Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Nov. 7th, 2006

[Brian Dijkema]

I would be very interested to see if I could get into the country. The reason is because—

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I want to carry on, so I'm asking a specific yes or no question.

[Brian Dijkema]

I know, but it needs a full response. Our affiliated unions sent people in, and they were not allowed in. Now, I have criticized the government, but—

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Excuse me. I have a purpose to my question. I don't want to be combative with you, but I have a purpose.

Could you answer, please, so I understand a little better?

[Brian Dijkema]

I've not been to Cuba.

[Ian De Waard]

I've not been to Cuba.

[Christina Warren]

I've been four times; one of those times was for at least a month.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I'm not meaning to demean your position; I want to make a point.

I've been to Cuba four times. I disagree with the totalitarian nature of how that country functions, even though—

I'm talking on the broader issue now of Canada's good relations with Cuba. My wife is a nurse. Each time we visit, we take medical supplies and school supplies. One of the things I think helped build the foundation that supported Castro in the first place was the American embargo. The American embargo stole the future of those people, to a great degree. In fact, I understand Bill Clinton, towards the end of his tenure, was going to try to lift the embargo. I'm not sure why he didn't.

I visited a hospital down there. I've seen some of the good things they have. The crucial problem is their short supply of everything, which takes me to your golden handshake. I understand your reaction, because Canada tends to put money into a number of places. It goes to some governments, and that's it; it never reaches the people.

We were sitting here a few minutes ago talking about a country that killed 1.2 million Tibetans and that their human rights record is this long. Take us back to where we're at with good friends in Cuba. I believe Canada has many good friends who we've invested in there.

The reality is, the golden carrot you suggested is probably the way to start to go. But it's about finding a way to sustain that dialogue, to maintain those friendships we've had for so many years, and as well to keep an eye on the human rights you refer to. I support you when you say we have to do something about that.

I don't really have a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Very sneaky, Mr. Marston.

I think Mr. Silva wanted one more crack at this, then we might round it up. We have committee business, and we only have 15 minutes.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Maybe I can start by saying that I have been to Cuba. I was there three years ago, and I'm not sure I would want to go back, actually. I would say that I quite agree that the embargo is a major problem, and I've always opposed the embargo. I also think that the Cuban community in Miami has probably done more damage than good with their statements and their actions.

However, you still can't get away from the fact that it's a military dictatorship. There are still no civil liberties, no freedom of the press, religions are still suppressed, homosexuals are still arrested, and there are incredible violations of human rights. You can't blame all that on the embargo. Yes, there is an embargo, and it's an unfair embargo, I agree. But they've also gotten massive subsidies because of their alliances with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. They trained their armies and sent them overseas, particularly to African countries, where they're fighting in a lot of different wars as paid mercenaries, if you want to call them that.

They've aligned themselves now with Chavez, which is fine; they got the new money that they needed. But they also have other investments from other countries, including Spain, which is heavily invested in Cuba. So you can't say poor, poor Cuba is being terribly economically deprived because the U.S. won't deal with them. They have many other allies who have invested massive amounts of money into that country.

The reality doesn't change the fact that it's still a dictatorship. And I don't know of any dictatorship around the world that has not abused the human rights of its people.

How can we talk about and somehow be apologetic and excuse a government and a regime when it's arresting people, when it's putting them in jail for the fact that they're speaking out and want to organize or exercise the very basic human rights they have under all the conventions of the UN, which we have signed and are a part of? We say we uphold and believe in those doctrines and believe in those resolutions we put forward at the UN, but in Cuba we're going to stand back because, oh well, the embargo. Give me a break.

I was there three years ago. I was lucky, or unlucky, to be sick. Because I was sick for two weeks, I had an opportunity to meet a lot of people in that society, including medical doctors. One thing that always came across was that they are scared. They won't speak publicly, but when they go into your room and you meet with them in private, they are scared. They ask whether you have any news back home, any magazines, because they can't get magazines in Cuba. So it is a repressive society, and I left there with a very negative taste in my mouth about the country.

I was going there, like most Canadians who go there, to enjoy a vacation on a beach. If you spend your time on a beach and you see the resorts, you think everything is wonderful. But when you get to meet people and they want to be open and expressive with you, as they were with me--which I was quite surprised by--you learn about a different reality.

You cannot use the word “embargo” as an excuse for human rights violations. That, to me, is really appalling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

I'll take that as a statement as well. We'll terminate it there. I know we will have an opportunity to continue this discussion.

Ms. Bourgeois, all members of Parliament are always welcomed in our Committee.

We'll have to call it to an end there, because we have committee business to attend to.

I'd like to thank our witnesses very much for this very enlightening session.

We'll now move to committee business. We don't need to go in camera, do we? No. Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Ms. St-Hilaire, I believe that you have a motion to put.

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

Yes, Mr. Chairman. My motion follows our last meeting when Mr. Charles Burton came as a witness. I do not know if it can be put to a vote today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Oui, ca va. You've given notice of motion.

It is okay.

I'll read the motion:

That the Sub-committee on International Human Rights requests a copy of the original preliminary version of the report prepared by Professor Charles Burton, based on Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade letter of Agreement Number 12800 CB of August 1, 2005, on the Assessment of the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue.

Is there debate?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I think when we looked at this motion that came forward out of the testimony of Professor Burton, we understood that we wanted to get the body of what his report talked about. We wanted to understand the intricacies of his report.

The fact that there was a classified and an unclassified report was frustrating to some, because I think we have an idea that there are massive amounts of hidden information here that the committee should know.

From what we have heard, there is information that has been blotted out—basically names of people in the report who, when they gave information, gave it with the idea that they were giving it confidentially. That is the part that is blotted out. That's why they gave their information; they gave it with that understanding.

As far as trying to keep consistent with the Access to Information Act is concerned, I think the government has honoured their wishes and others' by making sure that names and some of those types of particulars were left out of the report.

Only a small amount of information was excluded from the public report, and its exclusion in no way alters the report or changes or hides any assessment that's provided in the report by Professor Burton.

So I think this motion certainly is in order, but when you begin to ask for classified information, you're taking a major step. I know that what you can do down the road is hurt the whole process by going to people who say, “Yes, we can disclose some information, but we'd rather our names not be in there.” In quoting, they put the name in with the understanding that it stays classified. Now, if we ask that it be unclassified, those people will not disclose in the future.

So I would not support the motion. We've already been told that it's such minimal amounts that are blotted out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

Let me reply. The context here is not explicit in the motion. Perhaps Madame St-Hilaire would accept a friendly amendment.

It was my understanding that we discussed receiving this document in camera, not rendering it public, but considering it in camera, in order to be sensitive to the issues Mr. Sorenson raised.

Is that correct? Is it possible for us to review the document in camera and not take court documents out of the committee meeting?

[Angela Crandall, Procedural Clerk]

It depends as well on the level of confidentiality. The committee may not get access to it, depending on the level—

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

So we could request it, but depending on the level of confidentiality attached to it, they may, on national security grounds, not grant access to it.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I understand this report is public already, that only small portions—

I would like to know from Madame why she is having difficulties with the report that has been released. Why does she want the full report to come out, knowing and understanding the fact that, as my colleague said, in a lot of classified areas people will have given their names? Maybe we will get a better understanding of what she is trying to achieve here.

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

Mr. Chairman, I believe that it would be important to correct some facts about what happened at the last Sub-committee meeting.

In fact, Mr. Burton came to present us a report which was not the original version. It seems that some people, maybe sitting here, have seen it. It was not what Mr. Burton presented to us. Furthermore, Mr. Burton agreed to let the members of the Sub-committee have access to his report. Some parts of it seem to have been deleted by the government. If it is classified, we might discuss it in camera.

We want to study the important issue of human rights in China and Mr. Burton has done some important research on that subject. However, if we do not have access to all the information, it seems to me that some people are exercising a form of control, which worries me. That information might not be important, but its absence will keep bothering us during the meeting. This is why we should solve that issue immediately.

Mr. Burton didn't have any objection. In fact, Mr. Obhrai, with respect, this report is not public. If you have it, you should distribute copies to your friends, because I don't have it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

I'm going to put the question, simply because I think we know what the positions are here and we're running out of time.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

We will now discuss the next committee—

I'm sorry, where are we in the schedule next week?

[Marcus Pistor, Committee Researcher]

Next week is the break week. There's a list of witnesses that was circulated for comments. The first would be for the meeting in two weeks and the second for the meeting in three weeks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Jason Kenney]

All right. We discussed at the last meeting continuing in the direction of the Chinese study, and we have a potential witness list.

I'm not going to read out all the names of the groups, but if people have groups they would like to have invited for this study, I would ask you to submit those to the clerk. The clerk or our researcher, Marcus, could circulate these names and you could identify if you have any objections. So I think we can work on it on that basis rather than get into a lengthy seminar here on all the different groups.

Obviously Falun Gong has asked for an appearance, and presumably that will—

[Marcus Pistor]

They're on the list.