SHUR Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SOUS-COMITÉ DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT INTERNATIONAL DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 26, 1998

• 1009

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.)): Good morning, everybody. We're here to reconvene the Sub-Committee on Human Rights and International Development.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we will undertake an examination of the situation of human rights in Mexico.

Welcome to all of you here today.

I believe, Madame Madeleine Desnoyers, you are going to make a statement and introduce the guests you have here today.

Welcome to everybody. The floor is yours.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Desnoyers (Officer, Americas' Program, International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development): Good morning. I am from the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development in Montreal. I will be chairing my colleagues' presentation. I will introduce them to you and they will introduce themselves again when they speak.

• 1010

First of all, we would like to thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to be here. We feel that it is important to have exchanges between the non-governmental sector and the government on Mexico, which is a country of crucial interest to Canada, especially since we have had difficulties over the past few years arranging a meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We can come back to that later. Without further ado, I will introduce my colleagues in the order in which they will be speaking to you.

First is John Foster, Professor of human rights at the Faculty of Law of the University of Saskatchewan and also a member of Common Frontiers; Sheila Katz, a member of the NAFTA project of the Canadian Labour Congress; Suzanne Rumsey, from the Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America; and Roch Tassé, from Inter Pares.

I will give John Foster the floor.

[English]

Professor John Foster (Ariel F. Sallow Professor for Human Rights, University of Saskatchewan): Merci, Madeleine.

Good morning. I'm going to talk just very briefly about civil society and democratic development in Mexico. For those of you who want to go further than the brief we have presented, there is an article in the fall issue of Canadian Foreign Policy that extends the remarks I'm going to make.

We're dealing with a country of 100 million people, which is emerging from around 70 years of one-party rule and a very complex system of economic and political control. The main point I want to make to you this morning is that we see, and this is a very hopeful sign, a revolution in the development of civil organizations in Mexico—of citizens' organizations and of citizenship. This is slow, tenuous, but extremely important.

If we look at the future for a democratic Mexico, the fundamental point I want to make is that the growth of civil society in Mexico, of autonomous people's organizations, is probably the single most important key to a democratic future in Mexico.

That future is endangered by a considerable negative potential, poverty, and the polarization of incomes and impoverishment of millions. Mexico is in many ways a rich country and there are many rich people in Mexico, but in the 14 years up to 1994 wage earners' incomes fell, in real terms, 65% and a further 20% in 1994-95. There are some minor and slow recoveries, but you can imagine that if you're talking about an 80% fall in day-to-day income for ordinary people, what that has meant. At least 50 million Mexicans remain poor.

The second danger is that of militarization, and this has increased quite a bit under President Zedillo. The militarization of the country, the increased presence of the military in the daily life of several states and many locales, particularly in the southern part of the country, is leading to what some observers refer to as a Colombianization of some areas. We can discuss what that means, but it means in day-to-day life interventions, interference in community life, sometimes robbery, rape, and violence.

There is a considerable potential for the reassertion of violence and regressive tendencies in the traditional party of government, as its hold on power is threatened. It's the so-called revenge of the dinosaurs, or the return of the dinosaurs, the dinosaurs in this case largely being older, pre-leadership—currently governors in a number of areas.

I would also add the constant and recurrent factor of corruption. According to Transparency International, Mexico is the most corrupt country in Latin America and the sixth most corrupt country in the world. We have an amazing amount of political, cultural, and economic relations with this country, so how do we deal with this issue of corruption and the way it complicates relations? Ask the former Canadian ambassador.

At the same time, to counter these negative possibilities, we have the growth of autonomous civic organizations. I could go on at some length about that, but I won't. I would simply like to say that Canadian collaboration and support for autonomous civil organizations in Mexico has great potential, perhaps in supporting independent rural organizations, such as the AgroBarzon, the growing network of environmental movements, the autonomous, very important trade union sector, the pro-democracy and human rights movements, and the local community development movements.

• 1015

We recommend that Canada move toward an assistance program aimed at increasing the productive capacity of people in poverty and increasing the strength of autonomous Mexican civil society organizations. That program should include: involving and strengthening Mexican organizations taking part in the planning of the program itself; forming and bringing together Canadian and Mexican civil society organizations to develop agreements and rules of partnership; and providing support for programs of training and capacity building. Out of that would emerge a whole series of other program possibilities.

Popular pressure has also brought a significant step forward in at least federal electoral practices in Mexico—formal democracy—but Mexico still has a long way to go. One of the things that has helped this to happen is the development of autonomous pro-democracy movements in Mexico, the most prominent of which is the Alianza Civica, which has spread to 32 states. It was organized to deepen the process of democratization through education of people at the municipal and local as well as the state and federal levels.

We are also recommending, and this comes out of the 1997 Canadian delegation to observe the Mexican mid-term federal elections, that Canada increase its support to Mexican non-governmental pro-democracy organizations, such as the Alianza Civica, and there are a variety of ways in which we could do that.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Desnoyers: I will now ask Sheila Katz from the Canadian Labour Congress to speak.

[English]

Ms. Sheila Katz (Co-ordinator, NAFTA Desk, Canadian Labour Congress): Thank you. Hopefully I've recovered my voice today just enough to give you my presentation.

In the context of NAFTA, cracks have begun to appear in the monolithic power structures of the institutional revolutionary party, the PRI, the governing party in Mexico for the past 60 years. The denial of the human rights of Mexican workers is one of the signals that these cracks are becoming unmanageable.

Fissures first began to appear with the impact of the economic crisis unleashed by the botched peso devaluation of 1994. That caused the worst economic crisis of the century. Workers lost half the value of their wages overnight. John has referred to some of the other impacts of that economic crisis. As well, there were two years of double-digit inflation reaching close to 100% and more at times, soaring unemployment, and the accumulation of massive debt as investors withdrew their bonds and sought safer havens elsewhere.

Former president Carlos Salinas had promised the Mexican people that NAFTA would carry Mexico into the first world. He had clearly broken his promise and people were very angry.

The economic crisis has had the effect of highlighting the role of official trade union structures in keeping Mexican workers prisoners in government-controlled unions, which provide only the legal minimum wage—in many places, particularly in the Maquiladora region along the border, that's between $3 and $4 a day, an unliveable wage—and hold workers back through economic pacts signed by business, the government, and the official unions.

Employers often sign agreements known as protection contracts with pre-backed union officials, bypassing entirely the rank and file of the workers, who in many cases are never allowed to see their collective agreement or their contract. They don't know who their union leader is, and they don't know who their shop steward is.

When workers understand they need a different kind of trade unionism, independent from government control and collusion with employers, and workers try to organize independent unions in order to improve their own conditions, they're faced with a wall of so far insurmountable obstacles to obtain and enjoy their right to freedom of association, the most fundamental labour and human right, a right guaranteed by the Mexican constitution, the Mexican labour code, and international instruments such as those ratified by International Labour Organisation conventions, as well as commitments to core labour standards assumed and undertaken by the Mexican government in the 1996 Singapore ministerial conference of the World Trade Organization. On paper, Mexico has a guarantee for these rights. Practice is another story. Labour law is different from labour practice as well as labour policy.

• 1020

This is why the side agreement to NAFTA, based on the compliance or fulfilment of labour law, is inadequate and cannot meet its stated obligation, which is to improve labour standards in the NAFTA countries. It can't fulfil these obligations because the labour side accord of NAFTA has no enforcement capacity. It has no teeth.

You can see from the written submission we have presented to you how Mexico's labour policy and practice are related to Mexico's economic model of export-oriented growth and how the Mexican government's labour policies and the employer's labour practices are the main attraction for international investment to the advantage of multinational corporations, particularly those investing in the Maquiladora region along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The last point I'd like to make is that the experience of Mexico should be a wake-up call for you and for the Canadian government, which is planning to enter into another free trade agreement based on NAFTA with 33 more countries, 31 or 32 of which suffer the same kind of democratic deficit as does Mexico with regard to ensuring that workers and human rights are respected. I'm referring to the free trade area of the Americas.

There are mechanisms that could be invoked if there were political will to do so. We recommend that Canada follow the example of the European Community in undertaking some of these mechanisms. Canada should be a leader in following this high road example.

The NAFTA side agreement and NAFTA itself must be re-negotiated in order to incorporate mechanisms that guarantee that Mexico's trade advantage be linked to improvements in its compliance with international labour and human rights and that this principle be applied to all trade agreements into which Canada enters, especially with the free trade area of the Americas.

I can leave with the committee as well a letter written to Canada's labour minister, Lawrence MacAulay. It is the Canadian Labour Congress' response to a fourth-year review of the NAFTA side agreement, and it has more details in it.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Desnoyers: We will now move to Suzanne Rumsey from the Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America, who will talk to us about the human rights situation in Mexico right now.

[English]

Ms. Suzanne Rumsey (Program Coordinator, Central America and Mexico, Inter-Church Committee for Human Rights in Latin America): I'd like to make four brief points, which you will see in greater detail in the brief we have presented. There are also four recommendations for your consideration.

Since the Canadian churches began monitoring the human rights situation in Mexico in 1990, there has been a disturbing deterioration in the respect for civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights.

Mexicans who have protested their economic dislocation and social and political exclusion, both through peaceful and violent means, have become the targets of repression by the Mexican security forces; that is, federal, state, and local police and increasingly the Mexican army.

The indigenous people of Chiapas are experiencing this repression most dramatically in the form of a counter-insurgency war, but militarization is increasing throughout the country. It has been the experience of Canadian NGOs and our counterparts in Mexico that the Mexican government says one thing and does another.

Canada places great importance on the Mexican government's words, but it seems unwilling to criticize its actions, we believe, for fear of jeopardizing our privileged trading relationship with Mexico. We therefore urge this subcommittee to consider the following recommendations.

As commander-in-chief of the Mexican armed forces, President Zedillo is responsible for the human rights violations being carried out by the army in the context of its counter-insurgency war in Chiapas. The Acteal massacre by a paramilitary group was a direct result of this war strategy. It is not enough for Canada to condemn the act; it must condemn the perpetrators, both material and intellectual, including the Zedillo administration. It must do this publicly and at every bilateral and multilateral opportunity, including the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

• 1025

Since the Zapatista uprising in January 1994, Canadian NGOs have been consistently denied a meeting with our foreign minister to report on the first-hand information we have documented and advocate on behalf our Mexican partners. Likewise, NGOs were given no opportunity to brief the parliamentary delegation, most of whose members were visiting Chiapas for the first time. We await a response to the request that we have made to meet with the delegation.

As a step towards developing substantive dialogue between the Canadian government and civil society, a follow-up delegation should take place before the end of 1998 involving members of the parliamentary delegation, this subcommittee and civil society representatives.

ICCHRLA has monitored the human rights situation in Latin America for over 25 years. What is occurring in Chiapas follows the disturbing pattern of the counter-insurgency wars we documented in Central America and the horrific consequences of paramilitarization we are witnessing in Columbia. Canada, together with the international community, must respond to this humanitarian and human rights crisis by establishing a permanent international monitoring body in Chiapas, which would include civil society participation.

Finally, there is a pressing need for public debate about Canada's increasingly comprehensive and complex relationship with Mexico. We therefore urge this subcommittee to call for the establishment of a permanent parliamentary subcommittee on Mexico that would monitor a range of issues including human rights and trade, democratic development, economic development and labour rights and that would report regularly to Parliament and the Canadian public.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Keith Martin): Mr. Tassé.

Mr. Roch Tassé (Program Officer for Latin America, Inter Pares): My presentation will deal with the humanitarian crisis created by the unrest in Chiapas. We do not have precise figures, but, according to sources, there are about 15,000 displaced persons in Chiapas right now as a result of this situation. In two regions of northern Chiapas, some 5,000 people have been displaced because of the activities of paramilitary groups since 1995. In the altiplano region, where the Acteal massacre happened in December, there are about 10,000 displaced persons.

These displaced persons can be put into three categories. The first group consists of people who have affiliations or sympathies with the PRI, the party in power. This group accounts for about 1,000 of the displaced persons. There are two other groups: the sympathizers of the Zapatista groups and the people of another antigovernment group called the Bees. There are about 14,000 people in these two groups.

The majority of the displaced persons have taken refuge in neighbouring communities because of pressure, harassment or terrorizing by paramilitary groups and, in some cases, because of harassment from the army, that is official military groups.

The material needs of these displaced persons consist of drinking water, construction material, temporary shelters, medication, farm implements, but in particular an international presence for their protection. The humanitarian response with respect to protection and presence has consisted up to now mainly of peace camps, with an international presence organized by human rights groups from Chiapas. The Centre Fray Bartolomé has organized its camps with an international presence.

Over the past two or three months, have been trying to exert pressure to have these peace camps dismantled and the international presence eliminated. There have been a number of people deported, including some Canadians about six weeks ago. As a result, the vulnerable groups, that is the victims of these displacements, are increasingly finding themselves without an international presence and without witnesses if there is renewed harassment. There is less and less international presence, and the Mexican authorities seem to have a policy of eliminating that international presence. This is a great concern.

Regarding the humanitarian response to meet material needs, the Red Cross in Chiapas has managed to provide a very limited response in terms of medication and food, namely in the altiplano region. The victims in northern Chiapas still do not have any material assistance. Canada supported the Chiapas Red Cross program in the altiplano region after the December massacre. It made a contribution of $60,000, I believe. In March, Canadian NGOs made a proposal to provide assistance in the form of building materials and farm implements for victims in northern Chiapas and for the other victims in the altiplano region who are not receiving assistance from the Chiapas Red Cross.

• 1030

That proposal was rejected by the Canadian government because the government preferred a neutral channel like the Red Cross. The Canadian NGO proposal was aimed at people who had not received any international assistance, that is the victims who were Zapatista sympathizers and who still have received no humanitarian assistance.

In refusing the proposal, the Canadian government also said that it planned to offer further assistance through the Red Cross. However, that assistance is very limited and cannot be increased without the presence of the International Red Cross. The Chiapas Red Cross therefore requested the presence and support of the International Red Cross, but this request has been refused by the Mexican authorities and also by the Mexican Red Cross.

We have three recommendations to make.

First, Canada should act in a way that is consistent with its choice of working only with the Red Cross as a channel for humanitarian assistance and should ask the Mexican government to accept the presence of the International Red Cross to support the work of the Chiapas Red Cross.

Second, if the Mexican authorities refuse, the Canadian government should once again consider assistance from Canadian NGOs to help those people who have a right to international assistance, regardless of their political affiliation.

Third, Canada should be very concerned by the fact that international human rights observers are being pushed out. The right to that presence should be reaffirmed by the Canadian government.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Keith Martin): Thank you very much, Mr. Tassé.

Ms. Madeleine Desnoyers: My name is not on the agenda, but I would like to speak briefly about the situation of Aboriginal people in Mexico.

I would start by saying that 10% of Mexico's population is considered to be Aboriginal, broken down into 56 ethnic groups that all speak different languages. Generally speaking, the Aboriginal population in Mexico has a very marginal existence. It is said that 90% of the people in native communities live in extreme poverty. They are subject to discrimination and always have been; for example, there is no recognition of their culture and languages in the education system. This lack of recognition of their culture also means that the authorities refuse to use the traditional rules of justice to resolve conflicts within communities and to recognize community leaders.

Aboriginal land rights are a particularly sensitive issue in Mexico, as in most Latin American countries. To prepare for Mexico's integration in the global economy, in 1992, the government revised the constitution by changing section 27 and thereby substantially the inalienable and inviolable character of these lands, which are called in Mexico the ejidos, as well as another type of ownership, communal land. By doing so, the government removed protection of Native land and community property.

Another section, section 4, recognizes the multicultural character of Mexico, which is a positive thing, but there has never been any legislation to that effect. There is thus no protection for Native peoples.

Finally, I would like to talk about the San Andrés agreements, which made very interesting proposals on the recognition of Native peoples' rights, particularly on a certain amount of autonomy. As we know, these February 1996 agreements were signed by the government, but the government, unfortunately, refused to enter into follow-up discussions on them. The negotiations were never restarted. The party in power tabled a bill a few months ago on Native rights, which is a step backwards compared with the San Andrés agreements. Among other things, Aboriginal peoples are recognized, but only at the community level. We could go into more depth about that later.

• 1035

We recommend that the Canadian government ask the Mexican government to resume the discussions on the basis of the San Andrés agreements, that the Mexican government recognize the indigenous organizations designated as stakeholders and, in addition, that the Canadian government make available, both to indigenous groups in Mexico and the government, the vast experience that Canada has developed in this area.

The appointing of Mr. Blaine Favel as native representative at the Department of Foreign Affairs is a step in the right direction. We hope that Mr. Favel will play a positive role in allowing greater contact among Aboriginal people in Mexico and Canada. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.)): Thank you.

We have a short meeting today, so we'll get right on with the questioning.

Mr. Martin.

[Translation]

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[English]

Thank you all for coming.

You've come down to the central issue of how do we change the actions of the leadership of a nation state that's acting with impunity to violate the existing norms under international agreements in human rights, economic agreements and so forth. Therefore, are you suggesting that we somehow manage to use levers such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the United Nations, the OAS? If so, how?

A lot of things you mentioned would be wonderful to do, but as you also mentioned, President Zedillo says one thing and he does something entirely different. How do we actually force President Zedillo and the Government of Mexico to engage in actions that are going to change the disturbing situation taking place in Mexico?

Prof. John Foster: The long-term answer depends on the Mexican people themselves.

That's why we stress the strengthening of autonomous civil organizations that will hold their own government to account. For example, one of the things that the Alianza Civica did was to set up a program called adopt an official or adopt a politician. It's simply a form of trying to get some transparency and accountability on the actions of their governors.

In the more immediate sense the, first thing Canada can do is to use the opportunities that are already available. The fact that Canada did not address the situation in Mexico at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva last month under item 10, where we could have done so, stands in the negative account.

We should have raised this. The Mexican government is, I believe, sensitive to international pressure. We have argued we'll do that quietly. This is always a continuing argument between human rights groups and those in government from whatever party, I suppose. We use those available and logical theatres.

With regard to the agreements we make with these countries and the sort of leverage they then permit, the Europeans have been negotiating an ongoing trade agreement with Mexico. The talk of that agreement, as part of the basis of the accord, is the mutual agreement of both sides to the democratic principles and fundamental human rights proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which inspires the internal as well as the external policies of the countries involved.

The Mexicans have fought like mad against this so-called democratic clause, because they don't want to give the Europeans the leverage to raise human rights issues. We go ahead and negotiate trade agreements without any consideration for that kind of framework. The Europeans have taken an advance here.

There are some programmatic articles in the draft permanent agreement between Mexico and the European Common Market on how to develop training and respect for human rights. There is not an enforcement mechanism. There ought to be. That's something we could be creative about.

Those are some responses. There might be others on the—

Ms. Suzanne Rumsey: I think too there's an issue of consistency in terms of Canadian policy. We were noting a striking contrast to what happened earlier this year when Serbian security forces massacred over 50 people in the Kosovo region. Canada immediately slapped commercial sanctions on Serbia.

• 1040

Around the same time, we had the Acteal massacre in which 45 Indian people were killed. And weeks later Team Canada went down to Mexico and signed millions of dollars of trade deals with Mexico, what Zedillo was quoted as saying was music to his ears. Canada, at the same time, condemned the Acteal massacre, but it didn't look at holding the Mexican government accountable for that, nor did it even consider postponing the Team Canada delegation.

What we would hope is that change in Mexico is going to take time. As John was saying, there are some steps that we in Canada can take and have a responsibility to take in a whole range of areas.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Desnoyers: I would like to emphasize the tools for dialogue between the government and the non-governmental sector, which are extremely important. We, the representatives of the organizations here today, have asked for a meeting with Minister Axworthy to discuss Mexico in greater detail. We would also be very happy to have an opportunity to meet the delegation that just went to Mexico to hear its recommendations and observations.

Moreover, the International Centre is currently setting up an advisory group on Mexico, a group for establishing dialogue between the government and— The Centre has also approached the subcommittee to ask that a representative of the subcommittee be a member of this advisory group. These mechanisms are extremely important for enabling us to keep ourselves mutually informed.

There is another aspect that is extremely important, and John mentioned it earlier: civil society in Mexico must be strengthened, but the links between civil society in Canada and Mexico must also be promoted. We believe that that is a way of strengthening these links.

The Chair: Madame Debien.

Ms. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): I have a very short question and I'm going to share my five minutes with Mr. Turp, who also has a question.

One of your recommendations deals with strengthening civil society and therefore democracy in Mexico. You have suggested that one means of achieving that would be to strengthen the links between civil society organizations and NGOs in Canada.

On page 3 of your document, you identify a number of elements that would make this partnership possible. However, you have also said that CIDA does not play a very important role in developing and strengthening civil society. What is CIDA's role in Mexico? What is CIDA currently doing in Mexico?

Mr. Roch Tassé: First of all, there are no bilateral programs between CIDA and Mexico. There is a small $200,000 or $400,000 fund at the Canadian embassy for small initiatives. Canadian NGOs, over the past year, have held several meetings with CIDA to promote a program that could be administered by Canadian NGOs and that would help strengthen civil society. The last of these meetings took place last week.

We were told by the bilateral division that there is no funding. Last week, we met the NGO division at CIDA. The representative told us that they were sympathetic to our recommendations and they should launch a dialogue with Foreign Affairs. So it would seem that there needs to be a political decision to get CIDA involved in such a program.

Mrs. Maud Debien: Thank you very much. That is all I wanted to know.

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Ms. Rumsey, you mentioned our delegation. Mr. Proctor and I were part of that delegation. We were given four, if not three, days' notice of the existence of that delegation. I was one of the people who would have appreciated meeting with you before we left, and I appreciated the fact that some of you wrote to us to share some of your observations.

I would like our delegation to meet with you and I would invite you to come to Ottawa again on June the second, when the delegation will report to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I would like to see a large number of non-governmental organizations who are interested in Mexico.

Here is my question. I would like to know what you thought of this delegation, its program and its stay in Mexico, since you have heard some reaction to our work there.

• 1045

[English]

Ms. Suzanne Rumsey: Thank you. I'm afraid I can only comment on what I've heard through the media. As you well know, formal recommendations haven't been made. I don't want to be responding in that form. We were pleased to see that you did have the opportunity to meet with some of the partners whom we work quite closely with in the human rights community: the diocese of San Cristobal and the Fray Bartolomé Human Rights Centre. Those kinds of visits are very greatly needed and they are extremely important for our partners and for your own learning process.

What we're still waiting to hear, though, is some clear direction for the Canadian government in terms of its policy. You've heard about where we would like to see some of the areas moving. Again, we heard you talk about what you saw and heard from all sides, but in terms of conclusions and recommendations we're still left waiting too.

We're pleased that the group went. We too were sorry that there was not an opportunity to brief you. It would have made a fuller experience for the delegation to have been prepared in that way. It's an important first step.

As we say, we heard that commitments were made to you by the Mexican government in a number of areas. One of the reasons we want to push for another broader delegation is for you to be able to go back and see if those commitments have been met, because our experience since January 1994 is that commitments get made but they don't happen. So it would be good for all of us to have an opportunity to see whether or not the Mexican government can in fact live up to its word.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: How would you see—

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me. We'll probably have time to get back to you, Mr. Turp.

Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thank you very much.

Before I get to my questions, I did have a motion that I would like to move about the presence of the International Red Cross in Mexico. I don't know whether it would be appropriate to move that now.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Should I read it?

The Chair: Certainly. Go ahead.

Mr. Dick Proctor: The motion says that:

Whereas there exists in the state of Chiapas, Mexico a serious humanitarian crisis which includes extreme hunger, lack of shelter, violence, human rights abuses and the displacement of members of the indigenous population,

This Sub-Committee recommends that the Canadian Government publicly and formally request the intervention of the International Red Cross in Chiapas.

I would so move that.

The Chair: What you were reading, is that what you think we have? Mine's a little different.

Mr. Dick Proctor: It's a little bit different. I've amended it slightly.

The Chair: Okay. Does everyone have it?

Mr. Dick Proctor: I didn't realize that people had a copy. I'm striking out the middle paragraph. In the first paragraph I'm including hunger and shelter as part of the problem and the need for the International Red Cross to be there.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): The second paragraph doesn't apply, is that true?

Mr. Dick Proctor: I'm not sure if it's accurate.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Okay.

The Chair: Could we have a little clarification on this. I believe Mr. Tassé has said that the Mexican Red Cross is not in favour. Was that correct?

Mr. Roch Tassé: The Chiapas Red Cross has asked for the presence and the assistance of the International Red Cross to expand its own local programs. The Mexican Red Cross, the national Red Cross, has opposed this and so has the Mexican government.

Many of the victims refuse to deal with the Mexican Red Cross. The Mexican Red Cross, by some sectors in Chiapas, is accused of allegedly having sympathy with the ruling party. Some of the victims do not trust receiving assistance from a national Red Cross that is perhaps not perceived as neutral. There is confidence, we are told, in the Chiapas Red Cross, and the Chiapas Red Cross itself is asking for the presence of the International Red Cross.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just as clarification, either through you to Mr. Proctor or to Mr. Tassé, on the second paragraph, first of all, have they made a formal request to the International Red Cross, the Chiapas Red Cross?

• 1050

Mr. Roch Tassé: It is our understanding that they have, yes.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I think the motion is a very good one and I certainly support it, but in the first paragraph, when you're starting to put in things such as “housing” or other like words, should you not just say, “human rights abuses and displacement of indigenous populations”? Is that not sufficient, and then let the international community decide exactly what it is?

There may be many other things that we won't put in here where there are abuses taking place. And if they've put in a formal request, it begs to be mentioned in the original. I like the wording of your original motion, Mr. Proctor.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Tassé or Ms. Rumsey, has the International Red Cross expressed a wish to get involved in Chiapas?

Mr. Roch Tassé: Yes, they have, but because they don't have the authorization from the Mexican authorities, they have not been proactive in trying to get there. So I guess they're expecting some international pressure, and an appeal should be made to the International Red Cross to respond to the Chiapas Red Cross.

The Chair: Mr. Bonwick, if I understood you clearly, you are proposing that Mr. Proctor put the original piece that was submitted?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Yes, because it is factual, and we should leave it in broader terms and not define them specifically.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I'm happy with that.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I believe we can find consensus, and certainly on Mr. Proctor's part, to leave the motion stand as it was originally written.

An hon. member: As originally written, with the second paragraph?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Keith Martin: Could we perhaps reread the motion? That would help a lot.

The Chair: Yes, okay.

Mr. Dick Proctor: All right. Let's try it again:

Whereas there exists in the state of Chiapas, Mexico a serious humanitarian crisis which includes violence, human rights abuses and the displacement of members of the indigenous population,

Whereas the Chiapas Red Cross has appealed for the involvement of the International Red Cross to assist in this difficult situation,

The Sub-Committee recommends that the Canadian Government publicly and formally request the intervention of the International Red Cross in Chiapas.

The Chair: I call the vote.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Adopted unanimously.

Ms. Rumsey.

Ms. Suzanne Rumsey: I'm very pleased the motion has been passed. I'd just like to make two quick points in response.

One is that it's important because of the humanitarian crisis, but secondly it's important because, as we mentioned earlier, due to the tightening of Mexican immigration regulations, if there were an emergency situation now like the Zapatista uprising in January 1994, when Canadian organizations responded within days to requests from our partners to be down there observing and monitoring what was happening, we couldn't respond now. We're told we have to give 60 days' notice. So a massacre could occur, the clean-up could be done, and then we would be allowed in. So the need for some kind of international presence now is crucial.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Desnoyers: I would like to point out that the present situation is really a step backwards from what the situation was before. In 1994, it was possible to go down as far as Chiapas. Before that, Mexico had never responded to criticisms from Amnesty International, for example. There was, however, greater openness in 1994 because of international pressure. Access is now being prohibited, and that is very worrisome.

A case in point is the expulsion of the two young Canadian women a few weeks ago, even if some people seem not to have had the appropriate visa, despite the fact that the Mexican bureaucracy had been quite vague about that until February.

We still think that the Canadian government must defend an international presence in Chiapas and elsewhere in Mexico, that is the right to have observers. Moreover, Canada and many other countries adopted a declaration at the last session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission on the right of human rights observers to do their work.

• 1055

One way of concretely implementing that declaration would be to support the work of observers in Mexico.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Augustine, please.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you so much for coming to our committee today as witnesses and for bringing to us the information. We've been involved through our colleagues who did make that visit and also through the things we see daily in the newspapers.

Some of the questions I wanted to ask have to do with the whole notion of the arm's length channels and the organizations that deliver resources to our Mexican partners. I think someone mentioned earlier that the arm's length channels may be useful in minimizing any concerns about foreign interference in the external affairs of Mexico. I wondered if you could speak to the kind of partnership we need and the kinds of things you think need to happen with our partners to ensure that what needs to be done gets carried out. For example, this motion today talks about the International Red Cross. What other avenues do you think we need to bring to the fore at this point in time?

Prof. John Foster: What we're aiming for grows out of some concrete experiences in other cases, and in our brief we did mention the case of Cuba, a case of dealing with a fairly authoritarian government where the primary means of cooperation was to develop a consortium or consortia between Canadian non-governmental organizations and social movements and their counterparts in the other country.

A good deal of sectoral bilateral cooperation is going on now in the human rights sector, the development sector, the labour sector, a bit in the environmental sector, in women's and antipoverty groups, and so on. That can be strengthened. As part of developing a CIDA program or some kind of Canadian bilateral program, we would see that as a first step so that the Mexican organizations are directly involved from the beginning in defining the needs and so there is exchange of experiences on both sides.

There is considerable interest in Mexico in Canadian models regarding democratic accountability—things such as the participation of the public in our foreign policy process and other Canadian autonomous examples, such as the alternate budget process of providing alternatives, from a non-governmental perspective, to established policies. In the case of the budget in Mexico, it's only since the election last summer that there's really much discussion and accountability in the congress, let alone in the public. These are some of the examples.

When we speak of arm's length, we're simply thinking of institutions such as the International Centre in Montreal—the non-governmental organizations represented here. The issue of—whatever you want to call it—foreign gold or foreign intervention in Mexico is always a sensitive one and often one that is politicized by the government. The government has a real problem now with the explosion of community organizations in that its legislative and regulatory means aren't adequate to deal with it. Sometimes it comes down hard and says every bit of foreign money that comes into the country has to be registered by this route and that route. Well, that's totally impossible in the current context.

There are other experiences like that in Cuba, perhaps in South Africa, and so on that can be brought to bear to assert and ensure independence and autonomy.

The Chair: Thank you.

Is that it, Ms. Augustine?

Ms. Jean Augustine: Yes.

• 1100

The Chair: We're going to be losing our interpreters, and I understand you also have a press conference to attend, so I'm going to adjourn the meeting. Thank you very much for your presentation today and for your presence here.

The meeting is adjourned.