Foreign Affairs Committee on April 11th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you.

Mr. Caron, you have the floor.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'll start with you, Mr. Way. You have an interesting perspective. You think that one of the reasons for the rise in authoritarianism and populism is the fact that political parties are no longer as different in terms of their economic agendas. Many parties now have similar economic agendas. Do you think the people are looking for other ways to be heard, with what may be different concerns?

Another witness who spoke today today told us that one of the solutions to combat today's authoritarianism and populism would be a return to ideology. He said that traditional political parties have moved away from ideology itself, leaving room for other parties that use issues like immigration or the decline of the manufacturing sector as lightning rods to attract these people.

What do you think about this potential solution for the traditional parties in our Liberal democracy?

[Prof. Lucan Way]

I think that the traditional parties, the central left parties, need to begin representing the interests of their older constituents. In the 1990s and 2000s, there developed a kind of technocratic ethos where there was the idea that economic policies were outside of politics and should be left to the experts.

I think that's a very dangerous trend. Parties, in the traditional sense, need to represent their constituents, many of whom are losers in reform. Again, that's why I think that Canada should support a diversity in economic views among the parties in Europe and the former Soviet Union.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Another point you raised is tolerance. Immigration can be a polarizing social issue. Canada is a welcoming country and needs immigrants right now. We have seen other waves of immigration in the past, for example, during the first half of the 20th century. Sure, both the world and Canada have experienced conflicts since then, but immigration has never had such broad social implications as it does today.

Why is the topic of immigration in Canada these days so polarizing, compared to the early 20th century?

[Prof. Lucan Way]

I have to say that is outside my area of expertise, but I believe that Canada represents a model in its openness right now. I agree with the previous speaker that a big role that Canada can play is acting as a model of tolerance in a world in which there are very few tolerant governments.

I very much agree with you. I think that immigration is absolutely necessary for both the economy and also in terms of spreading liberalism. Ultimately, liberalism is going to be spread by increasing openness and the like.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Way.

Ms. Dugal, do you have any thoughts on this?

[Zoe Dugal]

I completely agree with you that immigration plays a very big role in Liberal democracies. Canada is one example of that. I sincerely believe that it's important to focus on how immigration contributes to diversity, which makes us better off. Diversity is an intrinsic value in Canada, which is a land of immigrants. Diversity is in our genes. Every person born in Canada is born into a country in which minorities, immigrants and all kinds of groups live together, including some that have been here for centuries. From childhood, we are taught the value of assimilation.

Europe, however, is not necessarily like that. It's the birthplace of the nation-state and has always been a continent divided into nations that work together, sure, but that are not necessarily integrated. I think it's almost miraculous that the European Union came to be. This organization must continue to evolve. It will however have to be reinvigorated, since it unfortunately no longer inspires Europeans.

The purpose of diversity is therefore to make us better off, not just economically, but also culturally and politically. I believe that Canada has an important role to play in demonstrating this aspect.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you very much.

I have one last question. I may have misunderstood, and correct me if that's the case. I think you said that it would be justified to put pressure on certain countries where populism is emerging. This was the case in Venezuela, for example.

I'm not talking about military intervention, of course, but sanctions or other forms of pressure. What could justify putting pressure on Venezuela over other countries that may be experiencing the same situation but that we hear less about? I'm thinking about Honduras, where we're also seeing a kind of authoritarianism.

[Zoe Dugal]

The responsibility to protect is a doctrine that defines where and when to intervene. We obviously must always assess the situation. The idea is that we should intervene when the population is suffering from the existing regime and when this regime has turned against the population. I used the example of Venezuela because its population is wanting for everything. This country is experiencing a humanitarian crisis that calls for international intervention because its government does not seem to want to protect its population. There are other examples in the world that I could have used. That said, international intervention would be justified in a similar situation, according to this doctrine.

Normally, the world operates on the principle of the sovereignty of nations. We must therefore not intervene everywhere, because that would be completely unjustified. The responsibility to protect only calls for international intervention when a state turns against its population and is causing suffering. In the case of Venezuela, I think that this principle applies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you very much.

We will now move to what's going to be our last question.

We'll have MP Wrzesnewskyj, please.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to pull a few things together here. Our study is about the threats to liberal democracy, but we will be issuing recommendations in our report.

I'd like to move to how Canada—other than being a shining example perhaps—can proactively engage internationally. It also pulls in the whole concept of the responsibility to protect. Some people think of it strictly in the terms of Libya and bombing, but I think there are other models where we can demonstrate that responsibility to protect.

That's why I turn to you, Ms. Dugal. We are doing something that is unique. The word is improperly used too often, but in Ukraine our CANADEM mission—200 electoral observers, engaging grassroots Canadians directly on behalf of fair and free elections—has proven to be incredibly successful, and it's not our first time. We've been doing this since 2004. We're actually standing shoulder to shoulder with the people in defence of liberal democracy, and arguably on the front line of the most important geopolitical battle for liberal democracy today.

I'd like you to just tell us whether or not you believe we should look at duplicating this particular model of direct engagement by Canada in other places beyond Ukraine. We've done it in Ukraine now for 14 years. It's successful, it's proven to be successful and we're doing it again. Could you comment about that?

[Zoe Dugal]

Yes. I agree with you. I think it's exactly what you're saying. We are standing with the Ukrainian people to look at their progress as a democracy, and we're supporting them. Of course, we are analyzing the election and observing it, but it's also the presence of these 200 observers that are a mixture of Canadians. We've managed to get people from all the provinces and two territories, who are a mixture of ages, a mixture of Ukrainian Canadians and others, and so on. We are showing the diversity of Canada—I think this is an important point—and we are showing our presence in Ukraine as a support to the Ukrainian democratization process. The elections have been evolving and we also have this presence such that we can say that we were here in 2004, in 2010, in 2012 and so on, so that there is some kind of continuity in what we observe and what we recommend to the Ukrainian government and state.

Otherwise, I think, yes, we have a reason to go to Ukraine, because Canada and Ukraine have a very strong relationship and we have a huge diaspora in Canada of Ukrainian Canadians, but we have other diasporas also. Some election processes in other countries would also warrant Canada's involvement and attention, let's say. We could start with countries from which we have diasporas in Canada. We have many Haitian Canadians, for example, and there are many examples all over Europe, Latin America and Africa where we can, let's say, use these people who are Canadians but who have different backgrounds to also inspire and guide us in these missions.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

You've actually taken this to the next point that I wanted to make, which is the fact that we can be doing this sort of work not just in nascent democracies but in sliding democracies. I referenced Ukraine as fighting the most important geopolitical front-line battle for Liberal democracy, but as Professor Way mentioned, there's a battle behind the lines in Europe itself that Putin in many ways is financing. We have a large Hungarian diaspora in Canada. There are elections coming up in 2022.

I have a quick question for you once again, Ms. Dugal, and then I'll flip over to Professor Way.

Do you think we could prepare a similar mission, perhaps different in scale but similar, for Hungary in 2022?

[Zoe Dugal]

Yes, I think that would be a great idea. I think the expertise within Canada is there to put such missions in place, both in terms of logistics and in terms of content and methodology. Of course, these missions always have to be accepted by the country where they are deployed. In the case of Ukraine, this has never been a problem. There are excellent relationships between Canada and Ukraine.

I cannot comment specifically on the Hungarian case. Of course, Hungary would first have to welcome international observers. If this were the case, then I think we would have the right resources to put this in place.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I have been signalled that my time is up. Thank you for your answers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you both for your testimony this morning. Thank you to all the witnesses on both of our panels.

Before we adjourn, I just want to let committee members know that the Arctic report was tabled yesterday. We then did the follow-up press conference, which I think went very well, and there have already been a number of articles and reports covering the report that seemed to be quite favourable.

I just want to thank members again, especially our analysts and our clerk for the logistics and the substance of the work they did on this report, a report that, I will remind everybody, was passed unanimously. Thank you to all.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.