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

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

I'm sorry, Madam, but unfortunately, each round of questions lasts seven minutes. We spent nearly 10 minutes on that round and, the committee rules state that we must move on to the next member. Perhaps you can provide that information in a moment. Mr. Sorenson, you have the floor.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you.

I apologize for being in and out, but there were a couple of calls I had to take.

Thank you both for your presentations. We're getting a variety of perspectives on what's happening in Cuba, but I think everyone recognizes that human rights violations are taking place. People are in prison who in a free and democratic society normally would not be in prison. I think all the west and all democratized countries look at Cuba as an opportunity somewhere down the road to instill the principles and values of democracy that we see as important. I think it's important in our national interest, and it's important in Cuba's as well.

This is a subcommittee of the foreign affairs committee. The foreign affairs committee is doing a study right now on democratic development, how Canada can be involved, and what Canada can do to position ourselves to make a difference.

We know that in Cuba sooner or later there will be maybe a little clearer window of opportunity to make a difference. Most people understand that as long as Fidel is in control of that country, perhaps we're limited in ways, but I think most free and democratic countries view Cuba as having the potential for change upon his exit.

Canada uses different methods in delivering some of this democratic development, or aid, or however you want to look at it. You're very correct, Professor Ritter, in saying that Canada is not a major contributor to Cuba. I think it's around $10 million a year. I'm not sure if those are the latest figures, but that's the figure I've been given. It's still one of the largest donor countries; Canada is still a major donor country.

We know Canada also gives to countries that have strong economies, countries that are building stronger economies all the time, but there are certain regions in those countries where we see we can make a difference. Maybe it's humanitarian aid, or maybe it's helping with governance and the like. Canada is in Cuba to help Cubans achieve long-term sustainable development, including perhaps in the area of governance.

The standing committee has done a fairly comprehensive study on Haiti, one of the failed states for certain. It is a country that we have thrown hundreds of millions of dollars into, and we have seen very little success or achievement. One of the things we did learn in that committee was that regardless of who was in power, there is no understanding of how to govern. You can put somebody in place as a member of Parliament, but they don't really know the full responsibilities of a member of Parliament. They don't know what's expected of them or how to carry it out. They don't have the resources. If you go to their Parliament, there's a phone at the end of the hall, and it does the whole building—one phone, no paper, no resources.

Although Madame Cruz-Herrera suggested that we should not be involved in any type of political party development, it's a tough call. I agree that you can go in the wrong way. You can try to train people in how to govern, and we shouldn't be funding political parties, but I really didn't like your analogy when you said you have the Bloc, the NDP, the Conservatives, the Liberals, and what if there was another political party funded by Australia? That's not the case. We're in a democratic country, and they are not in a democratic country. They're in an autocratic country. There is no one there, perhaps, who is prepared to take the reins and move towards more democratization, and I believe in democratization. You very seldom see two democratic countries going after each other, and you very seldom see the types of human rights violations that we're seeing here.

I disagree to a degree that we shouldn't be funding them any more, but how can we better position ourselves or how can we better direct that funding so that when that window is there, we get the bang that we want?

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Mr. Sorenson, unfortunately, we're limiting this to five-minute sections and you're now at five and a half minutes in your question.

So I can either take that as a comment or be generous and allow the witnesses very brief responses if they would care to provide them.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Yes, that's good.

[Prof. Archibald R. M. Ritter]

That's the $10 million question. How do we intervene in the internal affairs of another country in a legitimate, acceptable way? I don't know.

I think basically our constructive engagement was squaring the circle or was doing what we could in a polite way. I don't think it was well received by Cuba. My feeling was they laughed at some of our well-intentioned programs.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

You mean Carleton's or Canada's?

[Prof. Archibald R. M. Ritter]

Canada's in the human rights area. And we had interesting things. The 14 points, some of which focused on human rights, were useful—exchange of parliamentarians and so on. What good the exchange of parliamentarians actually had, I'm not sure, but it might have had some benefit. It may have opened the eyes of some Cubans.

I guess my feeling is I don't think there is any magic bullet, but just a normal, continuous, constructive communication, not expecting that there's going to a sort of “Saul on the road to Damascus” conversion, but just chipping away, maintaining a polite and respectful dialogue I think is valuable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Okay.

Ms. Cruz-Herrera, do you have a very brief response you'd like to make?

[Dulce-Maria Cruz-Herrera]

You asked what Canada could do. I come back to my earlier recommendations. The Canadian government can communicate with the Cuban and American government in an effort to restore bilateral relations. There are ways of doing this.

I would remind you that Bill Clinton was opposed to the 1996 Helms-Burton Act. He was forced to change his tune because of the pressure brought to bear by Cubans living in Miami. Bill Clinton didn't want the legislation, but he gave in because he wanted to be President of the United States.

Canada can encourage the U.S. government to do away with its hostile policy toward Cuba. Furthermore, even the special rapporteur on human rights, Christine Chanet, clearly stated in her report on human rights in Cuba that the prevailing tense climate is far from conducive to the development of civil and political rights in that country. I'm not saying that this is the only cause, and I do not approve of every single decision made by the Cuban government with regard to political prisoners, but there is a context.

Earlier, with regard to the example that I gave, you said that this did not apply here because this is a democratic country and therefore, this is not an issue. Again, I would remind you that Cuba's situation is unique and, unfortunately, even if the Cuban government wanted to allow all its citizens to do whatever they wished, it would be hard pressed to do so. Like any government under siege and under an embargo, it fears major political destabilization.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Thank you, Mr. Sorenson. You're four minutes over on your section already.

Mr. Cotler, please.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'll do Kevin a favour. I'll just follow up on his question, perhaps phrasing it in another way to Mr. Ritter.

Much of your testimony has been that constructive engagement won't really change the status quo, but it can't hurt, and it may have some salutary effects. I think the theme you gave it in your response, Mr. Ritter, was again “steady as you go” in terms of Canada's policy—keep the communications going, respectful dialogue might have some improvement.

Are there any specific things that Canada can do to address and improve the human rights situation, whether it be a focus on release of political dissidents, whether it be on the matter of seeking the repeal of certain laws regarding the criminalization of dissidents and so on? Are there any specific things we should be concentrating on that might be able to have an impact?

[Prof. Archibald R. M. Ritter]

That's a good question. Here I would draw on the insights of my colleague. One thing we could do is to get the United States to normalize relations with Cuba. I think if anything would lead to a groundswell movement within Cuba for democratization, that would be it. The pretext that the government uses for maintaining the current system is the United States and its policy towards Cuba.

One detail I'd like to mention is that it appears that the United States a number of times was sending feelers out to try to change its relationship with Cuba—at the time of Jimmy Carter, for example, and under Clinton as well. The response from the Cuban side was the Mariel crisis in which they emptied the prisons and they took off to the United States. In the Clinton era it was the shooting down of the Brothers to the Rescue airplanes. That was the response of the Cuban government.

One could make an argument that while the Cuban government wants to blame all its problems on the United States, in fact the U.S. embargo and its relationship with the United States is Fidel's best friend. It serves as a means by which he can maintain his legitimacy.

However, your question is very good, but I don't have a good answer for you with respect to specific things we could do. Perhaps the continuing exchange of parliamentarians would be useful. Cuba's Parliament is quite a different phenomenon from ours. It's dominated by the Communist Party. It meets for four to six days in the year. That's all. It's basically a rubber stamp dominated by the party. The ministers are party members pretty much and are from the politburo or the central committee. However, it may well be that the learning experience through that type of interchange might be useful in the long run. Once again, short-run impacts might not be there.

I'm sorry, it's not too good an answer.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I also want to ask Ms. Cruz-Herrera if there are any specific measures that Canada could take to improve the human rights situation in Cuba.

[Dulce-Maria Cruz-Herrera]

From what I've read, a number of political prisoners were freed in 2005. The number of political prisoners has dropped. I get a bit lost when I start to read up on this issue because there is a great deal of information out there. Some claim that these prisoners are mistreated, while others maintain the exact opposite. Political prisoners in Cuba could have ties to European religious organizations, for example, however,—and I don't know why—they always have ties to American organizations or the U.S. government. Since Cuba is constantly at war with the United States, these individuals are automatically fall under suspicion. Unfortunately, the two sides are unable to communicate.

The various attempted attacks on Cuba, orchestrated from American soil and, during the 1990s, the commandos sent from the United States to Cuba to launch assaults on daycares and theatres are not indicative of normal behaviour. The Cuban government is sticking to its guns and does not want to give up any ground. So, the situation is extremely political.

That is why it would be important, in my opinion, for the two governments to reach some kind of understanding and for the U.S. embargo and sanctions to be lifted. Not only must U.S. laws and policies change, but various UN organizations must also get involved. The United States has to change the way it deals with Cuba.

We would then be in a better position to make demands on Cuba. Many people around the world have said that the policies in force are indicative of a double standard at play. Many people in the international community have grave concerns in this regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Thank you.

I will take five minutes.

Professor Ritter, you said your recommendation going forward is “steady as she goes”, eliminate the small and what you characterized as ineffective CIDA involvement.

We've heard others whose analysis of the situation in Cuba is similar to your own, but who have more robust prescriptions, who suggest that we should make a robust, diplomatic, and as well public focus, calling on the regime and using Canada's equity with Cuba to encourage the regime to release political prisoners, in particular those who were arrested in 2005.

That's been the recommendation of FOCAL, the Christian Labour Association, the Cuban social democratic party here, as well as other NGOs. Do you disagree or do you differ from that recommendation? They all say that Canada has not been sufficiently robust in publicly demanding the release of political prisoners. Would you agree with that assessment, and do you think we could do more in that regard? Briefly.

[Prof. Archibald R. M. Ritter]

I certainly think we could do more. Whether it would have much impact at this time is not clear. However, with the changes that may occur in Cuba, especially when Raoul leaves the scene, which may not be too long either—he's only five years younger than Fidel, so he's going to be gone at some point--it may well be that in the absence of Fidel and maybe in the presence or absence of Raoul, pressures of that sort might have some impact.

However, my reading of the situation is that we would expend any political capital we have—and I'm not sure how much we have at this time in Cuba—pretty quickly for minimal results. Perhaps it's the right thing to do. Maybe we should do it. Whether it would yield results—

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

I have to say, what disturbs me about this debate, as it's unrolled here today and as it is frequently, is this typical Canadian proclivity to frame everything with respect to our neighbours to the south rather than thinking independently. We always seem to be reacting to American policy.

I would like you to comment on this. The European Union has been moving towards a thoughtful independent policy approach on Cuban human rights led by the Czech Republic, whereby they are clearly favouring dissidents. The European Union embassy, as you know, invites prominent dissidents to attend receptions at the EU mission in Havana. The Czech Republic invites dissidents to attend conferences and provides intellectual and practical support in a way that cannot be characterized by the Castro regime as threatening their security. Why couldn't Canada pursue the Czech approach of an independent vigorous advocacy of human rights, standing on the side of the political prisoners and the dissidents? That's one question.

My second question is this. I don't know if you are familiar with Christine Chenet. Madam Cruz-Herrera has made several references to the report of Christine Chenet to the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights regarding Cuba, in which she makes recommendations, and I'll just summarize some of them.

She recommends that the government of Cuba take the following measures: halt the prosecution of citizens who are exercising their guaranteed rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; release detained prisoners who have not committed acts of violence; review laws that lead to criminal prosecution of persons exercising their freedom of expression, demonstration, assembly, etc.; uphold, without exception, the moratorium in the application of the death penalty; reform the rules of criminal procedure to bring them into line with the requirements of the Universal Declaration; establish a standing independent body with the function of receiving complaints from persons complaining that their fundamental rights have been abridged; review the regulations relating to travel into and out of Cuba in order to guarantee freedom of movement as defined in the Universal Declaration; authorize non-governmental organizations to enter Cuba; foster pluralism with respect to associations, trade unions, organs of the press, and political parties; and finally, accede to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its optional protocols.

First, do you think the Czech model vis-à-vis Cuba can be a useful reference point? And secondly, do either of you disagree with any of the recommendations of Madam Chenet that I've just referenced?

[Prof. Archibald R. M. Ritter]

First, I would agree with all of those recommendations. I wish we could wave a magic wand and achieve them.

I think that rather than Canada alone adopting, say, the Czech approach, if a large grouping of countries—

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

But do you agree with my general characterization of their approach?

[Prof. Archibald R. M. Ritter]

Yes, I support her views totally.

I think if Canada, in unison with Europe and with parts of Latin America and perhaps Japan and Australia—A unified approach by a broader grouping of countries might yield some benefits. Perhaps Cuba would be inclined to listen more to Europe and to Canada if we spoke with one voice. As it is now, the European Union speaks with many voices. They formulate a European position and then Spain breaks it, or other countries. I guess I would say that if there were a more coordinated approach among like-minded countries with Canada, that perhaps would wield more influence, and I wish it would wield a lot of influence. Perhaps when Fidel is off the scene, it will work better.

Whether Canada should push this line itself--I think it should. I think we should make our views on this known continuously to Cuba. We should continue to have a constructive interchange, politically correct and so on. We would aggravate the Cuban government immensely, if we focused explicitly and continuously on the recommendations of the UN observer. So generally, I think I would certainly agree that that type of pressure would be useful, especially if coordinated. But whether we should be providing assistance is a related but separate question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Thank you.

Unfortunately, I have to apply the same rigour to myself as everyone else, and we're at I think about seven or eight minutes on my five-minute round.

Thank you to both of the witnesses for your time. We appreciate very much your taking the time to come up here to Parliament Hill and share your thoughts and expertise with us. Thank you to both of you.

We'll now, with gratitude, dismiss the witnesses, so our committee can then move to future business.

First of all, let me say a couple of things about business that we've already done.

The clerk advises me, Mr. Cotler, that your motion on Iran did not make explicit that it was to be referred to the main committee, and the clerk just wants instruction on that. I think it was clearly your intent that it be referred to the main committee. I thought it had been. I just found out at the beginning of this meeting that it hadn't been. So could I suggest that you move this? I'm sure that we'd get unanimous consent to allow you to move a motion without the 48 hours' notice that the fourth report of the subcommittee, i.e., your motion on incitement to genocide, be referred to the full committee.

Would you like to request unanimous consent to put such a motion?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes, I would.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Is there unanimous consent?

Seeing consent, I call the question.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

So to the clerk, we'll refer that then to the full committee.

Secondly, speaking of the full committee, do you mind if I raise the issue that you raised with me yesterday, discreetly?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Yes, go ahead.