Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on May 8th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Good morning, colleagues.

Good morning colleagues. I now call to order this meeting of the Subcommittee on National Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

We continue today with witnesses with respect to our study of the human rights situation in Cuba. We have two witnesses who Marcus had proposed for the committee.

[Marcus Pistor, Committee Researcher]

One was recommended by Madame St-Hilaire.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

With us today are Ms. Dulce-Maria Cruz-Herrera, a research associate with the Centre for Research on Immigration, Ethnicity and Citizenship, of the University of Quebec at Montreal, and Professor Archibald Ritter, who is with the Department of Economics and the School of International Affairs at Carleton University.

Madam Cruz Herrera's brief was sent for translation this morning.

I'll ask Madam Cruz Herrera to please begin. We have about ten minutes for your presentation, and that will be followed by questions.

Ms. Cruz-Herrera, you have the floor.

[Dulce-Maria Cruz-Herrera, Research Associate, Centre de recherche sur l'immigration, l'ethnicité et la citoyenneté, Université du Québec à Montréal]

I wish to thank all parliamentarians for having invited me here to share with you my knowledge and views on the state of human rights in Cuba. I have prepared a submission entitled "The State of Human Rights in Cuba: Context and Perspectives". To stay within the time allotted, I will summarize my position and later, share with you a few of my recommendations to the Government of Canada. These recommendations are being put forward to the Subcommittee of International Human Rights as part of its current study.

Let me put things in context for you. First of all, it's important to understand that two major factors have influenced the evolution of human rights in Cuba. The first is economic globalization, which also impacts to some degree the protection and enjoyment of human rights. The second factor is regional in nature, namely U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba which is characterized by wide-ranging economic sanctions and increased intervention in the country's domestic affairs.

The evolution of this conflict has had a decisive impact on the development of State policies aimed at structuring and ensuring the protection of human rights in Cuba. Because of the incessant and excessive politicization of this issue, a universal principle, the primacy of which need not be demonstrated, has sometimes been shunted aside. I'm referring here to the principle that all human rights are indivisible, universal and interdependent.

This principle holds that civil and political rights do not take precedence over economic, social and cultural rights. Furthermore, certain rights must not be placed above others. The human rights situation in Cuba must be examined from a broad perspective. Specifically, it's important to consider how human rights are enjoyed overall, and not simply to focus on certain rights at the expense of others.

Upholding human rights is a major challenge faced by all countries that make up the international community. To date, no State has succeeded in fully honouring its international obligations as set out in international human rights conventions.

Despite strong international consensus on the issue of unconditional protection of peace and security, the conflict drags on. Each week, 2,200 hours of radio programming funded by the U.S. government is broadcast to Cuba. I mention this because radio programming is at the source of problems relating to the violation of the civil and political rights of Cubans, who welcome these broadcasts. The Cuban government, on the other hand, views such programs as illegal and subversive.

Consequently, the Cuban government has developed a defensive strategy to break free of the targeted media hold of the neighbouring superpower. In addition to scrambling radio and telecommunications signals, Cuban authorities have amended some of their laws. Cubans who take up the call to sow the seeds of political unrest can now be punished.

The adoption by the Cuban government of Bill 88, an Act to protect the independence and economy of Cuba, is another example of a defensive strategic move. Among other things, the legislation provides for lengthy prison sentences to be handed to State opponents. This strategy to defend Cuba's sovereignty clashes with the actions of Cuban citizens who, in exercising their civil and political rights, have become involved in political organizations opposed to the Castro regime which are either funded and backed by the U.S. government or by American organizations. Therefore, any serious analysis of the human rights situation must be done while bearing in mind the ongoing bilateral conflict characterized by the United States' economic and political interventionism.

I recommend that the committee include in its consideration of the human rights situation in Cuba, the Cuban government's performance with respect to the implementation of international human rights protection legislation.

As you are aware, there are committees that monitor and implement this legislation. I am referring to the various United Nations committees, including the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, and the Committee Against Torture which monitors the application of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It is important to consider the analyses and recommendations of these monitoring bodies in the light of the reports presented by Cuban government officials, given their significant educational and legal value.

We also think that the work and reports on the activities of the following intergovernmental organizations are also very important: the World Health Organization, the Pan-American Health Organization, the United Nations Population Fund, the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the United Nations Children's Fund, the World Food Program, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and the International Fund for Agricultural Development. I would also suggest that when you begin your study, you consider what these organizations have written about the achievement and enjoyment of human rights in Cuba.

I would now like to very briefly describe some reports, including those on the human rights situation in Cuba drafted by the United Nations Human Rights Committee. This was previously the Human Rights Commission. The work done on the human rights situation, under the auspices of the previous Human Rights Commission, re-baptized the Human Rights Committee last year, has attracted a significant amount of attention since special rapporteurs were appointed for the purposes of considering the human rights situation in Cuba. These rapporteurs are the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, I would add to that list Notice No. 9 in the report presented by the working group on arbitrary detention at the 60^th session of the former Human Rights Commission dealing with the situation in Cuba.

In September 2005, the personal representative of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, Ms. Christine Chanet, presented the most recent report on human rights in Cuba to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. The Cuban authorities never recognized the mandate of the High Commissioner's representative, which made exchanges extremely difficult, if not impossible.

In order to better understand the process, one needs to refer back to the debates that followed the presentation of that report, in September 2006, at the time when the members of the Human Rights Committee were obviously deeply divided not only when those positions were created, but also with respect to the content of the report. The heated discussions that took place after the report was presented are reminiscent of the endless ideological confrontations that took place during the Cold War between the former socialist countries and the developing countries on the one hand, and the industrialized western countries on the other. Those differences obviously continue today.

If you refer to those debates, you will note that the officials from Korea, Russia, Belarus and Zimbabwe, among others, expressed reservations about the contents of the report.

I am not challenging one of the fundamental pillars of the United Nations, which is international human rights protection. I am very supportive of the creation and development of the positions of special rapporteurs on human rights situation throughout the world. These positions are important because they implement the principle of integral protection of human rights which is contained in the United Nations Charter.

Nevertheless, one needs to be aware of how deeply polarized the members of the Human Rights Commission were in 2002, when the position was created, and in September 2006, when the Commission released its report.

Finally, any thorough consideration of the human rights situation in Cuba must also take into account the major environmental changes and the serious impacts they have had over the past 10 or so years on the island's soil. A number of natural phenomena, such as cyclones and drought, have wrought considerable economic and material damage. This damage has a serious impact and consequences as far as protecting, defending, and therefore achieving respect for human rights in Cuba.

Despite the adequate early warning and response system put in place by Cuban authorities, the recurrence and growing severity of these natural disasters is hampering recovery and reconstruction efforts. Based on all available forecasts, the cumulative effects of these natural disasters and periods of chronic drought will continue to worsen. This situation tangibly affects the enjoyment of economic and social rights in Cuba.

In conclusion, I've prepared a number of recommendations. The first recommendation focuses on the democratic transition which began in Cuba some time ago. It is my recommendation that the Government of Canada encourage the Cuban government to promote political pluralism and a multi-party system, provided that various political parties are represented in the National Assembly in Havana, in keeping with Cuban law, including political party financing rules.

This is an important issue because the Government of Cuba, like any sovereign government, cannot tolerate the existence of political parties or organizations financed and propped up by a foreign government, entity or organization. Could you imagine a new political party financed entirely by the Australian or Afghan government, by the Taliban, or by Osama bin Laden, sitting beside the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, and the NDP, in the House of Commons? That would be undemocratic and fly in the face of every rule of democracy.

A country's political parties must be financed according to the financing rules and laws governing political party financing and must not be supported and financed by a foreign government. Not only is that undemocratic, it also hampers economic development since the whole democratic process centres on defending the State's sovereignty.

I also recommend that the Government of Canada put pressure on the United States' government to end the U.S.'s current foreign policy toward Cuba. Since 1959, that policy has consisted primarily of imposing unilateral economic sanctions.

I would remind you that this policy has been condemned by the United Nations' General Assembly. Fourteen resolutions have been adopted since 1992 in addition to the reports commissioned by the National Assembly from the UN Secretary General calling for the enforcement of these resolutions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Pardon me, Madam, but could you please wrap up your presentation?

[Dulce-Maria Cruz-Herrera]

Yes, I'll present my recommendations.

I recommend that the Government of Canada call upon Cuban and American authorities to re-establish their bilateral relations; that it refrain from any involvement in the politicization of Cuban human rights, as has been recommended by members of the Human Rights Committee; that it consider the impact of economic globalization on the achievement, protection and effective enjoyment of human rights in Cuba; that it acknowledge the serious repercussions of the U.S.' foreign policy in Cuba in terms of the enjoyment of human rights in Cuba; and finally, that it consider not only the findings of the Cuban government, but also the reports and studies presented by the intergovernmental organizations that I mentioned earlier.

Lastly, I also recommend to the Government of Canada, and to this subcommittee when it drafts its report, to consider the impact of climate and environmental change which seriously impacts the achievement and enjoyment of all human rights in Cuba.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Thank you, Ms. Cruz-Herrera.

We'll move now to Professor Ritter.

Go ahead, Mr. Ritter.

[Professor Archibald R. M. Ritter, Economics and International Affairs, Carleton University]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before this committee. I just learned about it on Sunday, so I'm sorry I don't have a written statement for you.

I must say, I'm happy that my name is Ritter today, and not Radler, although I'm sure your questioning will be just as tough as what he's facing.

Basically my argument differs from that of the previous speaker. In my view, Cuba is an east European totalitarian-type state, with rather identical structures and identical institutions to those that existed in eastern Europe. Perhaps it's totalitarian-light, with nice music, nice beaches, and so on, but the country is controlled by an autocratic regime in which there is a one-party monopoly; within that one party, a central committee; and within the central committee, a politburo; and within the politburo, Fidel. The country, I would say, is controlled substantially, not totally, by the party and Fidel.

The sources that I'm going to use for my presentation are Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, and the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation.

I would recommend one book in particular. This is a publication of Human Rights Watch, called Cuba's Repressive Machinery. It presents in great detail the ways in which Cuban society is controlled in quite a totalitarian way by the party apparatus.

The basic charter of Cuba's political system is determined by its constitution and its penal code. Much of the constitution reads like a normal western document informed by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, there are a couple of clauses, a couple of articles in the Constitution that nullify other nice-sounding declarations favouring freedom of speech, and so on.

One of these is article 5. Article 5 of the constitution enshrines the dominance and monopoly of the Communist Party in Cuban life, and by implication, it makes illegal other types of political parties. As a result, the Communist Party dominates the military, ministries, and the universities. It's very powerful. It has a parallel structure in the university to the administration. I know about this from first-hand experience, as our university, Carleton University, provided a master's program in economics at the University of Havana, in western economics, an interesting thing, but we tangled with the Communist Party, which was watching very closely what we were doing in our classrooms.

Article 62 of the constitution states that none of the freedoms, fairly normal freedoms, recognized in the constitution for citizens may be exercised against the provisions of the Constitution of the Laws, nor against the building of socialism and communism. Infractions of this principle are punishable. A new part of the constitution, an amendment of 2002, declares socialism to be irrevocable. So if one argues that there should be a change from the current system, there are problems for that person.

The penal code goes into a lot of detail defining what are crimes. A lot of that is fairly normal, but there are some interesting things there. Desacato, or disrespect—if one is disrespectful of institutions, or the civil servants or the leader, the leadership, or Fidel, you can go to jail. People are in jail for that reason. Peligrosidad, dangerousness—people go to jail for that particular item, and so on.

When one goes down the basic rights in Cuba, of freedom of expression and freedom of association, one sees that these do not exist in the sense in which we recognize them in Canada.

As to freedom of expression, well, as we know, there's a monopoly of all the electronic and print media by the Communist Party of Cuba. Criticism of the party, the leadership, and public policy from positions outside of those approved by the party is prohibited. Publications, teaching in universities, and think-tanks are severely curtailed. Academic freedom as we know it does not exist, I can tell you.

Professors get fired for what they say. Reporters are jailed—29 reporters are in jail for saying things the party doesn't like. Freedom of association? At this time, there are 278 political prisoners. The one-party monopoly does not tolerate other political parties.

And I disagree: some of the opposition in Cuba tangled with the Americans, and the Americans very foolishly have provided support in kind for opposition members. That's a very stupid thing to do. But the vast majority of the opposition in Cuba has stated that they want a Cuban solution, and they are not involved with the American embassy in any way.

I could talk about freedom of movement, which is curtailed; the right to work, which is limited according to one's political views. There's basically an internal passport system in Cuba, an identity system. If you are caught in the wrong part of the country and you live in another part, the police can send you home. That happens.

Let me say a few words, if I have time, about Canadian policy towards Cuba. Our policy since 1994, and even before it was given this label, has been one of “constructive engagement”. The objectives of this constructive engagement, enunciated by Christine Stewart and elaborated by Axworthy, were support for positive, peaceful evolution to a society with full respect for human rights and genuinely representative government institutions. That's a great objective. I would support it totally.

The way this was to be done is through normal trade and foreign investment, tourist and migration relationships, correct and respectful diplomatic relations, and some development assistance aimed at human rights and democratic development types of activities.

Was the constructive engagement successful? In some senses, in terms of promoting human rights and democratic development, obviously it was not. However, I would say that it was extremely naive on our part to expect that our normal relationship plus a few little aid programs could influence the Cuban regime in any way.

We had a variety of programs, very small, designed to promote human rights and democratic development. I think they were useful, but they were all very small. The total budget for them was about $1.3 million, and we couldn't really expect that they would have much impact. And they didn't.

Should Canada continue with constructive engagement? I would say yes, in some senses, but with a more realistic expectation of what it might achieve. I think it's always positive to be constructive. I think Canada has done well to maintain normal, correct diplomatic and economic relations with Cuba over the years; I'm proud of that. That has worked a whole lot better than American policy.

However, the constructive engagement could not be expected to achieve democratization and full respect for human rights. I think that was really naive on our part.

Should we continue with the constructive type of relationship? Well, I say sure, but recognizing that this is not going to change the political status quo in Cuba. In the long run, it may be beneficial because it keeps the Cubans aware of the Canadian reality, of what Canada is all about, and I think knowledge of our country, which is sorely lacking in Cuba— in fact, knowledge of any country outside of itself, with the exception of Miami, is lacking in Cuba—can only be good. So I would recommend “steady as she goes”: a normal and correct relationship with Cuba, but not expecting that we're going to have much impact in the short run.

As a little addendum, I think that Cuba has graduated. I think Cuba now does not need Canadian development assistance. It accepts Canadian development assistance, but our assistance is quite minor. Cuba, in fact, provides its own development assistance to lots of other countries. Canada stepped in when I think it was very important to demonstrate to Cuba that it had a friend and to try to give some support, economic as well as humanitarian, at the depths of its crisis in 1992 to 1996.

That was good, but I think that it's time we should think about Cuba having graduated, because the recovery has been substantial. Cuba has climbed up from number 79 to number 50 in the UNDP ranking of countries according to the human development index. That's been due primarily to a recovery of income per capita in purchasing power terms. Things have not recovered totally—there are lots of problems—but the recovery has been substantial. So I think we need to reconsider our development assistance to Cuba at this time.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Thank you, Professor, for taking the time, particularly with short notice.

We'll begin our round of questioning with Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much to both witnesses for being here, as we go through this very important issue.

I'm glad that you had mentioned, Professor Ritter, the past government's approach to constructive engagement objectives and how realistic they are. I realize that governments put forward these very noble objectives but don't always put in place the mechanisms and the resources, and at times the expectations sometimes are beyond what is possible.

As we go through this issue, there is one thing that concerns me greatly. There has been an ongoing debate in the international community at times in terms of the respect for civil and political rights, about which I think a lot of us in the west are very much concerned, and vis-à-vis social and economic rights. Many people would say that in Cuba there are very few civil and political rights, but there is a greater extent of social and economic rights. For example, they have a very good education and health system. I'm not saying that in any way to justify the repressive nature of the regime. I'm just saying that there has been more of an emphasis on one civic type of rights, as opposed to the other types of rights. Maybe you could comment on that.

Finally, I want to ask this question because I'm not sure if we're going to have a second round. I had heard that with respect to people who are released from jail, there is also a planting of chips on these people to monitor them. I had heard that and just want to know if you had in fact heard any information in that regard as well.

[Prof. Archibald R. M. Ritter]

Thank you very much.

With respect to social and economic rights, there is a lot of truth in the general view that those are stronger. What the revolution did very quickly was to broaden education and access to health in Cuba, so that Cuba, in a sense, pulled ahead of the rest of Latin American in the 1960s in education, in life expectancy, in all the things that result from a good health system. Cuba was very successful there. Cuba also cut open unemployment, converting it into hidden unemployment, or “unemployment on the job”, one might say.

So I don't want to slight Cuba's achievement. But I would also point out that now Cuba is about sixth in Latin America in terms of the human development index and sixth in terms of the human poverty index.

In other words, what has happened in the last 40 years since 1959 is that other Latin American countries, namely Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Argentina, Barbados—and I'm missing a couple—have pulled ahead in terms of the human development index, which is measured in terms of educational achievement and health achievement or life expectancy. Cuba did well, but it has been surpassed by other countries in Latin American, some of them starting in a position much inferior to Cuba's.

Likewise, it's very interesting that in the human poverty index, which takes into account such things as access to water, illiteracy, the proportion of children dying before age five, and that kind of thing, Cuba also is number six. It's not number one in terms of having the least poverty any more; it's number six, and those countries that I named are ahead of Cuba.

Cuba's revolutionary policies, in education and health especially, did achieve rapid results, and those results continue. Nothing is perfect, and we have problems with our health system. Cuba has big problems with its health system—and its educational system, of course. Cuba has maintained its advances there, but other countries have done very well and have surpassed Cuba as well.

I personally don't think one should counterbalance the human rights of a political and civil nature vis-à-vis the social and economic rights. One can have both, as shown by other Latin countries.

Concerning the planting of chips, I'm sorry, I have no information. I've never heard of it before.

Thank you.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I don't know whether Mr. Cotler wants to ask any questions at this time, but—

[Dulce-Maria Cruz-Herrera]

I'd like to respond to that question. You mentioned that newly released prisoners in Cuba were being monitored. Is that correct?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[Dulce-Maria Cruz-Herrera]

You read that in a study done by an NGO, and it's entirely possible. However, this happens everywhere in the world, even in Canada.

On the UN's website, under Human Rights Committee, you can find reports presented by the States in compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention Against Torture and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. I invite you to look at Canada's reports, which sometimes spark heated debates and often exasperate members of the UN committee. You will see that even the States and governments of industrialized nations have a hard time effectively protecting human rights.

As you know, the United States has not recognized the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Culture Rights, nor does it recognize the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. In addition, the U.S. has not signed on to the Kyoto Protocol, and I could give you more examples. This is also true of other countries.

For this reason, the situation is very delicate. When we turn our attention to human rights in Cuba, we tend too often to politicize the issue. We resort to using words that are often too similar to U.S. propaganda and unfortunately, we lack objectivity. Indeed, there are probably prisoners in Cuba who have been released and are being monitored, but the exact same thing occurs in Montreal, and in all provinces of Canada.

What must be examined is the gap that exists in Cuba between economic and social rights, and civil and political rights, and put these in context. The situation as a whole must be examined. Let me remind you that in 2004, the United States created the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, an unprecedented act in human history. The Helms-Burton Act and the Torricelli Act were also unprecedented initiatives. In addition to exerting diplomatic and political pressure on other countries within the UN and within the Organization of American States, the US has also adopted national legislation.

Section 3 of this Act spells out in minute detail how the Government of Cuba should structure itself and how the transition should take place. This Act was condemned by the Government of Canada, which in turn passed legislation to counter extraterritorial measures. In addition, when the Royal Bank refused to allow some Canadian citizens to open an account, the Government of Canada was forced to intervene and to state that the provisions of the Helms-Burton Act did not apply here in Canada and that some caution was in order.

Unfortunately, the exercise of civil and political rights in Cuba must be analyzed in this context. Democratic freedoms are permitted and authorized to the extent that citizens to do not violate Cuban sovereignty and do not destabilize the political regime.

However, when that happens, unfortunately, they are eliminated. Is that a good thing? No, it is not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

We must now move on to Ms. St-Hilaire. We've gone over Mr. Silva's allotted time by four minutes.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you as well to both witnesses. Your presentations were very interesting.

During the last meeting of this committee, some witnesses spoke at length about prisoners, and whether or not they were political prisoners. What do you think?

My second question will follow up on the answer you provide to my first question about these prisoners, and whether or not they are political prisoners. Professor Ritter, you talked about Official Development Assistance in connection with this issue. In fact, you suggested that Canada should cut off all ODA to Cuba. Other witnesses have suggested suspending ODA to Cuba as long as these prisoners remain behind bars. I would like to hear your comments on that matter.

Ms. Cruz-Herrera, I would like to get your opinion. You seem to be defending the sovereignty of Cuba, and rightly so. From your comments, I gathered that while you recognize that Canada is not necessarily in a position to lecture anyone about human rights, you nevertheless believe that it should exert pressure through democratic means. Are you essentially recommending that Canada put pressure on Cuba through democratic channels or do you believe that it should go so far as to order an embargo?

[Dulce-Maria Cruz-Herrera]

I'm not the one defending the sovereignty of States. All countries that have signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights defend state sovereignty. It is one of the pillars of the UN system. It is mentioned in Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations Nations, as well as in Article 1 of two covenants. The United States, Canada and Cuba have all recognized the principle of state sovereignty. I mention these three countries, because we're in Canada, and we're discussing the United States and Cuba. The merits of this principle have long been proven.

I think I may have not expressed myself correctly. I didn't say that Canada is not in a position to lecture anyone. Canada's record in terms of protecting human rights is remarkable. What I'm recommending is that...

I can be pragmatic. There's a problem in Cuba. In a certain way, the nation is under siege. The country has been at war for the last 50 years. There have been no bombings, because this wasn't an option. But in 1961, Cuba was invaded. Afterwards, there was the Cold War, and later, the disintegration of the communist bloc and the dismantling of the Soviet Union. However, beginning in 1990, laws were passed to reinforce the embargo. Cuba wasn't attacked per se, but its economy was stifled. The ultimate objective was to bring about a complete collapse of the country's economy. Unfortunately, that didn't happen and the embargo remains in place. In order to protect itself, Cuba... The United States criticizes Cuba for not adopting a market economy.

The beauty of the UN, created in 1945, is the plurality of democracies. In fact, a UN committee is examining the issue of renewed and restored democracies. Every year, very interesting reports on the importance of fostering democratic plurality in the world are published.

A neo-liberal democracy, such as the one in place in Canada and the United States, is not the best kind of democracy in the world. Therefore, it is not the kind of model that the United States can impose on someone else. What right does the United States have to pass legislation that dictates to Cuba the type of democracy it must embrace, whether it be neo-liberal or one based on a certain type of economy? What right does it have to do that when the UN Charter stipulates that all States are equal? That's what the concept of sovereign equality implies. States cannot intervene in the domestic affairs of other States. The right to self-determination must not be dismissed lightly. It is one of the pillar of the UN system.

To defend itself, Cuba tells its citizens that they are free to express themselves, but that if they act on the messages being broadcast by Radio Martí, they will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Is Cuba doing the right thing and in the best way? Probably not.

The Cuban people are mature and ready for a multi-party system. In Cuba, many political parties can co-exist in the national assembly, provided that these political parties participate in democratic debate, and promote democracy in compliance with Cuban law. A law on the financing of political parties, such as the one that exists in Canada and elsewhere, will eventually be adopted in Cuba.

I would have a serious problem with a political party financed by the Cuban-American Foundation, or in accordance with chapter 3 of the report presented by the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, being allowed to sit in the national assembly in Havana.

I remind you that this 400-page report, which was tabled by Colin Powell in 2004 and then by Condoleezza Rice last year, increased the funding to Cuban civil society organizations to the level of $40 million, without defining what civil society is. This is done openly. Try to imagine the Iranian government or some Islamic organization deciding to openly finance a Canadian political party, to the tune of millions of dollars, with the objective of furthering the cause of Arab or Taliban rights. It would really be terrible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Thank you. It is comparable to what the United States did when they subsidized the Solidarity Party in Poland during the 1980s. It was dreadful. Mr. Khan.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam, are you trying to tell us that Cuba is actually a perfect society, a perfect country, and there are no problems as far as human rights are concerned? I have a hard time believing that.

I would also like to ask Professor Ritter about the increase in the economic well-being of the country. Has it improved the human rights as well, or are they still lagging?

[Prof. Archibald R. M. Ritter]

It's often argued with some truth that when Cuba's economy improves, the political situation tightens up. One can look at historical experience and see some truth in that. For example, in the early 1990s, when the economy was facing great difficulty, the Cuban government was casting around for new ideas. It was receptive to new ideas. One of the new ideas it was receptive to was the introduction of western economics, which faced a lot of opposition within the country. Then, when things improve economically, the government feels more confident and it's able to tighten up.

I don't see any direct relationship between economic prosperity and human rights. I don't think I would agree totally with the inverse relationship or with the direct relationship. I would view them as being quite separate.

I must say in that respect that I disagree with the view that the United States is the source of all of Cuba's political irregularities, you could say. This is the official line in Cuba. This is the line that Castro has always taken. They have to ignore the basic civil liberties as we understand them. They have to ignore and suppress them because they are being used by the Miami mafia, the United States, to subvert the system. Well, the United States has done some stupid things. Its policy of destructive disengagement has obviously been counterproductive, but I don't blame the United States totally for the continuation of the totalitarian character of the regime in Cuba.

If I could return to a question posed by Madame St-Hilaire with respect to political prisoners, there may be debate as to whether people called political prisoners are political or not. However, according to the Cuban Commission on Human Rights.... I have a list here in front of me of all of the people who are certified or accepted by that organization as being political prisoners. Amnesty International has a letter-writing campaign for 78 of the people on this list. So Amnesty International accepts that these people are political prisoners. In my view, the vast majority are not agents of the United States. There may have been some who've done stupid things. There are some who are not in prison who've accepted support from the United States—

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Professor, how many prisoners do you think are in jail right now? Do you have a number, a count? There's got to be a whole lot more than 78.

[Prof. Archibald R. M. Ritter]

Here's a list. There are 283, according to this list, which you can take a look at.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Political prisoners.

[A voice]

Yes, sir.