EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, November 22, 1995

.1542

[English]

The Chair: I call to order the Sub-Committee on Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

I would like to thank everyone for coming today. Our committee is fairly new and we're looking for some direction and some assistance in formulating what we're actually going to be doing on the committee in the new year.

Today we have as our witnesses, from the Network on International Human Rights, Allan McChesney; from Amnesty International, Roger Clark; from the Ligue des droits et libertés, Gerald McKenzie; and from the Canadian Council of Churches, Daisy Francis.

If any of you have a presentation, we would like you to make those first, maybe 5 to 10 minutes in length considering that we have to be out of here by 5:30 p.m.

Who would like to begin?

Ms Daisy Francis (Member, Human Rights Council, Canadian Council of Churches): I would like to begin, if the gentlemen don't mind, as my voice is giving out.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I propose to make some preliminary comments, principally just to introduce the Canadian Council of Churches to this committee.

I'm pleased to see Mr. Flis here. We got an opportunity to appear before him when he was part of the travelling series of hearings around the review on foreign policy.

If I may beg your indulgence, I would like to give a brief history of the churches and the churches' involvement in this issue and why we are happy to participate again with a reinvigorated committee.

As many of you know, Canadian churches have a long history of working with both churches in Canada and other partner areas around the world. We feel that we have gained important insights and perspectives from our international partnership with church-based organizations and with organizations that work and walk with those whom we call the marginalized peoples: the poor, the disadvantaged, often women, often peasants, often indigenous peoples.

.1545

Fifty years ago, just following World War II, members of the Canadian church community in fact contributed to both creating what would evolve as the structures of the UN system and also drafting many of the important documents that would emerge out of the UN. Particularly, we're proud of our role in the development of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which I'm sorry to say that John Humphrey is not around here to at least support us in claiming.

Churches and member organizations have also participated in every Canadian parliamentary review aimed at elaborating and articulating Canada's foreign policy. In fact, in this most recent round, the Canadian Council of Churches submitted a document we called Peace with Justice in a Global Community, an ecumenical statement on Canada's international relations that was widely endorsed by what we call the principal churches who make up the Canadian Council of Churches.

Separately, a number of our member organizations - we have several and I won't attempt to elaborate a rather complex organizational structure we have inside the churches. But organizations such as the one I work for, which is the Canada-Asia Working Group, also submitted to the various committees our observations on what we felt should be the direction in which Canadian foreign policy should go.

Churches view Parliament as having a very key role to play in the promotion and protection of human rights. With respect to human rights and given the agenda topic for today, we would call for a human rights policy that is comprehensive, coherent and consistent.

By comprehensive, we mean that we would like a policy that reflects and includes all human rights, not only civil and political rights, which has traditionally been the area of focus of the human rights activity of the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is also our hope and expectation that this committee will embrace and adopt all the five sets of rights that emerged out of what is called the Universal Bill of Rights.

When we speak of coherence, we also mean that all elements of foreign policy, whether it be aid, trade, bilateral relations, or military exports, have a human rights component and human rights scrutiny where appropriate, met by the third element which is consistency. We call for an uniform application.

If I could slip out of my Canadian Council of Churches hat and switch into my Asia-specific hat, what do I mean by consistency? We would like a human rights policy that is standardized, so that the same set of scrutinies we apply to a country like Burma, which is not particularly crucial in our orbit, is also applied to a country like Indonesia, which is important in our orbit as a key trading partner.

Concretely, in terms of goals we would like to see the committee address, one of the things we were thinking in terms of is that in fact we have come to a time when we are moving from standard-setting internationally, something which in fact Canada is very good at, to implementation, which is often more difficult, to try to determine how to take these international standards and render them possible. In this case, as churches we feel that the NGO community and the churches have a wealth of resources based on our experience and our proximity to partners.

Other issues we feel might be useful to add to the agenda of the community include, for instance, the role of non-state actors in human rights violations. Who do we mean by non-state actors? They're multilateral agencies who are not under any particular realm of scrutiny. There is the commercial sector.

States are, in fact, increasingly not the primary actors in violations of human rights. Our experience is that when one looks at questions like debt, structural adjustments, and so on, there is a whole unregulated character to a sector of international relations that is not subject to any kind of scrutiny and, frankly, work without much conscience, shall we say.

At this point, we would like also to commend to you the work of two sections of the government that we feel have become, over a time, hard-won ones - both the human rights unit of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the work of CIDA's human rights policy unit. Again, what we discovered is that it's less a problem of the standards that they advance than the notion of integrating the human rights criteria that they all agree is important - and again in implementation.

.1550

Lastly, in this regard we think it will be very important if a strong signal emerges from this committee to Parliament that there is real priority need to allocate resources both in the Canadian civil service and to the UN system to promote and protect the human rights of Canada reaffirmed in foreign policy as crucial.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. McKenzie.

[Translation]

Mr. Gerald McKenzie (Civil Liberties Union): Thank you for inviting us here. The Civil Liberties Union has been in existence for over 30 years and bases its actions in Quebec and in Canada on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, on treaties as well as on charters.

We are affiliated with the International Federation of Human Rights. On international issues, we have worked within the framework of the Federation and also in cooperation with several organizations in Canada and in Quebec. We have participated in observer missions and have lobbied the Canadian government as well as international bodies in an effort to get our viewpoint across.

For the past 20 years, we have carried out missions in Africa, Europe, Latin-America in particular and also in the Middle East. The Civil Liberties Union looks at the human rights issue in a general way, because I have to say at the outset that we are a volunteer organization. We operate with a very small staff and with only two or three full-time employees. I myself am a volunteer.

The comments that we wish to make to the committee are based on our experience. We don't have a brief for you today because we don't have the resources to prepare one. As for the ideas that we will be proposing, I believe they will be similar to many others that you'll hear today.

When I think about the subcommittee, the first thing that comes to my mind is this: because the subject of human rights was assigned to a subcommittee rather than to a joint committee as was the case previously, does this mean that human rights are still as important as, say, trade?

I have to admit that I am a little concerned. However, I do believe that a subcommittee can perhaps focus more on the issue at hand and bring important considerations to Parliament's attention. In fact, what worries me is that the subcommittee is only a secondary committee and that human rights are no longer the cornerstone of Canada's foreign policy.

On the subject of Canada's human rights policy, we are somewhat disappointed with the direction Canada seems to be taking. The government promised, notably in the Liberal Party Red Book, not to dissociate human rights from trade. A number of ministerial statements bear this out:

[English]

A priority field of international concern and action for Canadians has been and remains that of human rights.

An effective human rights policy requires us to make use of positive levers of influence as well as the various forms of sanctions at our disposal.

[Translation]

I get the feeling that the government is backing away from its commitment in this area.

.1555

The Civil Liberties Union and all of the organizations with whom we are involved believe that there is work to be done to make Canada's human rights policy, as our friend was saying, comprehensive, coherent and consistent so that trade, economic development and human rights are on an equal footing. I imagine the subcommittee can focus on achieving this goal.

One major issue of concern to us is the domination of trade. Our sense is that a new ideology is taking hold worldwide and is apparently being accepted as the gospel truth - if you will pardon the expression - by several Canadian leaders. There seems to be a belief that the role of the marketplace is to dominate and govern societies, without any political direction.

We are genuinely concerned by this trend. While it may be true that the move to freer trade can contribute to economic and social development, it must also come with guarantees of equity, justice and respect for human rights and it must also meet human rights requirements.

I believe that economic initiatives should be driven by political and community concerns. For example, do companies have a code of ethics? If they do, it's not clear whether they enforce it. Remember when Nike and Levi sponsored the Development and Peace campaign and insisted on using independent auditors to determine whether companies were complying with these codes of ethics. Perhaps there is some progress to be made in this area.

Another important issue of concern to us is UN reform. Until such time as this reform is completed, it is essential that veto rights not apply in cases of widespread human rights violations and genocide.

Other major issues of note include the absence of sanctions in several countries - we must work to institute an international criminal court - ; the arms race, peace and human rights; socioeconomic and cultural rights, an issue that is consistently relegated to the back burner and that warrants consideration by the subcommittee; and women's rights - the communiqué of the Beijing Conference is quite interesting and Canada should take it into account.

As Civil Liberties Union activists, we are deeply concerned for the safety of human rights activists and we believe that Canada has a role to play at the UN in the drafting of a document to ensure these individuals' protection.

Of course, there are several regions that concern us, namely Asia, Africa and Central America. Specific issues need to be addressed.

This concludes the initial comments that I wanted to make to the subcommittee. However, I do want to add that Canadian policy must continue to be transparent and that consultations must continue between the committee, Canada's political authorities and NGOs working in the field of rights and cooperation in Canada so that, on the one hand, we can criticize your actions and, on the other hand, we know what initiatives Canada is taking. At present, it is not easy for organizations such as ours and for others to find out what Canada is doing in this area. We are a little disturbed by what we read in the newspapers. We have the impression that everything boils down to trade, money and international economic policies that are not founded on human rights.

There are other questions that I would like to come back to later. For now, I will turn the floor over to my friends who surely have other issues to discuss. Thank you.

.1600

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McKenzie.

Roger Clark from Amnesty International.

Mr. Roger Clark (Secretary General, Amnesty International): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the invitation to appear before the subcommittee. It's not the first time that Amnesty has appeared before such committees or similar committees, and we welcome the opportunity to begin what I hope will be an ongoing dialogue.

I'd like to make a presentation in three parts, each of them very brief: first, talk a little bit about Amnesty International and situate ourselves in the general context; secondly, talk a little bit about our ongoing relationships with the Canadian government; and then thirdly, talk a little about foreign policy and some of the issues we feel the subcommittee should be looking at and some of the ways the subcommittee might address some of our concerns.

I won't go into a lot of detail about Amnesty International. I know the committee is quite well aware of Amnesty, but I would like to emphasize a few elements of who we are, the first being that of an international organization, and so we bring to presentations such as this considerations that go beyond the Canadian context. We have members and activists in 150 countries around the world now and are increasingly a very representative, genuinely international organization.

At the same time, we're a grassroots activist organization. We exist largely because of the work that is done at the local level. For this reason, we try to cultivate relationships with members of Parliament and others at that level in order to advance our work.

The third point in this context is the sources of information and materials that we can provide. I know your research staff has access to Amnesty International material, and we're happy to make that available on a very speedy basis. Without boasting, I think we have the best research capacity of any non-governmental organization. We have 200 researchers based in London working full time on human rights issues in countries throughout the world, without exception. That information can be made available at your request or on an ongoing basis, as you wish. But I believe the information we provide is both independent and credible, and can assist in the process and the deliberations of the subcommittee where that is appropriate.

With regard to our relationships with the Canadian government - and here again, I'd like to emphasize our willingness and our ability to participate in various fora, including the development of foreign policy a little more recently, and subcommittees, and so on, and also in formal meetings that take place at various points in the year. In January and February, traditionally the NGOs meet in multilateral discussions and consultations with government officials in preparation for the UN Commission on Human Rights, which takes place a little later. We attach considerable importance to that process and increasingly find that our work with other NGOs, including the network that is represented here today of which we are a part, that exchange and that dialogue, needs to be supported and needs to be heard by the decision-makers as well as by the officials.

We have, naturally, ongoing informal contacts both at the parliamentary level and with officials. As did Daisy Francis, I'd like to acknowledge also the positive working relationships that exist between us and the human rights division in Foreign Affairs, and with other divisions through government that are concerned with human rights, including particularly links with the Departments of Justice, Immigration, and others.

With regard to Canadian foreign policy, we too have been concerned and have been involved in the ongoing debate around the relationship between trade and human rights. That, of course, came out largely over the issue of China, but also Indonesia, and I think on an ongoing basis is now a feature - an unresolved feature, I would say as yet - of Canadian foreign policy discussion.

.1605

At the same time, we approach Canadian foreign policy from the point of view that we believe Canada has potentially a very strong voice, a very strong role to play at the international level, a role that is not yet being fulfilled to the fullest extent it might. In travelling in countries around the world, I'm continually reminded of the esteem that Canada is held in with regard to its position on many issues - not always in agreement, but there is an esteem that I think could be used more strongly by Canada.

What we're asking for, I suppose, is that this committee be part of a process that would allow Canada to have a stronger voice that would be heard more clearly at the international level. Quiet diplomacy, while it may have its role, sometimes fails abysmally, and we're reminded, of course, more recently by the events in Nigeria and the dreadful outcome of that particular sequence.

Canada has many opportunities for influence. It is involved in more international organizations probably than almost any country around the world, with its links through the Commonwealth and through the Francophonie, as well as all the European organizations, OSCE, and then the OAS, and so on. I won't list them all, just to say that those opportunities need to made the most of, and again, Canada's voice needs to be heard.

I would associate my comments with those of the previous two speakers in emphasizing the need for coherence, but also consistency - and I would certainly echo the comments made by Daisy Francis - and transparency.

The word ``transparency'' is particularly important to the work of this subcommittee. It's very often through public hearings that transparency can play itself out. It's an opportunity for officials, diplomats, NGOs, and so on to come to grips with some of the issues that otherwise may not appear in the public forum.

With regard to the sort of work the committee might address, and without trying to be proscriptive, I think there is a very clear place in the work of the subcommittee for country-related focus. That is to say, as events unfold in the world, there are times when it's important for Canada to be very clear-thinking about the positions it's going to take.

I'm not thinking only of reactive discussions. It's important that there be proactive discussions so that instead of simply making a crisis response, Canada is seen to be in fact part of the preventive process to avoid some of the calamities that seem to surround us. I'm thinking now of the locations of Rwanda and Burundi. Although discussions at the subcommittee level may not seem to advance that agenda considerably, it does play a role in formulating a stronger Canadian foreign policy with regard to such countries and can pave the way for a better international response.

I wouldn't like to forget either the thematic discussion around human rights. There has been reference already to issues coming out of the women's conference in Beijing and, further back, the Vienna conference on international human rights. I think there is a place in the subcommittee for a discussion around Canada's relationship to the ratification of international human rights instruments.

As an example, I would mention simply the American Convention on Human Rights and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, neither of which has been ratified by Canada, even though Canada has now been part of the OAS for a number of years. I know all about the complications there are in a federal-provincial system to reach that point, but it is a subject of some scandal that Canada has not yet ratified those instruments.

Mention was made of the International Criminal Code, again something on which the general public is perhaps not well-informed and something in which Canada has heavy investment in its foreign policy, rightly. So I think the subcommittee can play a role in advancing that agenda in a significant way and therefore play a stronger role.

Last - and I'll end with this comment - is visibility and accountability. It's related to transparency, but we have been saying for many years now to the Canadian government that this is the key to ensuring that human rights has its rightful place as one of the pillars of foreign policy. There has to be visibility and there has to be accountability, and I think this subcommittee is a key moment in establishing that accountability. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. McChesney.

.1610

Mr. Allan McChesney (Member of the Executive, Network on International Human Rights): Thank you. I'm Allan McChesney, representing the Network on International Human Rights. I am also on the executive of the Canadian section of the International Commission of Jurists. That's the global group of judges and lawyers who strive for the rule of law and human rights.

The Network on International Human Rights has operated for almost a decade as a forum for non-governmental organizations and others to promote and seek the protection of human rights in the international dimension. You have a number of documents before you explaining the activities and priorities of the network. The network has been making presentations to parliamentary committees since 1987.

The network is the main vehicle through which NGOs participate in the annual consultation between non-governmental actors and Canada's foreign service officials prior to the annual session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

Recently the network has also instituted consultative mechanisms focused on the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, also the Commonwealth

[Translation]

and the Francophonie.

[English]

We have a continuing positive relationship with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and with CIDA as well, echoing what previous speakers have referred to.

The network is a broad umbrella organization. As an illustration, each of the groups and institutions who have witnesses here today also happen to be members of the network.

Given the long history of interaction between the network and parliamentarians, I'm very pleased to be able to address you today.

Among the ideas around which there is a broad consensus in the Canadian non-governmental community with respect to foreign policy are the following.

Protection and enhancement of human rights is a core Canadian value and should be viewed as a central goal of Canada's foreign policy. Canada's obligations extend equally to the fostering of economic, social and cultural rights, as well as civil and political rights. The promotion of both branches of human rights should be seen both as a method and as a goal of carrying out sustainable and desirable development.

While we must respect the traditions and sovereignty of other countries, international human rights norms are universal. Though the objective of promoting and protecting human rights can work hand in hand with trade concerns, human rights will sometimes justifiably override other considerations. Human rights issues are already inextricably linked to international commercial activities, to the operations of international financial institutions and to environmental responsibility. Canada's foreign policy should endeavour to ensure that respect for human rights pervades these other components of foreign policy and practice, and of course, we associate ourselves as a network and as the International Commission of Jurists with previous comments about consistency, transparency and coherence.

I should add as a note that in 1990 the first subcommittee on international human rights of the House of Commons issued a report asking that the Canadian government observe those principles, as well as the principle of accountability that was referred to by the immediately previous speaker.

One of the continuous goals in fact of the non-governmental community is that there be special committees such as this to focus on international human rights issues.

Echoing what Roger Clark has said, the NGO community very much supports positive efforts to prevent human rights from becoming human wrongs in places like Rwanda and Burundi, and one of the kinds of efforts we support is Canadian technical assistance with respect to democracy, including elections but not just elections, as well as support for the establishment of human rights commissions and ombuds-offices to help citizens deal with government arbitrariness and discrimination in various countries, to head off human rights problems before they become large-scale violent problems.

.1615

We think Canada should support as well efforts at the United Nations in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and in other multilateral organizations to protect human rights defenders and their rights. When we say human rights defenders, we mean ordinary members of Amnesty International and other groups, teachers of human rights, and lawyers who represent them when they get into trouble for trying to exercise their human rights.

With respect to democracy, protection of human rights includes participatory democracy with strong civil society components. This should be stressed as part of the foreign policy value structure. All facets of society in other countries should be able to participate politically and economically in order to strive for more equitable societies.

We've already referred to the need for consistency. One aspect of that is to ensure that one part of Canada's government is not promoting human rights and democracy while another part is promoting investment or lending policies, for example, that make it impossible for governments of the south to fulfil their own promises respecting human rights.

We think, as well, that the voting record of Canadian representatives at the World Bank and other international financial institutions should be subject to public scrutiny. That's one aspect of transparence and accountability. Human rights considerations should be treated as highly relevant in the determination of loan policies and lending decisions by the IFIs.

I would like to refer briefly to one of the documents that has been distributed to you with respect to the network. That's the resolution adopted by the network at its general meeting of May 19, 1995. I'm referring to the seventh paragraph. It states a request that the Canadian government make clear and public statements on human rights violations, regardless of economic interests, and reaffirm the priority it attaches to the promotion and protection of all human rights.

Our members are concerned with such issues as: the international criminal court, or movements towards one; the rights of women that were discussed at Beijing; refugees; internally displaced persons; the rights of indigenous peoples; as well as many specific countries. I hope these can be addressed in the questions to follow.

Thank you for this opportunity.

The Chair: I thank you all for your presentations.

I'm going to speak for myself personally for a moment in addressing the concerns of Mr. McKenzie.

Given the fact that foreign affairs and international trade is grouped into one ministry and we had one committee to address issues, we've had so many people come before us on trade issues. Certainly human rights questions were asked, but some of us felt that the human rights issues were being lost in the countries, and somewhat in the general population's concern for the economic conditions in Canada right now. We asked the minister if we could have a subcommittee specifically to highlight the human rights issues, not to sidetrack them, hopefully.

What we're looking for right now in our preliminary meetings is direction from people whose main area of expertise is human rights. So your skepticism and the criticisms from all of you are well taken. Hopefully with guidance we'll be able to do something more than spin our wheels on these human rights issues, and get a firm tracking for some sort of direction.

Mr. Morrison, did you want to begin?

Mr. Morrison (Swift Current - Maple Creek - Assiniboia): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was going to ask Ms Francis what she means by human rights other than civil and political, but I think Mr. McChesney may have answered that when he spoke of economic, social and cultural rights. Is this correct?

.1620

Perhaps I'm a little obtuse, but by your definitions, what are economic, social and cultural rights?

Ms Francis: Well, in fact it isn't simply my definition. There's part of what's called the Universal Bill of Rights, two covenants plus the Universal Declaration. The principal covenant covering economic, social and cultural rights is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, a document produced at the same time as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which defines the UN's consensus on what constitutes rights. This incorporates things we take for granted, such as the right to freely organize and form a union, the right to freedom of association, the right to -

Mr. Morrison: Those are civil rights, madam.

Ms Francis: Well, you will also find them as articles 7 and 8 of the economic, social and cultural rights covenant as well.

Mr. Morrison: Please continue. I'm sorry, I interrupted you.

Ms Francis: It also incorporates such things as the right to an adequate standard of living, a right to fair housing, a right to a fair wage. It's many of the things that Canadians in fact have but don't necessarily recognize as economic and social rights - the social benefits clauses that allow for social security, clauses that prohibit employment of children below a certain age, clauses that recognize the right for you to sustain cultures and to keep languages alive. There's a diversity of clauses. There are some 15 rights identified.

Mr. Morrison: Also in your presentation, Ms Francis, you made reference to agencies other than governments being guilty of violating human rights. I wonder if you would care to elaborate on that a little bit.

Ms Francis: I think the previous committee that dealt with this particularly heard from us about our particular area concern, the international financial institutions. Generally speaking, we had talked at that time around both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in terms of reforms that we were supporting in terms of a program they were setting in place that affected the capacity of nations of the south to in fact realize basic rights, whether they were civil and political rights or economic, social and cultural rights. Beyond that, part of our -

Mr. Morrison: Are you referring to economic restructuring - is this what you're referring to? - as a condition for granting a loan? Is that what you mean?

Ms Francis: The structural adjustment programs that emerged out of these institutions in many ways eroded.... Part of the conditions of trying to reduce the debt load were cuts on social expenditures, the very social expenditures that would in fact safeguard basics like education, sanitation, housing, and so on. In a choice between providing those things and paying off debts, countries were often finding that they had to pay down their debts.

Mr. Morrison: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Flis.

Mr. Flis (Parkdale - High Park): Thank you, Madam Chair, for explaining why this subcommittee was set up, and so on. The main committee on foreign affairs and international trade gets so many representations and there's just no time for the entire committee to meet over these issues. I think it was a wise move to set up this subcommittee so we can do what we're doing this afternoon.

We are looking for direction. How do you balance promoting our trade, which we have to continue to do, and at the same time keep human rights as one of our top pillars in foreign affairs? I think we are demonstrating that we don't want to lose our position as far as being the defender of human rights around the world goes.

The Secretary-General of the UN, Boutros Boutros-Ghali is in town - this is why some of us were late. He again complimented Canada on its work in the human rights area.

One of you mentioned quiet diplomacy versus a strong international voice. This is déjà vu, because some of you were here 10 or 15 years ago when we went through this and we're still going through it.

But let's take an example such as Nigeria, where the Commonwealth countries, I thought, did express a very strong voice internationally, and it didn't have any impact whatsoever. Mr. Clark, I think it was you who mentioned that quiet diplomacy didn't work. I didn't see the Nigeria incident as being treated through the quiet diplomacy corridor. I thought it was treated the opposite way. There would be strong international pressure on Nigeria.

.1625

Again, I guess we're looking for direction, which in your experiences all of you.... Where it's major human rights violations, whether it's torture, hanging without just trial, disappearances, etc., what, from your experiences, is the best approach?

Mr. Clark: Maybe I could give part of an answer and the others around the table could complete it.

I'm certainly not opposed to quiet diplomacy. I think there are times and places for that. With regard to the Nigerian situation, I think the voices were fairly quiet, but they got a little louder as the crisis unfolded. It's interesting that the voices became loud only when it was too late to save Ken Saro-Wiwa and his other companions. It was only at that point that the Commonwealth took the ultimate step of suspending and then potentially, I suppose, expelling Nigeria from the Commonwealth.

However, prior to that and prior to the carrying out of the executions, the arguments were being advanced by Nelson Mandela and others that the time was still appropriate for quiet diplomacy. Although we could debate probably indefinitely what would have happened had the voices been louder earlier, I think the acknowledgement by the international community once the strong action had been taken and once the voices were heard was sending a clear message, not only to General Abacha and the Nigerian military regime but to other regimes as well, both within and outside the Commonwealth. So I think it's not simply an isolated case.

I'm sure the regimes in Sierra Leone and other Commonwealth countries whose records are not shining at all are watching very carefully and listening. The strong voice is not always the way to resolve the crisis, but it's certainly a way of establishing a firm resolve to deal with issues relating to human rights in a concrete, tangible, positive way.

I think what I would like to hear are stronger voices from Canada in situations such as those in China, in which nobody has any doubt about the feelings. Nobody doubts what Canadian values are. Nobody doubts what the Chinese are actually doing. Yet the opportunities are there for voices to be raised a little more than they are.

When 200 businessmen, the premiers of all the provinces, and the Prime Minister travel to China and the reference to human rights is so brief that nobody notices it, I think there is a problem. That voice is not loud enough.

That's, I think, the thrust of what I was trying to emphasize, Mr. Flis.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Flis: Someone else wanted to respond.

Ms Francis: I'd like to just make it as a corollary observation, that the churches recognize there is a dilemma. If I could speak in terms of the region of the world that I do deal with on a daily basis, which is Asia, there is a problem about whether what has been characterized as megaphone diplomacy is likely to succeed or whether there is another alternative track, given some of the cultural differences in terms of how public shaming is treated.

I think part of the difficulty for us in the NGO community is that we're never actually aware of whether governments are making interventions, even quietly. So there is that whole question around the transparency. I think some of the frustrations on our side occur because, given that we get no commentary of any sort, we have no way of knowing whether some attempts have been made. Acknowledging that there's a wide range.... With respect to the Flor Contemplacion in Singapore, in some ways the public attention pushed that along more than.... But quiet diplomacy also would not work very well with Singapore. That's the reality of Singapore. So in that case you might as well say something, because quiet doesn't work either.

.1630

But I think part of the other difficulty is that we're not actually sure whose voices are listened to the best. Our ongoing problem is that we say we represent and are closer to the people who are most likely to be affected. What is troubling for me sometimes is to discover that if banquet halls and expensive hotels are the sites in which some of these dialogues are taking place, there is a certain sector that's certainly adequately represented. But often those people are the same participants in perpetuating systems that there's no need to reform, and so they will present a viewpoint as to what the conditions are that are amenable, but they don't necessarily represent the views of the vast majority of the populace of those countries.

The Chair: I think Mr. McChesney would like to respond to that as well.

Mr. McChesney: I'm willing to wait for the supplementary and respond to both.

Mr. Flis: [Inaudible - Editor] because in developing our foreign policy - thanks to your input and so on - I think it's a pretty strong recommendation that potential conflicts and present conflicts should try to be alleviated or corrected by regional organizations, and you people have already mentioned some of these: OSCE, OAS, Organization of African States, etc.

In looking at trying to convince countries to improve their records on human rights, should we not also use the regional organizations prior to running to the UN with every incident? We have four organizations here. What is your organization's approach? Do you go to the UN first? Do you go to the two governments - Canada and wherever the violations occur - or do you use the regional organizations prior to taking it to the UN?

Mr. McChesney: I'll begin by saying that I hope later in the proceedings to be able to provide some additional comment on the questions that Mr. Morrison raised about economic and social rights.

But sticking with the current topic, the advantage of the United Nations for Canadians is that there are mechanisms whereby non-government organizations have some kind of voice, are sometimes able to influence the resolutions that governments take and the special kind of investigators that might be appointed, whether those be called working groups or special rapporteurs on topics such as torture, disappeared persons, and so on, and have the chance to influence Canadian government initiatives in those areas.

The Commonwealth is primarily a political talking shop, as is the UN, but the UN has specific mechanisms for reviewing the records of countries and taking complaints. An example is the human rights committee, under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Also, la Francophonie is only beginning to formulate mechanisms for furthering human rights and democracy within that organization, and the OSCE now has an office for democracy and international human rights. They are doing some things to promote those issues, but they have fewer resources than the United Nations with which to assist countries that want technical advice.

So although NGOs have an easy time making statements at some of the OSCE meetings, the possibilities of having the international organization provide assistance in those other countries with some NGO advice are fewer. So for now the UN is the biggest player and the one with the most resources, but in the future perhaps some of those others would become more important.

If Canada became a party to the American Convention on Human Rights, as part of the OAS, again NGOs might have a little stronger voice, as would the Government of Canada, but right now we're just a political partner subject to the less forceful declaration on human rights that's part of the OAS.

.1635

With respect to the earlier topic of what can people do in the face of government's ignoring international opinion, as they did in Nigeria recently, we've seen that they did that for a long time in Burma, but only recently the democratically elected political leader was released. Yes, she's under house arrest. Yes, she has little opportunities for freedom of expression. But international opinion obviously had some effect there. It took three decades for the international effort to build high enough, with enough adherence to sanctions, to have an influence on apartheid in South Africa. So we know that international efforts rarely have immediate positive consequences. I was encouraged by the words of Roger Clark earlier, that the efforts now taken because of what happened in Nigeria might have effects on other counties that are less respectful of international human rights.

I recently attended a seminar on the international criminal tribunal focused on Rwanda and on the international criminal tribunal focused on the former Yugoslavia, which have some of the same personnel. For example, Judge Goldstone of South Africa is involved with the prosecutions in both cases. He said that the declaration that some people in former Yugoslavia were war criminals had a positive measurable effect on diminishment shortly thereafter of some human rights atrocities, when compared to the numbers of previous weeks. So strong international opinion does have some effect, according to people who know more about it than I do.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. McKenzie: I have several comments in a similar vein.

One of the underlying principles of Canada's current policy is that trade development gives us access to our business partners and forums for promoting views on human right and community development.

Take Vietnam, for example. A Canadian citizen was recently imprisoned in that country. Buddhists monks have also been thrown in jail there. We still don't know if the Canadian government intends to take any action in response to this situation.

Given Canada's current human rights policy, do we have any assurances that action will be taken as trade relations expand?

The government has said that it will take advantage of multilateral forums to promote our views and make our positions and demands known. I believe that care must also be taken to ensure that in both instances, we do not become accomplices. Our policy states that we will exert pressure along with other countries to force recalcitrant nations to uphold human rights. We must be certain of the process because Canadians would surely object to seeing their country become an accomplice to some of the acts carried out by certain governments.

This is something to consider and we must develop the necessary mechanisms to avoid this type of problem.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

I would like to welcome Professor Mendes. I see you've arrived. I read your submission. I was extremely interested, and I've really been anticipating your presentation. We've generally said we'd like it if you could take between 5 and 10 minutes, to leave time for questioning, as we have to vacate the room by 5:30 p.m.

Professor Errol Mendes (Director, Human Rights Research and Education Centre, University of Ottawa): Actually, I'll be very very brief, because as you've said, Madam Chair, you have the brief I presented earlier this year to the Asia-Pacific heads of mission in Vancouver.

.1640

Basically, just tying into some of what I've heard since I've come into the room, the approach I would like to propose to the subcommittee is to focus in some respects on what is clearly the most important agenda of this government. Perhaps in the view of most Canadians, this should be the most important agenda of this government. This is to essentially have a revitalized economy, in part through an export-led recovery, and in part through trade liberalization, etc.

My view is that if human rights are going to mean anything to the general public, to the government, and to officials within the government, it has to be seen as part and parcel of this most important agenda. If it isn't, it'll be ghettoized.

As a result, there'll be fewer resources placed on it. As a consequence, less importance will be placed on it by those who should be placing importance on it.

Therefore, in the presentations I've made throughout the country and before the larger committee here in the lead-up to the white paper, I say that human rights should be looked at as an integral aspect of our promotion of our economic interests abroad. That's because ultimately our economic interests and our democratic and human rights interests coincide.

I've presented in the paper the reasons why I think that way. In brief, it's because ultimately there is no such thing as sustainable economic development without sustainable human development, which means sustainable human justice in all aspects of our trading relationships.

I've attached to the brief a copy of an editorial from The New York Times written by their eminent editorialist, Thomas Friedman. It's called ``China Syndrome''.

He's ironically pointing out that the U.S. businessmen who formally were very against the linking of human rights with trade are now some of the strongest proponents of linking trade with human rights because of the sudden incidents that have happened in China, which demonstrated that if you do not have the rule of law or the enabling environment in your economic and legal structures, then you really do not have sustainable economic relationships either.

In my paper, I present to you a multifaceted approach for how this government can implement an integrated economic and human rights strategy that will enhance both.

I'm open to questions on any part of it in terms of how we can expand on some of the ideas I've put into the paper.

I'll be that brief. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

I'd like to make a couple of comments in the absence of other questions. When one's involved and has an interest in human rights, one thing that one tends to sometimes develop is an air of arrogance. You might care about human rights, but this fellow doesn't.

I'm wondering if part of our approach to the human rights issue is product labelling. What about the NGOs getting together and educating the consumer? It seems that we have an ideal and a reality right now. Look at those of us who want to promote human rights. I look around the room and see that we're all fairly secure. Our livelihood is not being threatened by the economy of today.

Whereas the political reality of Canada right now is that we have people out there who are hurting. We have to find a balance. Do you see a way of doing that?

I think most of us in this room would like to be able to demand that human rights would be respected in different countries, but ultimately, after we've shot our cannon, it can be the Canadian economy that suffers. I'm not sure that any of us are sure enough that firing the cannon is going to do the trick.

.1645

What do you propose as a realistic balance and something that would be effective?

Prof. Mendes: To address your specific question of product labelling, this phenomenon is especially now taking hold in Europe in terms of rug labelling as far as child labour is concerned. This especially targets Bangladesh, where there is a particular problem in this area, and Pakistan, where there's the tragic case of the murdered young boy who was protesting against the exploitation of child labour.

In my view, that's an indication of the fact that economic and human rights interests are starting to merge. The supplier market and the consumer market are no longer segmented. Because of the global transformation of communications and transportation, the consumer market now is becoming part of the supplier market.

Product labelling is a reality whether or not you or anyone else would want to wish it to go away. It is going to be there. It's going to increase. It's going to expand in many fields.

This is not to say that it's not going to have detrimental aspects. Especially in terms of indigenous people, you may find some of the environmental movements in Europe perhaps being retrograde in their assessment of what is or is not properly respecting the environment.

Yes, there will be detrimental effects to the consumer movement globally in trying to focus on social justice issues, but overall you can't stop history, and this is part of history that's marching on.

It goes to show that ultimately it makes sense for governments to join the movement toward a global recognition that economic development has to be sustainable economic development and cannot be at the expense of children or massive violations of human rights. It's a reality.

The Chair: Do you think a more informed, educated consumer could be a potentially effective weapon?

Prof. Mendes: Absolutely. I don't know whether you discussed Nigeria, but I think there should be some very specific attention paid to who is propping up the military regime in Nigeria and how an effective, multifaceted approach to the economic infrastructures that keep the military junta in place can be looked at in terms of strategically directing Canada's attention toward that particular junta. I think Nigeria could very well be a case study.

The Chair: Do any of the other panel members have anything to say? Mr. Clark.

Mr. Clark: Part of what I heard behind your question was the tension between domestic rights and international rights and the arrogance that sometimes can be detected by those who care.

In the medium to long term, education is part of the answer to that question. Like many other NGOs, we are beginning to address more consistently the education of young people toward all human rights.

Part of the discussion earlier around the various different types of rights comes back to the interdependence of all of those rights. It really is the same problem, whether it's somebody who is dying from undernourishment inside Canada or somebody who is being hung in Nigeria.

Certainly some things need addressing more urgently then others, but fundamentally we're saying that all of these things intertwine. Those who are conscious and have the will and capacity to address them should do so. There is too much to do. Each of us has to play his own part in that work.

The global responsibility for human rights is something that I think does need to be advanced further in public consciousness. It's not a question of struggling for universal rights so much as ensuring that those rights that belong to every one of us are maintained.

I understand the conflict that you described between the reality and the ideal, but I think that until we've bridged that gap a little more, we're not going to be able to address either the domestic or the foreign.

.1650

Ms Francis: I'd like to make a couple of observations from my own personal experience of participating and going to high schools and parishes, going out to talk to Canadians about issues like human rights and trying to get the opinions of ordinary people on this.

You're right, in some ways there is a narrowing. One 14-year-old asked me why he should care about workers in Indonesia; his mother has lost her job. My ongoing response to a statement like that is that he should care simply because many of those conditions for workers in countries like Indonesia are fast becoming conditions for workers, if they want to have work, in Canada.

Part of our education work in the churches has been to make the linkages to Canadians. In the next several years for Ontarians this will be particularly relevant in their lives, a very close sense of what we're talking about when we talk about the erosion of the social safety nets. That information does come home to people.

For me, the child labour Errol referred to is such an odious practice that if western profits are being made based on the slave labour of 8-year-olds, I really can't find a setting or an argument in which that's acceptable. As that kind of odious behaviour is easier to find, the question is where we then shift it. One of the places where we shift it is in a country like Indonesia, where companies are rushing because they only have to pay a person one dollar a day. There are safety standards but they're not adequately supervised. So you have a situation in which this maximization of profit is indeed possible, which is why corporations such as the shoe industry go in.

I come back to our original concern, which is increasingly less on bilateral relations and more on this whole unregulated sector that answers to no one. Canada can take some leadership in terms of helping. That may be in proposing some mechanisms or beginning to consult for mechanisms in the World Trade Organization, which apparently is going to monitor all the rules.

Canada's foreign policy spoke about a rules-based world. I will return to the phrase I have used repeatedly from the time we heard that. Who gets to establish the rules and whose values undergird those rules?

The Chair: Mr. English.

Mr. English (Kitchener): Thank you for the presentations. I'm sorry I arrived late for reasons my colleague Mr. Flis indicated.

I was looking at an article from The Real Worlds of Canadian Politics, which was passed out by Mr. Schmitz. It helpfully puts forward questions about NGOs that work in the area of human rights. Among the comments he makes is:

As would be expected, most of the organizations in this field operate on a shoestring. The modal revenue category was $150,000-$250,000 per annum...but 64.2 per cent of the organizations polled...reported annual revenues at this level or lower.

- and he goes on to list a whole bunch of groups -

None of these is an international human rights organization per se. Second, as one would expect from the low membership figures, donations by individuals and members do not account for very much; indeed, the majority of NGOs had no membership funding at all. The two primary sources of funding are donations from parent organizations, principally the churches for the ecumenical coalitions, and the federal government, either through departments (e.g., Secretary of State, Justice) or, most importantly, through CIDA.

You represent many groups and many of you do good work. I've personally supported a couple of these and I spoke to one of you last year. But also in this article there is the comment that NGOs working in the human rights area have suggested an advisory body to the foreign minister. You have an annual consultation, I believe, that occurs in January. In fact, Professor Pal has written very interestingly and in some detail about that.

We also have the international centre in Montreal. I was on the foreign policy review along with my colleagues here. We heard from so many groups. What is your feeling on this? The centre in Montreal is working. I gather they approach things differently from how Professor Mendes does. It's useful to have a dialogue, I suppose.

.1655

You have many different foci in terms of regions. You have different approaches. You introduced economic and social rights. Mr. Morrison asked about civil rights.

Mr. Broadbent talked to us about his three-hour conversation with President Castro. Both of them talked a lot, I guess, and the debate was over this.

President Castro said, ``But we've established economic and social rights. This human rights obsession the Americans have is something...that they're wanting to cover up the fact that they have no interest in economic and social rights.''

To summarize what is a very loose and disorganized presentation, we are talking about consumers, voters or whatever you want to call people interested in the field. You, Ms Francis, were talking about individual Canadians on this question. One of the difficulties we have here - I wonder whether you agree - is that we have so many messages.

Political leaders, some I don't support, say keep it simple and direct. Isn't the message getting very confusing for citizens? I spoke to a church group last week on this subject and they seemed genuinely confused. We've gone through a period where we talked about human rights in eastern Europe. There's the question of China. Now there's the question of Nigeria. They can't quite sort it out.

I know that as groups you are working together more. But I wonder if you'd give an assessment of the NGO community and the international centre in Montreal and the kind of work that's being done. Is the international centre helpful to your work? Is it off by itself? Is it an integral part of the Canadian response?

We've heard talk about the Canadian response, but what is Canada? Is it Mr. Broadbent speaking as the president of the centre? Is it the Council of Churches? Is it Amnesty International? What is Canadian in this case? Is it the federal government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs?

I suppose I should just leave it there and ask for a response.

Ms Francis: As everyone is looking this way, I assume I'm supposed to start.

What is Canadian? Mr. English, if I had an answer to that, I would probably run on that platform. I wouldn't deem to try to tell this table what is Canadian. I know what it is I embraced when I became a citizen.

Regarding assessment of the centre, Allan is in a better place to speak since he's here wearing the Network hat. The centre has been a particularly strong supporter of the NGO community in Canada. Quite frankly, Network on International Human Rights could not exist without them. But I'll let Allan sing their praises.

The question on assessment of the NGO community is very difficult to answer simply because if we have political plurality, we certainly have political plurality among the NGO community. Once again, I'd feel a little awkward trying to explain the diversity of issues.

Mr. English: Professor Pal commented that there are so many organizations and so many are so small. When we had our foreign policy review, Senator Andreychuk argued that more is better, it's a good thing in itself, and one can make that argument - I guess some do - about a civil society. There's an old argument about pluralism within society.

His view seems to me, if I'm reading between his lines and some other things he's written, that there are so many people talking he's not quite sure they offer - what should I say? - the clarity of vision so that the Canadian population can understand the very important points they are making.

Ms Francis: I can speak about my constituency. That's a fair criticism about some of the messages, certainly in terms of our own self-assessment of the churches and the messages we convey to them.

One of the strengths for us has been that we have a kind of structure and a theology that helps to reinforce some of the message. We can recreate the language of human rights into theological language, which at least can be then understood. Why churches are involved in politics is sometimes the question when people learn we're doing human rights work. There is an opportunity to answer that.

.1700

In terms of the diversity of the message, quite honestly I think in the next couple of years you may discover that there will be more comprehensive, coherent statements coming out of the NGO community, partly in the reality of the evisceration that happened to a number of us that are no longer around because of the cuts that happened. The few of us left are required to make a much stronger and consistent message.

I do think there are consistent messages that human rights has to be a priority, and we're disappointed that it's being described as an aim.

[Translation]

Mr. McKenzie: I would like to start by commenting on your question. I imagine you understand French since you are not wearing your earphone.

We have known for some time that NGOs defend specific rights. Indeed, several NGOs were founded by women, disabled persons, social welfare recipients and victims of discrimination such as homosexuals and lesbians. All of these agencies now tend to come together under a specific umbrella group because they are well aware that their civil and political rights - the fact of being imprisoned and of being denied a fair trial - are tied to socioeconomic rights.

For example, we are increasingly seeing the disadvantaged join forces to defend their social and economic rights and gain the realization that when they are denied access to justice, their rights are indeed closely associated with civil or political rights. NGOs increasingly understand that all rights are intertwined.

At the Vienna conference - for those who were fortunate enough to have attended - , NGOs and even heads of state debated the issue of whether or the universal declaration encompasses all rights and whether or not these rights are intertwined. Despite the refusal on the part of certain governments to recognize interdependence, everyone ultimately came to the same conclusion.

I believe that this is the message that is getting through. Of course, if we want NGOs to go a little further, we will have to give them the resources they need. This must be emphasized. With respect to cooperation, all NGOs in Quebec are feeling the effects of the cuts to cooperation education. Therefore, some national encouragement is needed in order for NGOs to develop, educate the population and make their voices heard. That's the gist of the message.

[English]

The Chair: I think Ms Francis promised an answer from you.

Mr. McChesney: It's sometimes hard to find an answer for Daisy because she raises such good issues.

With respect to the focus and the message of NGOs, I share the view expressed by Senator Andreychuk, as described by Mr. English, that there's room for many types of human rights concentrations. People have only so much energy, and if one group focuses on the rights of disabled persons and another on the rights of women, that's fine. It's good that we have a network and other mechanisms for groups to learn from each other and a process to try to influence jointly what the government does.

.1705

One way to assist in having coherence is, of course, to use similar standards when looking at the human rights records of each country, recognizing that the circumstances of the country are different but the standards can still be the same, as Daisy Francis mentioned earlier. In that regard, I hope this committee will have the chance to have studies that focus on one or two issues rather than being forced to look at the crisis of the month, which will dissipate your energies and make it less likely that you can have an effect on government policy.

With respect to the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development in Montreal, it is true that they're very supportive of the Canadian NGO community. I must respectfully disagree with Daisy Francis that the network could not exist without them. We in fact existed for several years before the international centre existed. We've become much more effective because of their support, enabling us to hire a coordinator and run many educational events, etc.

Most of the international centre's money goes towards supporting projects in other countries rather than in Canada. They do things that government can't do and some things that NGOs can't do as well. I'm sure you will be able to speak with them directly on those points.

It was mentioned earlier that Professor Mendes and the centre in Montreal have some disagreements. Certainly they both agree that trade and human rights issues should be linked. They may have different approaches along a spectrum as to how best to do that. Again, Mr. Mendes will probably address that.

I'd like to mention a theme that Mr. Morrison raised early, which is workers' rights. As we heard from Daisy Francis, they are covered both by the economic and social covenant and the civil and political covenant. They are also covered by International Labour Organization conventions. This raises the fact that another reason for Canada to focus on human rights is that it's the law. We have agreed to be legally bound by those two covenants I mentioned and other international agreements, to promote them in the world as well as obey them in Canada. All provincial governments agreed to that before Canada ratified these international treaties. That's part of our process, to see if governments think they already comply before we ratify these.

There are also other self-interest reasons: if human rights aren't honoured in other countries, we eventually pay for that in terms of our peacekeeping costs, displaced persons seeking to come to our shores, emergency relief instead of preventive relief and so on. We gain by promoting economic and social rights in other countries; we gain through trade in the long term.

With regard to arrogance, Daisy can confirm that up until the Vienna conference there were many Asian governments, for example, saying that human rights ideas are western values, so they don't need them. But the NGOs, the grassroots groups in those countries, shared the visions of NGOs in Canada and many government spokespeople over the years in Canada that human rights are universal values that deserve, even now in hard economic times, to be promoted.

Prof. Mendes: Mr. English asked probably the most difficult question one could put to us. What I'd like to do is incorporate it within a larger framework and see if I can address it within that.

Going back to my thesis, I think human rights should be looked at as integral to the most important objective of this and any government, which is economic development. We should also look at the whole area of human rights and differences within the human rights community as, if you like, a result of major movements in the world today.

There is no doubt about the fact that globalization has produced winners and losers. It has produced those in every society...which have those being regarded as winners and those being regarded as losers. In some respects that has fragmented societies around the world. I don't think Canada is any exception to the rule in terms of the fragmentation process we see within our own society, in terms of those who look at globalization of trade as essentially something good that should not be tainted with discussions of any other issues, and those who have been losers in terms of internationalization of trade and business and regard this as a fundamental question of human rights.

.1710

My answer to Professor English - and I know that he's a former professor so I'll give him a professorial answer - is that -

Mr. English: [Inaudible - Editor]

Prof. Mendes: Exactly, and that's why I'm going to give it to you.

In some respects, I think that if you live in a free society, you have to permit a Hegelian dialectic in this area, and that is to allow the approaches that I talk about in my paper.... You have to allow the dialect to be engaged between the so-called trickle down approach to human rights, the trickle up approach and the one that I think is being ignored - the trickle sideways approach. Bill has laughed about that in certain contexts.

I think one of the things we must do as a community, and you must do as a government in terms of allocation of funding, is make sure that none of the different parts of the dialectic gets out of whack, that too few resources are given to the so-called trickle up approach, which is civil society, or to the trickle down approach. The trickle sideways approach is the synthesis, which is why I think ultimately it's the most successful approach.

That's my convoluted answer to you. In answer to your specific questions, I think the government has the right to assess in its funding allocations whether or not the various constituents of the dialectic are being given adequate resources, or whether specific parts of the dialectic are doing their job in terms of the different part of the dialect.

The Chair: I think all of our presenters are aware.

Thank you for coming, Mr. Graham. He's the chairman of the foreign affairs committee.

Mr. Graham (Rosedale): Madam Chair, I don't want to interrupt the other members who have been here since the start, but if I could ask a question, I'd appreciate it. I apologize for being late, but I got tied up with something else we're trying to do in the committee.

I would like to follow up on the distinction between civil and political rights and economic and social rights in the international domain. I'm going to be a little complicated here too.

I suppose we do have a problem in our domestic system in that we mix up social and economic rights and political and civil rights, even in our charter. For example, education rights would be more on the social than the civil side. Maybe we should have a nice clean distinction in our own system, but we don't.

That doesn't help my question, but let me start with an observation. It seems to me that if we are to be effective in the international community, we have to pursue goals that are realizable and tangible, that people can get their minds around, work on and try to be effective on. If we try to be all-embracing, we won't achieve anything, and if we set our goals too low, it won't be worth struggling for.

I recently represented Canada at the Nonaligned Movement meeting in Cartagena. It was clear from listening to many of the leaders there.... I know they don't represent the people who need the rights, but leaving aside their democratic credibility, they are the governments of those 113 countries.

The distinct thread throughout was a resentment of our human rights discourses as being cultural imperialism of a kind that was not productive in establishing a fruitful dialogue with many of those countries. So my question to the panel is how we do that. Where will we draw the lines if we try to move too far and with too feminist a discourse in Muslim countries? Many of my colleagues at the University of Toronto law school have done that and can make a good strong case for it.

Where should we put our priorities? My personal leaning would be to put them in the civil and political sphere because those are easier to define and to get consensus on. When we get in the economic and social, we are no more likely to get consensus on what they are in the international community than we are around this table as to where we should be going on deficit reduction among the members in our own community. Once you are into a discussion about economic and social rights, you're into a discussion about how fast you will reduce the deficit.

.1715

That's what it's all about - where do the resources of the community get applied? That becomes a question for each country to determine in their own internal system. It becomes more difficult for outsiders to come along and say here's how you should be allocating your resources.

This committee did a report on the international financial institutions. Going back to the cultural imperialism thing, we had members of the NGO community saying the World Bank and IMF economic structures for straightening up the economies of countries were totally unacceptable because they were subject to conditions that imposed hardships on these countries. All of these groups turned around and gave us a new set of conditions, saying we shouldn't lend money to anybody who has arms, we shouldn't give to anybody who has human rights abuses, and we shouldn't give to anybody who doesn't have democratic processes. So we took one set of conditions that we didn't like and threw them out, and we imposed a whole set of conditionalities that we did like and they were all right.

I don't think this is a helpful way to go if we want to have a principled approach to these issues. As a committee we have to find out where we should be going on principled approaches for Canada, set our sights on realizable goals, decide what international forums to go after them in, and then go after them.

Does that give any food for thought? Does that give food for reflection among the panel members? Do you think I'm totally crazy?

The Chair: I assume there was a question in there.

Mr. Graham: The question was whether I am crazy.

The Chair: That should be fairly simple and brief.

I think there is time for a couple more questions. Please try to be a little more brief than our chairman was.

Mr. Clark: As you were suggesting in part of your commentary, I think we need to go back to principles and work from the bottom line in some respects, whether we're dealing with civil and political or the other rights. We have to define what we think the bottom line is in terms of what we consider to be Canadian values. However, I don't think those Canadian values are distinct from the sorts of values that have been enunciated in the Universal Declaration and the various covenants and instruments that have flown from that.

The cultural imperialist argument is trotted out periodically by both the non-aligned and the Asian countries, but only at the level of a certain official discourse. As was pointed out earlier, many of the grassroots and indigenous NGOs working in those countries are very clear on what the bottom line is. To go back to John English's question about the many voices and the confused messages, when you get down to real discussion about real people in real situations, there's not much confusion. There isn't an enormous amount of information, but I'm astonished by the coherence of NGOs, both in Canada and around the world, when it comes to addressing some of the bottom lines.

It was interesting to see that there was almost universal coherence around the Saro-Wiwa case. We need to think about the reason for that. What was wrong there? Why were people so upset? If we begin to answer that question, which I don't think is very complicated, we can get closer to mobilizing opinion at a basic level to address these things. Of course people will have different priorities at different times, but it's not acceptable that an individual is tortured and put to death after an unfair trial.

That would be part of my answer to you.

Mr. Graham: I want it make it very clear that I am not referring to the core rights. Once you get to torture or any of the Universal Declaration rights - I'm not talking about that. Once you move beyond that framework, that's where the difficult work is.

.1720

Mr. Clark: How to expand the core is the challenge.

Mr. Graham: Exactly. How do you get the consensus necessary to expand that core?

Mr. McChesney: There are of course ways, as Professor Graham is well aware, that civil and political rights may be used to advance the economic and social rights of less advantaged groups and individuals in society. If they have participatory rights and are not punished somehow for trying to exercise them, they can ask for some of their own economic and social rights.

Canada can support such grassroots groups in other countries as they try to do this. Another thing we can try to do is ensure that our own policies - for example, aid that tries to build a dam in a place where people don't want it and where it's not economically viable and in fact will destroy some economic, social and cultural rights of people.... Those are factors to consider.

We should also ensure that a principle applies to both branches of rights; that is, that non-discrimination applies. I don't think anyone in Canada would support the idea that girls in other countries should not be provided equal opportunities for education at primary and secondary levels as boys are. Yet that's a social right.

Of course there are some rights that some people define as core, such as freedom of association, which is a factor both in civil and political matters and for workers, cooperatives and agricultural people in the economic and social sphere.

Thank you.

Prof. Mendes: I want to focus on one right I'm sure was raised time and time again at Cartagena, and that is the right to development. It has now become the clarion call for the vast majority of nations in the south. By the utilization of this so-called right to development, they claim they have to have their own set of values, their own traditions and their own culture integrated into the balance between the right to development and civil and political rights.

From my experience in the area, this is a false debate, which has to be looked at as such and examined closely. If you look at what is involved in the right to development, it's no more and no less than what we want from our own country right here in terms of a balancing between individual and collective rights and the whole range of spheres.

Maybe we haven't achieved a degree of satisfaction, as is evidenced by our own internal constitutional problems, in this country. But that same struggle is going on all around the world. I've seen it in China, Indonesia and all around the world. There is this fundamental debate going on between the community's rights and the individual's rights.

In some respects we've reached a stage where global values are up for grabs, and Canada has a very vital role to play in how that debate shapes out. That's why we should not give in to every single demand that says the right to development has to come first, above all else. We have to look at what we've done internally in terms of our own balancing of rights.

We can offer a common dialogue on our own experience right around the world, which is what my centre has done in places as far away as China; it has been successful in establishing that common ground for dialogue.

[Translation]

Mr. McKenzie: This brings me to the views expressed by our friends, whether from Chad, Togo or Asia, in relation to cultural relativism in the definition of rights. They are outraged. They defend the universality of rights and increasingly advocate the defence of political and civil rights. They do so with a great deal of passion. At one time, they were being told which socioeconomic rights were more important. Now, however, many NGOs in the Third World are saying that they want the right to speak up. They want the right to speak out, to vote and to have their say in society. That's the issue.

.1725

A change is occurring. Here, for example, socioeconomic rights are being defended increasingly. NGOs throughout the world are joining forces in this area and I do not think that our government should cave in to arguments based on cultural relativism.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thinking about different strategies. This is what many organizations in the Third World - in Africa, notably - mean when they say that strategies exist to counter certain practices that violate human rights. This doesn't mean that we don't believe in the universality of rights. I think that all NGOs in the world agree on this point.

On the issue of priorities, I believe that Canada must send a clear message, through its initiatives, that it defends all rights.

Moreover, the commitments that Canada has made tie in with what was discussed within international forums. Canada's actions or denunciations relate not only to the fact that Ogoni leaders were assassinated, but also to the cause they were defending. Canada does not focus its attention solely on a specific violation, but rather on a broad range of violations that have resulted in the imprisonment, hanging or killing of persons. Accordingly, Canada must issue a clear, succinct message. However, the problem we face today is that the impression persists that state sovereignty - the word sovereignty is quite commonplace today in Canada - is now being called into question by international policies.

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry, but may I interrupt? Perhaps we can get back to that, but Mr. Morrison is going to have to leave, and he has a question he would like to pose.

Mr. Morrison: Thank you.

This is partly commentary and partly question. I understand clearly where the panel is coming from on the question of tying human rights to international trade. I gather you would all like to see certain principles consistently applied in our dealings with various countries, whether they're big countries, small countries, countries with lots of things to trade, or otherwise.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that we should carry on with the current policy of perhaps bribing despotic governments to trade with us by giving them foreign aid, saying please trade with us now since we gave you money for your development program. But what is to be gained by our unilaterally saying to, for example, China or Indonesia that we won't trade with them because their human rights records are despicable?

They don't care about little old Canada and their trade. They care about the money we might give them for aid, but if we leave out the bribe, they don't care if we trade with them or not. So what do we gain by insisting on respect for human rights in countries like that? If it's Haiti, sure, we can perhaps make our case, because they need our trade more than we need theirs. But what about the countries that don't care whether we even exist?

Mr. Clark: First of all, to be clear, Amnesty International, at least, is an organization that does not believe that sanctions or disinvestment or embargoes are part of the way we should approach human rights questions.

With regard to what policy to adopt in Canada in that sense, in presentations we have made to the government previously we have tried to de-emphasize that debate. We do not see those as alternatives. It's not a question of trade or human rights. In fact, quite to the contrary, we have argued that the opportunity of trade may well indeed, as our leaders have claimed, be a way for moving forward on human rights questions. Where we diverge is that the opportunities are not being taken or that the investment in human rights is long term and not short term.

.1730

Canada may well be instrumental in developing an interesting and useful dialogue in China over the rule of law, over the training of judges and so on. That's fine, but where is Canada when it talks about Wei Jinjsheng, who was charged this morning with treason against the state? He has already served 14 years in prison and may well face the death penalty because of that. Until Canada's voice is applied and finds the right mechanisms through its trade opportunities to raise these questions, I don't think we're taking the right path. It's the path of least resistance, and I don't think that's the right way.

Ms Francis: I would like to simply chronicle what the churches' experience has been, and I would like to use the short example of Burma.

We don't actually call for unilateral sanctions in the first instance. What we have always done - and I use the example of Petro-Canada particularly. That was a crown corporation that was exploring possibilities and had paid, by all accounts, the $6 million bribe you need to get SLORC to pay attention to you. Part of the difficulty for us was that Petro-Canada came back to us. So what you're saying is you're in, you're out.

I think the NGO community is more sophisticated than that, and I think we need to be given credit for being able to come up with a successive sequence of events. We push for sanctions when all other methods have been exhausted. We will talk with corporations, we will provide them with evidence.

We asked Petro-Canada whether it had even thought about asking about the health of Aung San Suu Kyi when she was.... I would like to clarify that she isn't under house arrest; she is sort of free to do whatever she likes now. But they hadn't even thought of that as a possible step for a corporation to do, which is quite a political statement in the context of a military regime like Burma.

So there are many steps, and I think the churches' history, in terms of how they finally came to a call - and unlike Amnesty, we do occasionally support sanctions calls, but it was in very carefully measured steps that took us...in the odious situation of South Africa. But that was after several steps had been exhausted, after several opportunities for progressive amelioration.

I think the NGO community does have some differences on the question around sanctions; there's no doubt about it. There are many who feel it is all or nothing. But several of us feel that there are intermediary steps, and we're simply calling on the Canadians to push for the commercial sector to react in a responsible manner.

Prof. Mendes: I wish John English were still here, because this is one instance in which he would find that there is actually consensus amongst NGOs in this country. I don't disagree with anything that has been said so far.

The one thing I would like to add, though, is the question of moral leadership. The people who constantly put trade sanctions forward as something that NGOs and civil society or the left would be in favour of...first of all, from what you've just heard, that is not accurate.

Second, they leave out the very important issue of moral leadership, and I will focus on Nigeria to illustrate that point. Before the Commonwealth meeting and before the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa, people were taking a very blasé approach to Nigeria, even though it was well known that the person who won the elections in 1993, Abiola, is actually wasting away in prison, from the latest information I have, and the execution of Saro-Wiwa.... Unfortunately, it was the execution of Saro-Wiwa that had to produce the moral leadership that we've seen with the Commonwealth.

I've been reading some of the transcripts from some of the people who appeared before your committee, and I strongly disagree, for example, with writing off the Commonwealth, because institutions like that can provide the moral leadership.

You're seeing that right now with, for example, Nelson Mandela, who has decided to launch a one-person crusade. Even if the rest of the world is not going to go with him, he's going to go ahead and try to get some international action going on Nigeria. I think Canada should support him and join him in those efforts, because a lot can be done.

.1735

I gather that the EU quite recently, yesterday or the day before, decided not to impose any form of really effective sanction, such as an oil embargo. They are limiting it only to limitation of visas and entrenching the arms embargo. But the things Canada can do in terms of moral leadership with Mandela are enormous. He's showing the way. Neither Canada nor Mandela has suggested outright trade sanctions, but they are suggesting there are ways to put the squeeze on military juntas that can have a profound effect. It takes moral leadership to do so.

Mr. McChesney: We've heard very good ideas from the last few speakers in response to Mr. Morrison's questions.

I want to agree with Daisy Francis with respect to the Burmese leader. Yes, of course, she was previously under house arrest; she's no longer under house arrest, it's more like house isolation. She's being ignored by the leadership and can speak to large groups freely only from her front door, when they come to speak to her outside her home. I thank Ms Francis for correcting that.

The Chair: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Morrison, may we continue without your presence?

Mr. Morrison: You're the boss.

The Chair: No, sir, today you are the boss in this instance.

Mr. Morrison: No, I certainly wouldn't want to disrupt the proceedings of the subcommittee, but I do have another appointment.

The Chair: But we may...?

Mr. Morrison: Of course.

The Chair: Thank you.

I have one last question, or at least one that I would like answered. We sit and listen and at all committees we're hearing that Canada or the government is not doing enough. I think, and at times I share in this as well, we're really, really good at picking on ourselves.

I would like to know how other countries are addressing this issue. You've talked of comprehensive, coherence, and consistency. Are there other countries you consider to have particularly strong human rights policies and have they been ultimately hurt in their trade by their policies?

Mr. Clark: I can't answer all of that, certainly not the last part. I don't know; I don't have the information. The Scandinavian countries, I would say - Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Norway - have been very adventuresome in exploring new ways of making foreign policy effective in the human rights domain. I think they have some interesting models that can be looked at. When the NGOs here in Canada were talking about an advisory council, some of that thinking came out of the experience we observed in the Scandinavian countries, although the model itself does not exactly exist.

I don't know that there's any single country I would praise for its total success in the human rights domain. I think there are a number of countries that are struggling to try to find the right answers, for sure. Canada sometimes calls them the like-minded countries, and they do emerge at the United Nations, in partnerships of policy and position. That needs to be pushed further, but I would say that Errol Mendes's comments about moral leadership perhaps apply here as well.

We are fortunate to be able to talk to you today. It's not a situation that exists in many countries around the world, including in some of the so-called developed countries, and I think we need to push that further and to take advantage of it. If there is no successful model yet in other countries, we should really be heading the way towards it.

The Chair: Ms Francis.

Ms Francis: I was just simply going to add, given Mr. Graham's earlier questions around the economic, social, and cultural rights, one government that has done some novel thinking around that is the Dutch government.

.1740

I am thinking particularly of Cees Flinterman, who was head of delegation in 1994 when he came to human rights. He's definitely a law professor and I can't remember what institution he's involved with, but he certainly has a relation with the foreign affairs ministry,

In fact, he has come up with some intriguing uses of the existing mechanisms of the human rights system to give some flesh and substance to economic, social and cultural rights.

So I find some of his thinking novel and interesting, but I echo....

As Canadian NGOs we may not say it often enough, but it isn't simply that we don't recognize we have a fairly decent government. Our obligation as Canadian NGOs is to hold Canada to standards and principles it has signed on to, and not simply to say, well, you're better than everybody else, so that's okay.

The Chair: You were saying that it was a philosophy, but is it also practised by the government? We have some tremendous human rights philosophers right here in Canada. But is his philosophy an official position of the government in the Netherlands?

Ms Francis: Oh indeed, Netherlands is one of the like-minded as well, and in this particular area further ahead than the Government of Canada. I think it's worth exploring.

Prof. Mendes: I just wanted to confirm that there are a group of like-minded countries, the Scandinavian countries, etc. But I want to address it in the specific context of the competition out there, in terms of some countries' desire to push their corporations into the global marketplace, maybe at the expense of human rights. I have to be careful now to disguise the names of some of the cases I know.

There's one very powerful example where a particular company dealing with the previous Marcos regime in the Philippines had absolutely no concerns whatsoever for the human rights standards or the norms involved in international business.

With the change of regime, that company is now shut out of all business in the Philippines. The government has made sure that it will never get another contract again.

We should keep that in mind when we chase after huge contracts at all costs, because regimes can change. In some respects we may be not so much feathering our own nest as putting a bomb under ourselves for future detonation.

That's all I'm going to say.

Mr. McChesney: Just following up on the issue of whether it costs Canada to promote international human rights, I don't know if there's any evidence that it has cost us to be seen as a world leader in human rights. We are important players in some of the most important financial and political international clubs.

Many people would be envious of the economic and social powers of the Nordic countries, including Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Germany. They've promoted international human rights. It doesn't seem to have harmed them.

In the Netherlands, of course, the advisory committee on human rights is a fixture where NGOs directly influence foreign policy with respect to international human rights. I guess that was the best-known model Roger Clark was alluding to.

Norway, Sweden, Australia don't seem to have been harmed by their promotion of international human rights. I think this moral leadership helps to give Canada and other countries maybe more power than our size otherwise would allow us to attain.

[Translation]

Mr. McKenzie: Canada must develop a model that faithfully reflects the will of all Canadians to promote human rights throughout the world. It should look to the strategy of northern countries or of those that we have just mentioned for inspiration because these strategies are interesting. However, I believe we have the means to develop at this time new mechanisms, while respecting at the same time the will of Canadians.

.1745

On the other hand, there is a widespread belief that actions in the field of human rights should only target countries that are guilty of human rights violations. Such actions should also target friendly countries. Take, for example, France which supports some dictatorial regimes, more precisely in Africa. Canada, therefore has a role to play not only vis-à-vis the leaders of these countries who don't often listen to us but also vis-à-vis the countries that support these regimes.

My final comment concerns economic development. When we talk about economic development, it is important to know what is at issue. Are we talking about the economic development of large companies or about the development of the Canadian population? We generally refer to the development of employment and of Canadian society. Care must be taken to ensure that the economic development that we are promoting internationally encompasses all of society and that one segment of society is not favoured at the expense of another.

This brings us to the question of whether elected states are still sovereign. Do they exercise some influence or are they merely brokers for merchants? That's the fundamental question!

As for the deficit, it is not only economic, but democratic as well. Right now, we get the impression that the citizens of this country are wondering if they have a hold on economic development. This is a question that affects not only socioeconomic rights, but all rights as well.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Graham.

Mr. Graham: It's a question of process. You may have brought this up, and again I apologize for being late.

Is the conference that the federal government organizes in the spring of every year a useful conference? Is that the only time of the year in which the NGOs in the area are brought together? Is there something else that might be done to make that a better system?

Mr. Clark: If I may -

Mr. Graham: It's fairly late, so I'm -

Mr. Clark: I'll leave an answer to my colleagues. I'm sorry, I will have to withdraw. I have another appointment at 6 p.m., if you'll excuse me, Madam Chair. But thanks for the opportunity to be here.

The Chair: We appreciate your being here.

Mr. Graham: Is it a good conference? Can you just say yes or no?

Prof. Mendes: It's a good exercise. Can I leave it at that?

Mr. Graham: Okay.

Mr. McChesney: I'm sure Daisy Francis would have something to add.

In many respects it's useful. There are a number of improvements that have been made over the years to the conference, which usually takes place in January but will be a little later this year because the UN Commission on Human Rights is later. But Daisy can perhaps point to some areas where this process can be improved.

Certainly the churches and Amnesty International liaise throughout the year with foreign service officers on themes, but this is the one occasion that is preparatory to the annual UN Commission on Human Rights, when NGOs get together en masse with the foreign affairs department. It's not only the network but also other NGOs. But I'm sure Daisy would like to add a few points.

Ms Francis: I'm quite happy to answer privately.

The Chair: Daisy, did you have a response, too?

Ms Francis: Okay, very quickly. I think the consultations have become a bit unwieldy...not the least of which is that we simply do not control the invitation list. It is a consultation organized by the Department of Foreign Affairs, and they will admit that it's a growing guest list. Given that you have 2 days, 200 people need to speak to them. So it becomes increasingly difficult.

.1750

But it's a really important forum for NGOs who have absolutely no other opportunity to meet with Foreign Affairs. The rest of us are more fortunate.

[Translation]

Mr. McKenzie: In my view, the recent Commonwealth and Francophonie summit meetings were truly important. They commit us to the process of ensuring that these international forums take into consideration the issue of human rights and freedoms. An initial consultation has already taken place. I believe this process should be maintained and expanded.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Did any of the witnesses want to add anything, or sum up?

[Translation]

Mr. McChesney: I agree with Gerald on the last question. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to discuss with you such important issues.

[English]

The Chair: I'd like to thank all of you as well. You certainly provided us with some very useful thoughts to help us in our final decision on our formation of the committee. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.