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

[Kevin Deveaux]

Thank you, honourable member, for the question.

As I was saying in my presentation, Canada does have a lot of skills and capacity that I, frankly, as someone who's worked on practically every continent, believe are being underused. There are many Canadian experts who've worked for other organizations, including Mr. Campbell's former NDI, or the UNDP, but we, as a country, have never really corralled them into using that expertise for ourselves.

This isn't to be disrespectful to Global Affairs Canada, but I think there are certain skills and acumen that come with that ability to implement democratic governance projects directly—technical assistants, experts—that aren't found, necessarily, in Global Affairs Canada. I really, truly believe that having a roster of those people who then, through some third party external organization, whether that's a new one or it becomes a subset of something that already exists external from government, allows for a more frank analysis and an ability to, probably, ask questions or meet people the government, perhaps, wouldn't be able to. From that, developing a political economy analysis in a crisis situation is something that I believe the Government of Canada would find very valuable as it decides to make decisions.

However, I think our partners would as well. To go back to the Davos speech and the coalition of middle powers, it's an opportunity for Canada to be at the table, to bring something that actually can provide value that our other partners would want, based on the skills we have, and then to take that and use it as the beginning of a dialogue.

Again, instead of trying to impose a cookie-cutter approach to our work, it's thinking about how Canada can help develop a bespoke or tailor-made solution. Again, whether that's in Bangladesh in 2024 or, God help us, Georgia eventually becomes a place that's less autocratic, how do we begin to use our skills to talk about strategy and approaches that are both politically informed but also address all the points that need to be addressed to ensure that democratic standards are being met?

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much.

I would note that you and I first met almost two decades ago, when we were both with UNDP in New York doing this kind of work.

[Kevin Deveaux]

Indeed.

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

There are others on this committee who've done similar work.

My second question is for Professor Bardall.

Gabrielle, you've done a lot of work on women, peace and security, and you did mention GBA+ and the tremendous backsliding that's happening. Really, the litmus test is what's happening to women's organizations globally. I wonder whether you could talk a bit about that and the nexus between gender and security, which I know you've done a lot of work on.

[Gabrielle Bardall]

Thank you for your question.

Yes, right now women's rights defenders and women's rights and democracy organizations are among the prime targets of threats to democracy. Nearly 70% of women's rights organizations have experienced threats and harassment both online and off-line, 57% have identified state actors as the perpetrators of the attacks and almost 20% have been the victims of serious violence or threats of violence, including death threats.

These threats have significant repercussions, silencing people and hiding much of what goes on in authoritarian regimes, which use gender and identity issues in an effort to divide society, be it here in Canada or other countries. In addition, the rise in populism is tearing at the very fabric of democracy.

Under the women, peace and security initiative, Canada put some very powerful models in place, especially under the leadership of former ambassador Jacqueline O'Neill, for whom I had the honour of working for a time. Not only did those models deliver the women, peace and security program, but they also promoted effective co-operation between the Canadian government and Canadian civil society.

The office of the ambassador for women, peace and security took a whole-of-government approach, working with many government departments, providing support to international missions, and giving political cover and legitimacy to certain actors abroad targeted by authoritarian actors. What's more, the ambassador's office built very close ties with Canadian civil society, which provided support and a rapid response mechanism, which Mr. Deveaux mentioned, to explain certain things or identify solutions in complex situations.

We therefore have considerable experience and expertise in working in complex situations, and that expertise could certainly be applied to the challenges facing democracy today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Ms. Vandenbeld.

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

Mr. Chair, I see that Mr. Campbell is back. Perhaps we could hear his opening remarks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Yes, we will, but after finishing the first round.

We now go to Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being with us today.

Ms. Tsikhanouskaya, I had the opportunity to meet you a few times here, in Ottawa, and recently in Berlin, in February. You are a model of courage, bravery and perseverance. Again, it's an honour to have you with us.

I was wondering about something that has come up lately and given rise to questions. We saw some progress recently, with the release of the 250 political prisoners in Belarus as part of a deal negotiated with states in the west at the end of March. Some experts have told us that this creates a risk of legitimizing an authoritarian regime. Is that true? Obviously, the goal was to get political prisoners out of prison and that was achieved, but if it goes hand in hand with the lifting of sanctions or the legitimation of the regime, isn't there a risk for the international community?

[Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya]

First of all, I have to say that we are grateful to President Trump, special envoy John Coale and everyone who worked so hard to release political prisoners, because every life saved matters. When even one person walks out of jail, it's a victory for the family and a small breath of air for all of us.

Let us be honest. If the regime frees some people and then keeps arresting new ones, it's not justice. It's like a revolving door. It's not accountability. Prisoner releases are good, but they cannot become a substitute for ending repression. We must judge policy not only by how many people are released but also by whether torture stops, whether arrests stop and whether new political prisoners stop appearing.

Of course, we understand that President Trump's approach is more transactional. It really might be a success story for President Trump, and we hope that these humanitarian efforts will continue. Here we have to divide the humanitarian track and the political one.

We are in constant communication and consultation with our American partners. They are actually not doing anything behind the back of the Belarusian democratic forces, and we really appreciate this relationship. Of course, regimes are usually using political prisoners as bargaining chips. We sometimes need to use this sanction relief to release political prisoners. Also, most American sanctions were imposed because of human rights abuse, and they can be used to release political prisoners.

For example, European sanctions were imposed because of the hijacking of airplanes, because of threatening our neighbours and because of the participation of Lukashenko in this war. We're asking our European partners not to copycat the American approach at the moment but to leave the sanctions for the bigger game. We just have a formula—American sanctions to release people, European sanctions to release the country—because we need systematic changes to stop repressions and to make Belarus free and independent from Russia's claws so it can become a reliable partner for Europe. It's a long and much heavier road ahead.

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

This next question may seem a bit out in left field, so you don't have to answer, of course.

Given what's going on in the Middle East, how do you see what could be unfolding in Belarus, which is completely in Russia's pocket, with the current conflict between the U.S., Israel and Iran? How do you see the situation? In terms of what could come out of the conflict, do you see it having a positive or negative impact on your situation?

It's fine, if you don't think it will make a difference. I can ask another question.

[Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya]

The world is going crazy now. There are so many conflicts in the world. What is important for me and for my country is that Belarus remains in focus and that Ukraine remains in focus, because the attention of the strongest in this world is dispersed everywhere and Belarus might be overlooked in this context.

Lukashenko is sitting at the table of dictators—the table of losers. We see the fate of dictators. Of course, there might be different methods to eliminate dictators—like in the case of Venezuela, for example, or Syria or now Iran—but it's also a warning to dictators that dictatorship is not forever and that they have to behave because they might be next.

I understand that the dictators of the world are talking to each other. They are learning from each other. They are sharing their tools and instruments to suppress and intimidate the world order, but I believe the democratic world is much stronger. You have many more tools to use. Maybe the problem is that the democratic world doesn't believe in itself enough to be a strong power against dictatorships.

Democratic changes in Belarus are important for democracy worldwide. That's why we ask our partners, our allies, not to postpone the Belarusian topic and not to overlook this in this turbulent world.

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

Thank you very much.

Ms. Le Roy, Mr. Deveaux talked about—

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Sorry, Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, but you're out of time.

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

Welcome back, Mr. Campbell.

[Leslie Campbell]

Thank you. I hope the audio problems are resolved now. Of course, interrupt me if they're not.

I think I will go away from my prepared text, just because we're already into this discussion. I'll try to pare it down a little bit to reflect the debate.

First of all, for a little context, I come to you from just outside Washington, D.C., where I've been working with the National Democratic Institute, or NDI, for almost 32 years. I left there in the fall, but I'm a Canadian from the Canadian political system in Manitoba and Ottawa, and I brought my experience in Canada to bear internationally.

I was going to talk about some of the inside things that happened with DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, cancelling most of the democracy programs, but the fundamental and most important issue is that three billion U.S. dollars' worth of support to democracy abroad, human rights defenders and people like Ms. Tsikhanouskaya are, if not completely gone, radically changed and radically reduced. It was an incredible blow to a project that has been going since World War II, basically.

An even bigger blow is the point that was just made by our Belarusian colleague about authoritarian learning and dictators getting together and learning from one another. They're still doing that, yet democracies have had this blow with these programs that brought many organizations and individuals together.

As an example, NDI, my former organization, worked with more than 300 Canadian politicians, members of Parliament, former members of Parliament and former politicians over the years to bring their expertise abroad, and that ability is reduced. To shorten this and add to what my colleagues have said, there's never been a better time for Canada to join in a full and very Canadian way not the network of authoritarians working together, obviously, but the network of democracies working together.

I've been talking about this in Canada for many years. One of the things that has come up a number of times is that, yes, it's great that Canada plays a role, but there are so many other players, so what would be the niche and what would Canada do where it wasn't duplicating or where it would have the biggest effect? Much of that concern is now gone. There's not a lot to duplicate anymore. There are some other democratic countries that are working in this field, but again, with the loss of the largest programs funded by the U.S., there's a huge opening.

I'm not going to take any more time except to mention the idea of a rapid response mechanism to respond to unexpected or, perhaps, untimely changes. Again, we heard that dictators usually fall unexpectedly. Coups happen unexpectedly, sometimes in a democratic direction. Wars have unexpected outcomes. I'm not defending wars even remotely, but sometimes they create openings. Individuals, and we can think of some even in the last couple of years, have led revolutions that have sprung up that we never expected to spring up and cause change. Of course, a lot of those were put away by force.

I'll end on this: I think it's extremely important for Canada to really get in there with all that it has to offer, which is an amazing amount. There's now the leadership in Canada that's very interested in this. Provide Canada's particular credibility, expertise and commitment to these issues and really, in a sense, double down on what's been done in the past. The way has been cleared for doing that, so I would encourage much more action.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Mr. Campbell.

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

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us today.

I want to thank everyone for their important testimony.

I'll start with Ms. Le Roy.

You spoke about the Parliamentary Centre and another organization. How important are these organizations for the promotion of democracy?

Within our government, Canada has supported these institutions. How important are they, how important is the work they've done and how important is it to support the future of these institutions?

[Monika Le Roy]

I think they're as important as Canada decides it wants them to be, and they're as important as you, as members of Parliament, decide you want them to be.

The Parliamentary Centre is a non-governmental organization that was created by an act of Parliament and was intended to create greater co-operation and greater programming and partnerships using Canadian parliamentary expertise globally.

If you look at transitional democracies operating in different countries, more often than not the parliamentary model is the one that is more easily transferable and translated. That includes members of the staff of Parliament as well as yourselves, who can participate whether it's in relationship building, in capacity building and training or in sharing expertise from committee structures and oversight and accountability mechanisms.

ParlAmericas is a parliamentary association of which Canada is a board member, and its other board members consist of all the countries in the western hemisphere. I think it is the only entity that actually has all of the countries of the hemisphere and still includes Cuba in that platform. It is a gathering of MPs coming together to tackle shared challenges.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

There are a lot of associations like the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Commonwealth, etc., that we are involved in. I appreciate that response.

Professor Cohen, I'd like to ask you about some of your work that I've come across, actually.

I know you have written columns in Le Devoir and other publications alongside human rights advocates.

With respect to the challenging situation in the Middle East, in Gaza and in the region generally, I know that you have done some work and writing on this. Can you share with us how we can help promote democracy and human rights and defend human rights defenders?

[Prof. Miriam Cohen]

Thank you for the question. It's an important to think about the role of Canada in active conflicts and how civil society and human rights defenders can be supported.

At the moment, in the conflicts that are taking place in the Middle East, but also in other conflicts, look at civil society on the ground and what it needs. There's a dire need for funding for civil society organizations working with partners in Canada but also on the ground and, as I think others' testimonies have mentioned, for getting asylum seekers and support for those who would like to seek refuge in Canada.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I have been to Jerusalem. It was about seven or eight years ago. It was a wonderful experience. I engaged with people from all backgrounds—Jewish Israelis, Palestinian Israelis—and engaged with people in the West Bank. What I noticed in Jerusalem was that I met a lot of people who were involved in dialogue, bridge-building and the promotion of respect of everyone regardless of one's background.

What I noticed back then, seven or eight years ago, was that, in that sector, those who are doing the difficult work of bridge-building tend to be very much pressurized, and the societies are not really supporting them.

Do you have any opinions on how we can encourage a thickening of that space? I recognize that my witnessing of that was quite a long time ago as compared to where we are today.

[Prof. Miriam Cohen]

It's very true that the situation has changed a lot on the ground. I also visited many years ago. I think the best way now to provide support is to, again, have this collaboration with organizations that are on the ground and see what they need.

In terms of human rights defenders, what is very important is that the situation is dire on the ground, not only in Gaza but also in Iran. They have to go underground. They are subject to arbitrary detention and torture. Seeing the organizations that are doing the work, what else do they need to be supported? Funding is one thing, but if there are Canadian organizations working in those areas of conflict, support those Canadian organizations and the local ones as well.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Now I would like to ask Ms. Kronis to take the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

To start, I'd like to ask Ms. Le Roy a couple of questions. We get a lot of people who come to this committee and argue that Canada should be more active abroad. I'm wondering if you could help us think a bit about the line between supporting democracy and, actually, going further than that and inadvertently, or advertently in some cases, interfering in another country's internal affairs.