Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on April 13th, 2026

[Monika Le Roy]

I think I highlighted this distinction in my remarks, where there's supporting democratic transitions and democratic institutions, and then there's also the alternative to that, which is supporting the creation of civic space.

When working with political institutions, like political parties and legislatures, in almost every single one of those scenarios, you are working with the government, with the approval of the government, and defining programs in a partnership format, in a partnership setting.

As for supporting, challenging or operating in spaces to try to create civic space, Iran would be a great example of that. In the past, one of the activities that Canada did incredibly successfully was facilitating international dialogue between the Iranian people and their diaspora in Canada and in-country, supporting Internet opportunities for them to have conversations and public forums to talk about how they felt about what was happening in that country.

Those are two very different initiatives and approaches because the dynamics were extremely different.

It also depends on the values of the country that you're operating in. I've worked in the Middle East on women's political participation programming, where governments welcomed and celebrated that programming coming in as an opportunity. I've worked in programs in the South Pacific, where there was greater concern about how our work to empower women in a political space and public forums was going to change the community dynamics. I think, to that extent, much like what Kevin was saying and much like what Les was also saying, it really is a country-by-country dynamic, having that ability to understand where that line is and, if you're going to cross that line, as one could argue that we have by creating civic space in Iran, doing so intentionally. This is where creating a doctrine and a strategy that's coherent for our country to engage in this work is helpful.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

That's actually a perfect segue into my next question. Are there any safeguards that Canada should be putting into place to make sure that our actions are consistent, transparent, fit into international law and don't stray into the kind of foreign interference that we are struggling with in this country?

[Monika Le Roy]

My argument for that would be the democratic oversight that this committee itself offers and what is in your mandate, which is to seek clarification from the Government of Canada, from Global Affairs Canada, in terms of what activities they are doing and how they're approaching their democratic initiatives and their support abroad. You, as members of Parliament, I think, are among the best suited to understand that nuance and where that line exists and operates.

Increasing opportunities for engagement through Canadian-led and Canadian-headquartered organizations like ParlAmericas or the Parliamentary Centre, or the programs that the president-elect has been citing, with Journalists for Human Rights, where there's transparency and public discourse about this, are going to help clarify what those lines are.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

In the context of, you know.... What I've heard you say is that there are circumstances under which Canada should, in fact, support a movement that might lack majority backing or clear majority backing within its own country. Do you think that the approval or the decision to do that should happen at the executive level? Do you think it should happen at the legislative level? Is this a question for Parliament? Is it a question for GAC?

Where do you think the decision-making should lie to ensure that we're careful and thoughtful about it?

[Monika Le Roy]

I will refer back to my remarks, where my comment was that our programming, our political statements and our multilateral positioning should be aligned. It's not a straight answer, but the answer is that in all of these places—

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I think what I was—

[Monika Le Roy]

—and I'm going to come back to the example of Venezuela—

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I realize that was in your remarks, but my question is more about the how. We've seen, in a whole bunch of circumstances, that sometimes things come to Parliament and sometimes things don't come to Parliament. Where do you think the locus of decision-making should happen? How do you think we can do this in a way so that we are being the most thoughtful about it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Provide a quick answer, please, because the time is up. Thank you.

[Monika Le Roy]

The quick answer is to create a doctrine that delineates who is allowed to choose or who is approving what aspects of the programming.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Is that through Parliament?

[Monika Le Roy]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you.

I invite Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe to take the floor for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Le Roy, Mr. Deveaux spoke to us about the speech in Davos. You spoke to us about Beijing, and what you saw and experienced in Southeast Asia, among other places.

Isn't there an obvious contradiction between what was said at Davos and the fact that, three days earlier, Mr. Carney was shaking hands with Xi Jinping? Three days after that meeting, we were told we need to be wary of world powers and stick together as middle powers.

Don't you see the risk given the diplomatic thaw between Canada and China? Normally, the very nature of diplomatic relations is precisely to allow for debate—or at least discussion—of more delicate or sensitive issues with the country with which diplomatic ties are being renewed.

[Monika Le Roy]

He mentioned both Kevin and me. Maybe I'll quickly jump in first.

We don't live in a world where we can interact and co-operate only with our allies and with people who share the same values and systems and structures that we have.

Canada will make the economic choices that it has to make in the interests of our domestic population. Would we benefit from working with greater democracies? Absolutely, we would, and in places where there is greater risk of Chinese interference to undermine the values that we want to share in the interests of our country, we have the opportunity to build stronger relationships to counter that.

The Pacific Islands are a great opportunity and a great region for this example. All of the Five Eyes partners, except for Canada, are very actively engaged diplomatically and through programs in-country, whereas Canada, for the first time, opened a high commission and a presence in Fiji, one of the 18 Pacific Islands countries, just this past August.

Creating opportunities where there are Commonwealth political structures with which we can share a lot of processes and structures and build greater relationships with for trade and co-operation is an opportunity to counter the influence of China in that region and create greater opportunities for Canada for partnerships with countries with like-minded values.

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

Mr. Deveaux, you can jump in and answer that question.

[Kevin Deveaux]

I'm agreeing with Ms. Le Roy. I think that in almost all cases, we're going to want to build, if I can still use the term, a “coalition of the willing”—if it hadn't been disparaged 20 years ago during the Iraq war.

However, I think there are going to be circumstances in which those coalitions might include China, to be brutally frank. Think about the scam centres in Myanmar that have been created because of the conflicts that have happened there. Think about Cambodia, where the scam centres are operating. There might be specific, very concrete examples in which that coalition and the implementation of new strategies might involve ASEAN partners, for example, in those places that are more democratic—like Malaysia or Indonesia or Singapore or the Philippines—but the coalition might also include other partners in those circumstances.

I think we do need to be practical. I think we do need to recognize that it is a multipolar world order. There are other actors that have influence.

At the same time, I think we, to a great extent, are looking for coalitions that involve those who are going to be promoting those democratic standards. I don't think that prevents us from having dialogue, from having discussions, but at the same time, as we build up our ability to intervene in an active and proactive manner, I think we're going to develop a gravitas that's going to allow us to have a lot more opportunity to influence the direction of where those things go, versus, perhaps, actors who are more interested in transactional relationships.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Cohen and Ms. Bardall, either one of you could answer my next question.

There's a bit of an elephant in the room. For a while now, we've been talking about funding for programs that Canada should implement. However, if we look at the current budget allocation for international aid or international development, we see that Canada has just cut another $2.5 billion in the latest budget. Of course, we see what's happening with USAID, the U.S. Agency for International Development. There's a sort of trend toward significantly reducing funding for international aid, even in European countries. It's the same in Japan, too. Budget allocations are shrinking right before our eyes, quite rapidly. Don't you think that's a pretty serious problem?

And that's not even counting the connection between the defence budget and the international aid budget. Every time we're told that the defence budget is to be increased, due to that connection, the international aid budget is cut. Yet, in our view—or at least in my view—these should be two separate budgets that need to be treated completely differently.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

I'm sorry. You will have to ask your question in the next round because this exceeded the time by almost one minute.

You have the floor for five minutes, please, Anita.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start by picking up on something that President-elect Tsikhanouskaya said, and also Mr. Campbell, which is this idea that authoritarians are learning from one another, but democracy practitioners, for want of a better word, are not necessarily. We don't have those networks, and where we did have them....

I'm going to go to Mr. Campbell first. You were talking about what happened when $3 billion was suddenly cut out of this kind of work. We lost things like the World Movement for Democracy. This was a network of 400 human rights defenders around the world, those defenders who were being connected.

Does this not risk isolating movements like that in Belarus? Now we're seeing, of course, hopeful signs in Hungary, Georgia and places like that. Do we not isolate those human rights defenders, those movements, by not having that connecting fibre so that those lessons and those experiences can be shared? How do we create a system? Could Canada be part of creating that kind of model, where there is that cross-learning globally, across continents, by human rights and democracy movements?

I'll start with Mr. Campbell, but I want to save some time for the president-elect to talk about how it would impact her on the other side. Go ahead.

[Leslie Campbell]

Thank you very much. I'll address that very quickly because I want to give as much time as I can.

Yes, so much has been lost. Actually, I can tie this into a previous question from one of the other members of Parliament on this committee about the kinds of programs that may exist that may not be fully supported by a government in a country, but they're very important, nonetheless. We have someone from Belarus here, but we've also supported, in this community of ours, dissidents and activists from Tibet, from Myanmar, from Iran, obviously, from Venezuela and from Belarus—and I could go on.

I think it's relatively obvious why, in some countries, you might have what we often call an “offshore program” to provide networking, training, support and advice, and that's very important. It's a lifeline for people who are fighting for their rights and human rights.

I can't really overemphasize what has been lost in terms of the networking and support around the world. However, I think what could happen—and I'll wrap this up very quickly—is not reinventing any wheels. In fact, I'm not arguing for that at all, but for a rapid response capacity to support, when a dictator falls unexpectedly, civil society, the very brave activists who have been pushing this type of activity for a long time and making small progress, and to have a group of like-minded countries that are willing to pool that. You can then have the rules of engagement. You can have oversight. You can have very eminent people, whom we all respect, be are part of, perhaps, something like an overseeing board that then pulls together these activists, these hundreds, even thousands, who have worked in this field for so long and who are right now out there.

It doesn't have to all be funded by Canada. It can be funded in part by Canada. Maybe Canada could play convening, motivating and catalytic roles, but get others together who will also contribute the funding for something like this.

I'll stop there, just in the interest of time.

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

Go ahead, Ms. Tsikhanouskaya.

[Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya]

First of all, I just have to confirm how much we appreciate Canadian help and assistance and solidarity with the Belarusian democratic movement. Of course, you know that as a movement, we are in a position to ask, because we are a people without a nation, without a state, and we just really rely on your support.

To be frank, small symbolic grants are appreciated, but they're not enough. We need multi-year support, predictable support, institutional support, because democratic forces cannot work from month to month like a family counting coins on the kitchen table. We need to know that we will be supported to support other people, to keep Belarus in focus, to fight against really brutal enemies.

Again, we understand that it's our fight, but we need allies on this path, because we are protecting democracy. We are on the front line of this fight and we shouldn't underestimate the strength of dictators. If they see that there is no unity, there is no desire to help the nations who are fighting against dictatorship, they perceive that as weakness and they think about democracy as weakness. You have to show that, no, we will not leave people who are sacrificing their lives, their freedom. We will not leave them alone. We will support them because they are on the right side of history.

Of course, I really encourage you to increase and maintain the amount of support to democratic movements worldwide. You cannot help everybody, but I encourage you to support those who are sustainable, who are strong and who are ready to defend the freedom and independence and democracy of their country till the end.

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

Thank you. We certainly are allies in the incredible work that you're doing, and we applaud and honour the work that you're doing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Anita.

Now I invite Mr. Davies to take the floor for five minutes, please.