Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 19th, 2019

[Jacqueline O'Neill]

I'd say the biggest way we can deal with this long term and fundamentally is by enhancing our critical thinking skills.

This is something that I've sharpened through engagement with a lot of women, working to counter poles of violent extremism and radicalization around the world. They're saying that some of what is getting foisted upon us by international donors is the idea of counter-narratives that we're going to put back out on social media, the ways that government is good and the ways that this government actually is supporting x, y and z.

They're saying combatting messages with messages is never going to be the winning path. What we need to do is focus on the critical thinking skills of our citizens and our populations. I think that's something that Canada can bring very directly.

In the shorter term, I think we have to make sure that there's a very close link between women and civil society activists and technology companies. I often hear from women mobilizing about new ways that technology is being used to subvert their activity, different apps that are being developed, different approaches of surveillance, etc. To the extent that there's a more direct connection between women fighting for democracy in any country, including our own, and the technology companies that are running these platforms, I think that's one of the best short-term things that we can do.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Okay.

[Ed Broadbent]

The only point I would add to that is the question of regulating institutions or multinational corporations like Facebook, for example, to head off the future use of this kind of technology in a way that undermines our elections and other elections around the world by creating dissent and conflict within societies. Without going into great detail—frankly, I couldn't in terms of technical expertise—the approach taken within the European Union about regulating Facebook, as an example, is something I think we should look more carefully at.

On the one hand, we don't want—as was suggested earlier in the day—the Internet to be controlled by government, but on the other hand, when you have large corporate entities that are acting on their own, which has led willy-nilly to the manipulation of their own technical possibilities to do harm to democracies, I think there is a place for some government regulation to make sure this doesn't happen.

As I say, I don't have personal expertise on this, but it seems to me from my reading that the European Union has moved sensibly in this kind of direction out of concern for democracy.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

You mentioned critical thinking as a critical element of this, so I guess the critical element we're missing then is equitable education around the world, and we can only hope to get to that spot.

I don't want to dwell on that too much as I only have about a minute left, but in the previous panel we heard, and we heard this before, that it's the 13th consecutive year of the decline of democracy in principle. We're talking about spreading democracy and encouraging other countries to have it. Is American democracy, which is the model of democracy that people look to, healthy? Do we do a good job of respecting democracy once it's established?

[Jacqueline O'Neill]

I don't think it's fundamentally healthy. We've seen a lot in the last several years, when you scratch the veneer, some of the institutions crumble relatively quickly. While many people look to American democracy, that's changing. In relative terms, Canada's standing and our approach to democracy has significantly enhanced in many people's minds. I'd also note that one of the reasons there are so many Canadians working on democratization abroad is that our model of democracy is desired by other countries rather than the American one. Fewer are wanting an export of a congressional system, especially when it is so rife with money and outside influence.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much. We're actually out of time on that question.

We have about four minutes to go.

Mr. Saini.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Good morning to both of you.

Mr. Broadbent, I want to ask you a specific question, because I want to get your opinion. The subcommittee on human rights has had some sessions on Venezuela, and now our committee will be studying and maybe have a couple of meetings on Venezuela. You can appreciate the deteriorating situation right now. Canada recently pledged $53 million to help with the refugee crisis that's occurring in Brazil and Colombia.

As you are aware, there's the hyperinflation, the deteriorating economic situation, and the deteriorating political situation. Protestors are being beaten and dissidents are being jailed. Currently, the way we look at it, Mr. Guaido is being recognized on a daily basis as more the rightful ruler of Venezuela. Recently, as of today or yesterday or last week, Japan also supported him as the leader of Venezuela. What do you think of Canada's position? Do you think we're doing the right thing by supporting him and trying to mitigate the humanitarian crisis on the ground in Venezuela?

[Ed Broadbent]

Would you like to ask me a different question? That's an immensely complex issue.

I've normally been on the side, in terms of international law and government, that whatever group happens to be in control of the major institutions—parliaments, courts, armies—whether we like that particular group or party or not, it should be recognized as the government of the day.

On the other hand, the government of the day in Venezuela is abominable, according to almost every human rights evaluation, in terms of recent elections, in terms of how it is treating people in terms of rights and concerns of the population. I can well understand why not only Canada but many other democracies, that I have a respect for in western Europe and elsewhere, are supporting the leader of the opposition. However, this is almost an unparalleled situation. All I can say is I understand that. Certainly, if I were a voting person, I would be voting for the opposition leader, my personal choice in all of this.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

The reason I ask you this is there's a certain element in the Venezuelan constitution which makes this even more complex. It's article 233, which states that if there's a vacuum of leadership, or if there's a vacuum in the presidency, then the head of the national assembly can temporarily take that position. Because of the fact that the previous elections were not fair or not free, where dissidents were jailed—this is the reason I wanted to ask the question—because of that stipulation within its own constitution, could that be seen as a legitimate way of trying to mitigate the crisis and change the political trajectory there?

[Ed Broadbent]

Well, that's certainly what people in governments are looking to justify in supporting this opposition leader.

As I said, I understand that. However, it's not a normal healthy procedure internationally for our government or any other government to get involved in putting pressure on another country in terms of shaping its government. Therefore, as I said, it's a very exceptional situation and kind of a Hobson's choice: You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

One thing I would not be in agreement with—and this is what's causing concern—is the forceful involvement of the President of the United States who is talking about using force, to use his words, not taking the option of force off the table. That's entirely counterproductive in my view, and it is what makes a lot of people apprehensive about any government getting involved in shaping the destiny, the formation, of a government of another society.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

In terms of Canada's position with its leadership within the Lima Group, they have ruled out any attempt of force. As you know, the United States is not part of the Lima Group, so that's an isolated comment by the President.

I think Canada's position is quite clear. We want to work politically to find a solution and not use force in any way.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank Ms. O'Neill from Washington, Ed Broadbent with us here in Ottawa, and our previous two witnesses as well, for some very, very important testimony this morning.

I also want to thank all members for getting up early to meet at 8:45 on a Tuesday morning, and for being here sharply and with such good questions to ask.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.