Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Feb. 9th, 2026

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much. This is such an incredible panel that it's really difficult to get all of our questions in.

I want to direct a question to you, Mr. Yonke, because one thing you said at the end of your last answer was about rapid response and the urgency of this. I know that a few weeks ago, here in Ottawa, a group of Canadian practitioners, experts and organizations came together with that same sense of urgency.

We have a lot of expertise. There are a lot of Canadians who've been working with NDI, Parliamentary Centre and others. From what I understood, there's a real sense that there is a need right now in the world for Canada.

You threw out the figure that 72% of the world is living right now under autocratic regimes. I understand that in 2004, it was only 49%. As we're looking for strategic security partners, middle powers and economic partners, the more that countries are falling into authoritarianism, the fewer we have of those kinds of partners.

Isn't it true that, in effect, democracy work is a prerequisite for our national security and our economic interests?

[Chris Yonke]

Yes, it is. We've talked about economic security in that you need to be able to trust a supply chain. You need to be able to make sure you can defend a contract. You need to fight kleptocracy and corruption and make sure we can get that kind of work done in a fair and stable manner.

The problem is that authoritarianism is easy. Democracy is incredibly difficult. It's constantly giving your democratic institution a tune-up and supporting it there.

I'm worried about the rise of authoritarianism. There was a rise of nationalism that was spreading nationally years ago. I'm worried about a rise of authoritarianism, how it's going to affect some of our traditional trading partners and how that could look going forward.

There are institutions that are looking for Canada to be present. Yes, as you said, at that meeting, it was agreed at the time that there's opportunity to do more. There's no shortage of opportunities of where we can go, sadly.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Balinov and Ms. Surkes, I know that the Parliamentary Centre has been working in this field for many years as a Canadian organization.

You've talked a bit about the ODA model, the project-to-project model. In the world right now, where things are happening so fast with the need to pivot and work in very risky areas, what do you see as a potential future model for Canadian support for democratic development organizations like yours?

[Marci Surkes]

The bottom line is, as you said and as we've pointed out, that we're operating project to project; it's paycheque to paycheque.

This organization, the Parliamentary Centre, was born out of this institution. This is out of the beating heart of our democracy. It's a leading organization in this country, doing this work around the world, and it can barely get the job done.

From the Parliamentary Centre's perspective, we are open to what that model looks like and prepared to be at the table to have that discussion, but there is no time to wait. The urgency is right now. That's why we believe that it's really important to be here, and we're prepared to support the committee and its recommendations.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you.

I'm going back to Mr. Jonen.

We're talking about urgency, but in the world you're working with, those in the global south, that urgency is lives. That urgency is people. It's people disappearing and people being arrested.

What would you say that the people, organizations and movement that you're working on in the global south are looking to countries like Canada for?

[Ryota Jonen]

They're looking for partners, not patrons. I think, in the last 25 or 30 years, this international aid architecture was the patron. They're looking for equal partnership. They're looking for not just a government-to-government partnership but people, a citizen-to-citizen partnership. That's where I think the importance comes in.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Dr. Wittes, I know there's been talk about whether Canada needs to have something like NDI, NED or IRI.

What do you see as a unique space where Canada would be able to contribute at this point, when the gaps are so huge?

[Tamara Cofman Wittes]

My colleagues spoke about convening power, and I think that is a very important capability that Canada offers, because people can come here easily. Other parts of the world are harder to travel to and harder to get in or out of, and I think Canada—I don't know if it's as a middle power, but as a strong, stable, democratic and multicultural society, is a welcoming place for democratic convening.

I would really foot-stomp that. I think that's a very important one.

I also think that the voice of the Canadian government and the Canadian Parliament on human rights matters is heard around the world. I remember—and I know it was not without controversy—that the Canadian government's response to the murder of my friend Jamal Khashoggi mattered. It mattered around the world.

We have, unfortunately, seen transnational repression increase in the years since that murder took place, but it matters when Canada stands up for what is right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Dr. Cofman Wittes.

Now I would like to invite Mr. Davies to take the floor for five minutes.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm so grateful to hear everybody's perspective today. For the most part, we've focused on things that are happening today, the urgency and the dangers around the world, but for younger people who may be watching this committee, who don't have a perspective on history, there are several things that were said today.

For example, Ms. Vandenbeld gave the statistic that 72% of people in the world today are not living in a democracy. That is a concerning figure that I'm sure a lot of people in Canada are unaware of.

Who's the historian in the group who can give me some perspective on this? I'm looking for some perspective on the ebbs and flows of how democracy has changed or evolved over, say, several decades. Is there a greater correlation today, for example, between economic nationalism and the decline of democratic institutions or the strength of democracies in the world?

Mr. Yonke or Mr. Jonen might want to take a stab at that for me.

[Ryota Jonen]

I can say a few things.

One is to share my personal story. I grew up in Hiroshima, and from elementary school to high school, in the education system, we had a peace education course that we had to take every month, in which we talked to the hibakusha, the survivors of the atomic bomb.

From a young age, we've been told different stories of history. We need to think about how we tell a younger generation about the struggle today. I've been engaging with some American university students, and they're well aware of the challenges. Sometimes they don't know what to engage with or how to engage.

Sharing the global experiences of struggles and telling those stories in a very creative way to younger generations may be impactful.

The second thing about history is that, yes, I think economic nationalism is definitely causing problems for democratic institutions, but I will step back a bit and say that democracy works because we have a healthy, productive society. When you don't have a strong health care system in the country and if you don't have a good education system, then the productivity of society goes down. That's where the economic challenges come from and why democratic institutions have been challenged.

It's not just about the economy; it's about health issues and educational issues. Those are all democracy issues, and what we are saying here in our testimony is that, yes, trade and the economy are important issues, but we need to have a much broader perspective to make sure that democracy survives.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Yonke, I wonder if you can give me some perspective on what you think the key markers are that we're facing today and give us some idea of democracies that are being challenged today and are in danger of losing the strength of democracy.

Do you see any trends or key markers you can identify as being important?

[Chris Yonke]

I think information integrity is constantly a challenge. We have greater access to information now than we've ever had, and we're not necessarily sure of the source or who is providing the information coming in. That's a challenge for a number of democracies around the world.

The participation, or lack of participation, is also a challenge for democracies around the world. When only a few are making the decisions, and many are staying home and letting someone else decide, that's a challenge coming through.

As well, when the rules are constantly changing—you have a leadership class that is creating a new rule or creating a new phase coming through—it's not levelling the playing field. That is a challenge coming through.

You also have a real trend with some authoritarian governments where they're a democracy “by show”. There is a media. There are government institutions. There is an election commission, but it's rigged. They're controlling the rules. They're controlling the game. That is something we need to watch for around the world as well.

I hope that answers your question.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Yes. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you. Your time is over.

Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to all the witnesses, because your testimony will be very useful to us. You've been fantastic.

Ms. Trilsch, based on academic research, can you tell the committee which public policies have proven to be most effective in protecting human rights defenders who were at risk?

[Mirja Trilsch]

As I mentioned in my testimony, I think we need to ensure that international mechanisms and institutions are well protected and functional. This is vitally important. It is difficult to find protection mechanisms for human rights defenders who are at risk within their own countries. So, inevitably, international mechanisms such as the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders are essential for exposing what is happening on the ground. This must be done outside the country.

I would argue that we must avoid international mechanisms also coming under attack because of a lack of funding. Some of the people who work for them are themselves under attack. There are judges from the International Criminal Court on the terrorist list in the United States. That makes no sense. A Special Rapporteur has been accused. So this sometimes jeopardizes the only mechanisms that exist to protect human rights defenders. The Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders contacts an average of 80 states per year on behalf of some 500 human rights defenders around the world. That's huge. It's a huge job that's truly important. Therefore, we must protect international mechanisms; we must strengthen them.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Let's take the example of sanctions targeting individuals—so externally—but in relation to acts they will commit. There are Canadian sanctions targeting Chinese government officials over the Uyghur genocide.

In terms of sanctions, can visa restrictions specifically targeting individuals, for example, be of any help in terms of what will happen within the borders—where these individuals are targeted—or do you think that is difficult to measure?

[Mirja Trilsch]

Personally, I can't cite any studies that would allow me to tell you whether it's measurable or not. Broadly speaking, I think that any action that denounces attacks on human rights in general, as well as on human rights defenders, is a step in the right direction. I think it is essential to protect ourselves against normalizing rhetoric in which human rights are constantly under attack, where it becomes normal for certain rights to be delegitimized, where it is normal for certain pressures to exist, and where intimidation and harassment become acceptable. I think we need to keep the conversation going in order to protect human rights defenders.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Daliran, I'll let you have the last word. If you have a message to convey, you are in a public meeting and you have free rein to deliver it. I think I have about a minute left, so you have one minute.

[Taajbakhsh Daliran]

Canada may be considered to be a middle-power country in the world. I have been in many other countries, and I have very vast connections to many Iranians who were forced to leave Iran post revolution. They are well connected to the people of the nations they live in. Canada is far stronger and far more influential on the world stage. We should never underestimate that strength.

As a continuation to this conversation, any time international states, in general, have delayed and sometimes even ignored the signs of a new authoritarian dictatorship being established, it becomes a problem later. The cost of prevention is far less than going to deal with it.

As I am not a researcher, a politician or a scientist, I can talk only about my own experience in Iran. With some support, in the early stages of establishment, that regime could have had its direction either changed or stopped.

We are at this stage 47 years after suffering. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed. Almost four million Iranians are exiled, whether that exile was wanted or unwanted. Around 90 million people in Iran, most of them educated and skilled, who can contribute to the economy of this world, feel imprisoned. It is a real prison in Iran.

The point I'm trying to make is that any delay in taking further actions would just create more problems for the environment and the world we are going to leave our children.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Mr. Daliran, and thank you, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

On behalf of the subcommittee and myself, I would like to thank all of the witnesses for being with us this afternoon. Your presence is highly and profoundly appreciated. Your answers to our questions have enlightened this subcommittee. We would like to thank you deeply. Hopefully, everything will go according to what we discussed here.

The meeting is suspended.

[Proceedings continue in camera]