation trading status from a country if it appears that that country is not complying with human rights. That's a direct example of how the human rights practices of a given country are being directly connected to its capacity to take advantage of trade and tariffs favourable to it, based on its human rights records.

There are well established ways of tying a country's performance in human rights to trade, recognizing, as has been said before, that this is a slow and gradual process. It's a marathon. It's not a sprint, but you need to have markers in place to make sure that you are using both carrots and sticks, if I can use that analogy, and that you can connect the way you're trading with a country to the values you actually espouse. It seems to me that this is not only an ethical way to proceed, but also a way to bring to the fore the human rights values your country claims to aspire to and to make a real and tangible connection to human rights outcomes.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you for that answer.

I have very little time.

Kevin, I was recently trapped on Koh Samui during the storm and was also in Bangkok.

In Thailand, for example, their monarchy is revered but they also have a democracy. Could you please speak to how those can go hand in hand and how one system can support democracy?

[Kevin Deveaux]

I'm a little hesitant to talk about the democracy in Thailand. I'm not so sure. They're having elections on March 24, so let's hope they are successful.

I think there are always challenges. I don't think it always has to be a monarch. Some people say to me that Canada has a queen and wonder how that works. They're baffled it if they come from a republic. Obviously, we are talking about constitutional monarchies, and if we're talking about democracy that is how we need to proceed. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I think that in most countries in the world whether there is a queen or a king or a president, there is always a need to balance the head of state versus how the government operates.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much to both of our witnesses for taking the time to join us and provide your insights this morning.

With that, members, we do have some committee business.

I'm going to suspend briefly while we go in camera.

Thank you very much.

We'll suspend.

[The Chair]

I'd like to open up the floor to any members who would like to add their condolences on the passing of MP Dewar.

I also want to recognize again the heartfelt words of our colleague from the NDP, and the thoughts of all members of this committee, being passed along to the family of MP Dewar on his passing.

We'll begin with MP Wrzesnewskyj, please.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for this opportunity.

Many people are aware of the tremendous work that our former colleague Paul Dewar did here in Ottawa.

He also did a tremendous amount of work on some of the most difficult international files. Soon after he was elected, he joined our committee for the prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity, chaired by Senator Dallaire. He took over the chair of that committee after a couple of years and continued the tremendous work of Senator Dallaire, shining a light in some of the darkest corners of the world, a light that shone directly into the face of the darkest and most horrific of evils, genocide and crimes against humanity. I think it's important that we remember that work.

I'd also like to quickly read from Paul's final posting yesterday, in which he wrote to many of us here.

Dear Friends, The time has come...to say goodbye. Let's nurture and grow with peace, love and unity. Let's join hands and hearts....

Paul, shine on my friend. May your example and work continue to shine on.

Thank you.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much, MP Wrzesnewskyj.

I think on that note, and reflecting on the inspirational legacy left to us by MP Dewar, we shall adjourn this meeting.

Thank you.