FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 3, 1999

• 1537

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.)): The general consensus is that we have a quorum, so I call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Today we're fortunate to welcome Kathleen Mahoney, in order to examine her appointment as president of the board of directors of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development. She has brought along with her the Honourable Warren Allmand, her assistant, who we have determined already is more than a pretty face.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Who determined that?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Welcome, Kathleen, and welcome, Warren, certainly.

Kathleen, I understand you would like to make a short presentation before we grill you.

Ms. Kathleen Mahoney (President, Board of Directors, International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development): I guess I can count on that, then. Yes, I would like to have the floor first if that's going to be the case, but I don't think so.

I just wanted to tell you how delighted I am to be here and how honoured I am to be here to speak with you today. I wanted to give you a little bit of information about my background, so that perhaps you can have a basis to further ask me some questions.

I just wanted to say at first that I was very pleasantly surprised to be appointed to this position. The centre has always been a place I have admired greatly over the years, from where I stood in the human rights field. As you probably know, I'm a law professor, and I have been so for almost twenty years now; you might call me a veteran in that field. My interest, my scholarship, and my emphasis has always been on human rights over that period of time. In fact, I've always taught human rights at my law school.

I have a bachelor of laws from UBC. I have a master of laws from Cambridge, in England. I have a diploma in comparative human rights law from the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, from the comparative human rights law institute there. I've obviously taught in Canada, in Calgary, but I've also taught elsewhere. I taught for a term at the University of Chicago, in the law faculty there. I've taught at the University of Adelaide in Australia. I've taught at Australian National University in Canberra, Australia. Also, I've been a fellow at Griffith University. Most recently I've been a fellow at the human rights program at Harvard, where I also did some teaching.

• 1540

Insofar as my experience in human rights is concerned, you might say it more or less covers the spectrum. I have done grassroots organizing, particularly in the area of women's equality rights, and especially in the area of pornography. Many years ago I got involved in the movement to have pornography viewed and understood as an equality issue and as harmful to women, rather than as a morality issue, notwithstanding that in many people's minds of course that's exactly what it is. Nevertheless, for legal purposes, it was extremely important to have that kind of material understood in that light so that other rights would be engaged when this kind of abusive speech was used against women and children.

My advocacy included everything from organizing to meetings, from publicity campaigns to marches, basically the whole gamut, and I ended up using more of my expertise, you might say, and my scholarship. I ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing the Butler decision, which is indeed the seminal case in this area. Needless to say, that ended happily, with the harm analysis being accepted by the Supreme Court.

My scholarship is wide-ranging, and I'm published in many journals in Canada and throughout the world. Basically, my scholarship focuses on human rights, equality issues, equality theory, feminist legal theory, and other specific issues under those headings.

In my career I've organized numbers of conferences on various issues, perhaps the most impressive one being Human Rights in the Twenty-First Century, which was organized in the early 1990s and from which a major book resulted.

You might be interested to know that the focus in the last ten years or so of my career has been in the area of judicial education, and on gender, race, and class biases in legal doctrine and in fact in judicial decision-making. It's interesting that we are in the midst of a major national issue in that regard right now, but this is precisely the sort of work I've been doing over the years: identifying areas in which the law has become somewhat inappropriate or not conducive to the situation the population finds itself in in terms of myths, stereotypes, and cultural values that are no longer accepted and are certainly no longer consistent with the law of Canada. In fact I've just come today from a session at Mont Tremblant with newly appointed federal judges who every year have a week-long education session I participate in.

I know the centre from the other side as well. I applied successfully a number of years ago for assistance from the centre in order to do a project in Geneva. That project was identifying violence against women. The purpose of that conference was to show that violence against women and its treatment in legal systems seems to transcend culture, legal systems, and so on around the world. We brought a conference there with the assistance of the centre in order to show members of the United Nations Human Rights Commission that this was a problem of global proportions, and that something needed to be done about it. I've had a close relationship with the centre in that regard, and have been eternally grateful for their wisdom and understanding of the project, because it was before its time in terms of general acceptance in the community. This sort of work was extremely important, it was universal, and it was a human rights issue.

In terms of other advocacy work that I have done—and I might add that almost all of my advocacy work is pro bono work—I was a member of the legal team representing Bosnia in its case in the World Court against Serbia prior to the International Criminal Tribunal being struck. My task on that team was to develop arguments with respect to equality guarantees and violence against women in conflict, in order to convince the court that genocidal acts can consist of gender-specific crimes, especially crimes such as mass rape, forced pregnancy, and so on. Those kinds of crimes could be genocidal as much as can be the more traditional crimes that we know to be genocide.

I was made a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada two years ago in recognition of the work I've done on human rights, and I was very honoured to receive that award.

In conclusion, I'd just say that I'm very much looking forward to my tenure at the centre. I've visited it several times now and have gotten to know the staff, which is most impressive and is doing wonderful work. I hope to work closely with the staff and to bring the expertise I have to the centre. I look forward to the developments we're going to be going through into the new century.

With those brief remarks, thank you for the floor, and I'd be very happy to answer any questions you may have.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you very much.

Mr. Mills.

• 1545

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Thank you.

I want to take this opportunity to welcome you. I don't really have any questions about your qualifications. I believe they speak for themselves. I guess I have questions that maybe—what did we say?—the handsome person beside you might want to answer as well.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: The pretty face.

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes, the pretty face you brought along with you might want to answer them.

There are really three areas I would ask questions about when it comes to international human rights. First of all, it seems to me that we continue to have the Eretrias, the Kosovos, the Rwanda-Uganda situation. Seeing those pictures, I can't tell you how that touched me. I was in that camp. I was in that area in 1985. I saw the mountain gorillas. Just seeing that happen yesterday certainly brought back a lot of memories. But I see that, I see Malaysia and the persecution of the Chinese community there, I see the religious persecution that I'm sure all of us on this committee get letters about so constantly. How do you think we're going to deal with that? How can we make that situation better? I mean, the list could be a mile long. What can Canada do more actively to pursue that and to bring that to the fore for Canadians and for the world?

Secondly, I would like to ask you specifically about the Iraq situation. Obviously, we've just had a CBC team go there. The last several nights they have been talking about that. I know the people who arranged that trip, and I just wondered what we can do. It seems that if we take off the sanctions, we then give Saddam Hussein more money to do with as he wishes. If we keep the sanctions on, we hurt children. What's the solution to that situation?

Finally, Cuba is in the news again. We've spent twenty or thirty years trying to change Fidel Castro. It appears from his actions this week that he hasn't learned much. Again, did we make a mistake in terms of how we've played the game with him? In fact our tourist dollars now seem to be helping him to carry out his still brutal regime, with no freedom of the press, no freedom of assembly, etc.

Those are three balls that I'll throw at you and the pretty face—sorry, Warren.

Mr. Warren Allmand (President, International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development): Madam Chair, I just wanted some clarification. We were instructed by the clerk that there would be two hearings here. There was to be one hearing at the beginning for Ms. Mahoney in regard to her qualifications as the new chair of our board of directors. That having been completed, I was to make a presentation, as president of the centre, on the work of the centre. I'm not sure whether these questions are more apropos for the second part.

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes, they certainly would be, Warren. I was not aware of that arrangement.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I think this is perhaps an indication that Ms. Mahoney has impressed the committee with her credentials under presentation.

Does anyone have any specific questions directed to Ms. Mahoney?

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): On Ms. Mahoney's credentials?

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I think her credentials are great, but maybe I could ask—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Just a moment.

You had a presentation you wanted to give as well, didn't you?

Mr. Warren Allmand: I have a short presentation on the centre's work. Ms. Mahoney's presentation was with respect to her background and competency to do the job. When you're finished with that, I would give a short statement that deals with some of the issues Mr. Mills raised.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Then do you mind if we put your questions on hold until then, Mr. Mills?

Mr. Bob Mills: That's fine.

Mr. Warren Allmand: I took note of Mr. Mills' questions.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Okay, good.

Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Ms. Mahoney, I'm sure that if we went around this table, we'd find that everyone—and everyone in the country—is very pleased that you took on this role and are ready to work for the centre and lend your expertise to the centre. Just as a public interest to me, though, what do you hope to accomplish? What are your goals in working for the centre, and where do you see from your own expertise that you fit into this moving of that agenda forward? I think you will be a very influential person in where we are going and how we handle the concerns.

• 1550

Ms. Kathleen Mahoney: I could answer the question this way. It's very early, of course, in my tenure, but nevertheless I certainly have given this some thought. My ambitions and ideas would be, obviously, something the board as a whole, along with Mr. Allmand and his staff, would be interested in doing as well.

Having said that, one thing I would like to say is I think the centre is extremely well positioned to take a major role in the world in terms of human rights. It has a wonderful staff. In terms of its location, in terms of its mandate, it is very flexible to be able to do things.

My own view is the centre could be more connected to intelligence in Canada in the human rights community, and indeed we have identified this as a goal. We could create a much more linked-up academic network of experts throughout the country, we could reach out more to students in terms of internships, other people in terms of sabbaticals and other scholarships.

The centre could be known as a very smart centre, as someplace where, if answers are needed to the kinds of questions that were raised earlier or positions or arguments on either side, through its network.... Now that we can electronically link ourselves up with people not only in our own country instantaneously, but with people all over the world, it strikes me that if there were an organizational place such as the centre that could do that, we could be known and have a niche as a smart centre that is available to people like yourselves, as well as NGOs, as well as other people out there in the world community interested in human rights, as a place where they can go for some information, some guidance perhaps, some indication of where the arguments are and how sound they are—this kind of thing.

I would like to lend my abilities to developing that kind of extension of the centre's present resources, because I think it's out there, it's available for very minimal cost, and it's a huge resource. Canada is well known, as you know, throughout the world for our expertise in this area, and we should be using it more, in my view.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

Madam Debien, is your question for Ms. Mahoney?

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien (Laval-East, BQ): I would like to welcome the President and Mr. Allmand. First of all, Ms. Mahoney, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment. I was very impressed by your CV, as well by your commitment to improving the status of women.

Although my question may be somewhat technical and Mr. Allmand may be in a better position to answer it, I would like to ask you what percentage of the budget envelope of your programs is dedicated specifically to improving the status of women in countries where your centre is present. I'm aware that you may not be able to answer that question today. If that's the case, perhaps you could send us that information later. In any event, given your CV, my dearest hope is that you will maintain your concern for improving the status of women through your work with the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development. That was my only question for Ms. Mahoney. I would also like to put a question to Mr. Allmand, but I think I might as well wait until he's finished his presentation.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I think because it is a technical question pertaining to the centre more than to Ms. Mahoney's point, perhaps we'll come back to that, if you don't mind.

If there are no more direct questions to Ms. Mahoney, then perhaps we'll hear from Mr. Allmand.

Mr. Warren Allmand: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

• 1555

I'm certainly pleased to be back with you. It's a great pleasure to meet you today with Kathleen Mahoney, who was recently appointed chair of the centre's board of directors. We're extremely pleased with her appointment. She has extensive experience in human rights advocacy, teaching and writing, and she's worked in several countries. And she will help give us a greater profile in western Canada.

[Translation]

The International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development was established by a law of Parliament in 1988 following an all-party resolution of this Committee. Parliament felt the need to create an independent, arms-length institution to play a key role in the field of human rights and democratic development in Canada and around the world.

The Centre officially opened its doors in 1990, which means that we will be celebrating our 10th anniversary of operations next year. Our mandate, defined in the Act, is to defend and promote human rights as set out in the International Bill of Rights, that is all rights, including economic and social ones.

[English]

The centre's strategy is anchored in advocacy and capacity-building and we focus on four themes—women's human rights, indigenous people's rights, justice and democratic development, and globalization and human rights. This work is carried out in a dozen core countries in the Americas, Asia, and Africa, and at international and regional bodies. The core countries in which we work are Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, Haiti, Kenya, Rwanda, including the African Great Lakes region, Togo, Nigeria, Burma, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Thailand. Some of these countries may and will change as the situation evolves and resources allow us to tackle new challenges.

[Translation]

Our staff works with partners in Canada and in these countries providing technical assistance and project funding, all designed to strengthen the capacity of these groups and to advocate their cause. Our goal is to help them to defend and promote their rights at home and on the world stage, whether before their local governments or at the UNCHR (United Nations Commission on Human Rights), other UN human rights committees or before regional organizations such as the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights.

Basically, our philosophy is that human rights movements and institutions are the very foundation of democratic societies. Without vibrant civil societies where citizens participate in setting the public policy agenda there cannot be true democratic development.

[English]

To that end we have held a number of democratic development forums, most recently in Peru and Pakistan. We have a project manager based in Guatemala to support civil society's participation in the follow-up to the peace agreement. We are also continuing to support the democratically elected Burmese government in exile.

Over the years the centre's women's rights program has achieved significant results, such as the nomination of the UN special rapporteur on violence against women. The women's rights program has contributed to the creation of the coalition on women in conflict situations, which the centre now coordinates. Its lobbying and interventions led to the recognition of rape as a war crime in the Akayesu decision last September before the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda, thus setting an important legal precedent.

The fight against impunity is an important component of our work and it overarches many of our programs. Our advocacy role before the Arusha tribunal for Rwanda is part of that campaign. The centre has been at the forefront of the movement for the creation of an international criminal court, which will give the international community the necessary tools to deal with the world's most heinous crimes—genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The centre has worked with the federal government on this issue and is an active member of the international NGO steering committee and the international coalition that is now spearheading the campaign for ratification of the Rome statute on the International Criminal Court.

• 1600

With others, including church and labour groups, the centre has also supported a two-year campaign for the release of Indonesian labour leader Muchtar Pakpahan, who was facing the death penalty under the country's anti-subversion law for simply organizing a free trade union. Last May, following President Suharto's resignation, Mr. Pakpahan was finally released from prison, and his union is now in the process of obtaining legal recognition.

I'm happy to report that Mr. Pakpahan has accepted an invitation to visit Canada and will be celebrating his first full year of freedom with us in May. He will be travelling to Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa, and we would be pleased to help set up a meeting with this most incredible and courageous man, who has a very important message from Indonesian workers.

[Translation]

More recently, the Centre has also been involved in documenting human rights abuses in the former Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo and this past January organized a very successful conference in Montreal with leading opposition leaders and prominent members of that country's civil society. Participants at the conference drafted a final statement and a plan of action to bring about durable peace and democratic development in this war torn country. The Centre is coordinating the follow-up work and will continue to work with partner groups to try to bring some resolution to the conflict that is destabilizing the whole African Great Lakes region.

[English]

Just this past week, our globalization program hosted a very well attended seminar here in Ottawa bringing together business, labour, government, and NGOs to discuss and debate the issue of ethical business practices abroad. Our centre has published two studies on the issue of business with a conscience, which found Canadian businesses, I regret to say, to be lagging in the field of codes of conduct. A study of Canada's 98 largest corporations doing business abroad found that a majority did not have basic codes of conduct dealing with basic human rights when doing business overseas.

We have also been active in advocating civil society consultation in the drafting of trade agreements and have pushed hard for the inclusion of core labour standards and social clauses for the World Trade Organization, the free trade in the Americas initiative, and APEC. In this respect, we have asked to be heard by your committee on both the WTO and the FTAA. Canada and 130 other states have ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and these should not be marginalized away by trade agreements.

Next month the centre will play an important role in organizing an international meeting of about 50 indigenous women of the Americas. These indigenous craftswomen from 13 countries, including Canada, have seen the mass marketing of unauthorized copies of their work. They will be meeting in Ottawa to develop a plan to ensure the protection of their work, thus protecting their creativity and culture.

These are only a few of the activities and programs the centre is currently sponsoring and organizing. There are many others I would like to mention, such as the continued support for democratic forces in Nigeria; the indigenous peoples in Chiapas, Mexico; or ongoing work with partner groups advocating repeal of national security laws in Asia—not to mention our advocacy role at all levels of the United Nations.

[Translation]

However, there is never enough time or money or staff to do all that has to be done or even to consider taking on new projects. Not a day goes by without someone somewhere asking us to do more. There are so many pressing needs, civil strife in Algeria, the plight of women in Afghanistan, the horrible massacres in Columbia, the difficulties of the emerging democracies of the former Soviet Union, and the problem of minorities in East and Central Europe. I am sure you also have your list.

The celebrations surrounding the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights last December gave all of us an opportunity to reflect on what has been achieved since but also to measure the incredible gap between words and reality in too many communities around the world where the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an empty shell.

• 1605

[English]

When the centre was created ten years ago it enjoyed full multi-year funding and started its operations fully endowed with a five-year budget totalling $15 million, with less than three years to spend it. In the following years, the budget allocation from Parliament was $5 million yearly, but that amount was unfortunately reduced to $4.6 million in 1997-1998 and $4.3 million in 1998-1999. Not only have the budget cuts affected programming within the centre, but inflation coupled with the erosion of the Canadian dollar have also compounded our financial difficulties.

This was the situation when I was appointed president in February 1997. In addition, a union was certified in the centre in the summer of 1996, and I was obliged to negotiate a first collective agreement in the context of the reduced budget. This was an extremely difficult challenge for a small organization with no specialists in labour relations, but we did accomplish our task.

The centre was downsized and restructured, some staff were let go, and programs were cut back. A valuable information bulletin on impunity was cancelled, and our publications program was seriously curtailed. However, we did sign a three-year collective agreement on February 13, 1998, and we've carried on with a smaller and more focused organization since April 1, 1998.

We did what other federally funded agencies have done: we cut back, pared down, and stretched every dollar to go further. We are encouraged by news that aid for overseas development will increase, but on Monday, when the estimates were tabled, we were disappointed to learn that our parliamentary allocation would be the same as last year, which is the reduced budget of $4.3 million. The demand for help in building democracies and protecting human rights is greater than ever before, and we are continually being called upon to assist.

The International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development is a unique institution in Canada, which has developed important partnerships with governments and civil society around the world. Our programs and partnerships with women's groups in Pakistan, and human rights activists in the Congo-Kinshasa or in Guatemala, where Guatemalans are trying to rebuild their lives after years of civil war, are all small but vital ways in which Canadians are linking with others to make a difference.

Madam Chair, I want to thank you for this opportunity to talk about work at the centre and would be happy to answer all your questions. Perhaps I could answer Mr. Mills' questions immediately.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Yes.

Mr. Warren Allmand: The three examples he gave us—Eritrea, Iraq, and Cuba—unfortunately are countries in which we are not working and have no specialty. I have people in my office almost weekly asking me to go into countries like Eritrea, Iraq, the Palestinian territories, Afghanistan. As I mentioned, we don't have the resources. We've been asked to focus our limited resources. We focus on the 12 countries I mentioned. We focus on the four themes, but there are so many other horrible human rights situations that we just aren't able to address.

Each year the board—and Kathleen and the board are meeting this Friday and Saturday—reviews the countries within which we're working and have the ability to change them. They can give us instructions to get out of this place and go into this other place. I've seen the same pictures and the same films that were mentioned by Mr. Mills, and it's heart-rending when we have to say no, but we just cannot be everywhere and do everything with the resources we have.

Regarding the question Madam Debien asked about the percentage of the budget on women, we have with us our comptroller, who's our financial director, and our director of programs and our director of communications. They may help us with these questions.

Would my three directors come to the table, please? Is that all right?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): That's wonderful. Perhaps you would like to introduce them.

Mr. Warren Allmand: I would ask Marie-France Cloutier, who is our comptroller, or Iris Almeida, who is our director of programs, to answer the question of Madam Debien.

Ms. Iris Almeida (Director of Programs, International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development): Thank you very much for this opportunity.

[Translation]

Twelve per cent of the budget envelope of the Centre's programs are dedicated to projects for women.

• 1610

Moreover, in accordance with our philosophy, the Centre ensures that each of its programs takes into account the inclusion of women's rights.

[English]

This is in keeping with Mary Robinson, the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, who is also engaged in a very similar process to ours, mainstreaming women's rights within the UN system. Therefore, besides the 12% allocated to women's specific projects, we have a large percentage in each of the Asia, Africa, and the Americas programs where we support grassroots women's groups and regional networks.

I would say we have a very important project in the Americas, which is called Indigenous Women of the Americas. Mr. Allmand referred to it. It's a network of indigenous women across the continent and linked very closely to Canadian indigenous groups.

In all, I would say for the last fiscal year it was more or less $500,000 in terms of material financial resources, but in terms of staff time and actual support in organizing some of these groups it has been much more considerable.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I apologize for arriving late. Unfortunately, I had to follow up on a serious issue that arose in question period. I regret I wasn't able to be here, particularly, if I may say, to hear the statement of an old friend and former classmate at the UBC law school and our most distinguished graduate of the class of 1976, Ms. Mahoney. I can't help noting that in her graduating year, which was my graduating year at the same school, Ms. Mahoney received an award for outstanding academic performance and potential for excellence and leadership. And I might say she's certainly shown outstanding leadership and excellence, and I was delighted with the appointment, Madam Chair.

I wanted to ask Mr. Allmand, another old friend and former colleague in this place, if he could indicate, in terms of the process of selection of countries, how that decision is made. Obviously in many respects that's the most fundamental decision you make, having to say no to some countries and yes to others. Is it a decision that's made by the board? Is it a decision that's made following recommendations by staff? Because of course things evolve. The obvious example—and there are many different countries one could ask you to consider—is the situation of the Kurds, which is a tragic situation. It's come to light in a particularly vivid way recently with the arrest of Abdullah Ocalan.

Rather than just the situation of the Kurds, I respectfully suggest that you look at Turkey as a country to focus on, especially when we read the reports of PEN International, for example, about the appalling level of harassment, violence against and arrest of independent journalists, attacks on the labour movement, and particularly the situation of the Kurds, with the destruction of villages and so on.

In looking at your list of countries, I note one in which there has been a very significant positive evolution, and that's Nigeria. So when you're looking at where there might be room, I want to appeal to recognize that the centre, which has such a fine reputation, may be able to play a positive and constructive role in Turkey.

There are two other issues I'd perhaps raise. I wanted to ask Mr. Allmand to perhaps talk a little bit about the situation in Mexico now with respect to the restrictions on human rights observers. Mexico is one of your core countries. I was just down in Chiapas myself meeting with human rights groups in December of last year, and without exception they voiced grave concern about the impact of these new visa requirements for the ability of people to monitor what's going on with respect to human rights in Chiapas. It's ironic in terms of timing when the UN Human Rights Commission just finally passed the declaration on human rights defenders and yet Mexico is moving backwards. I wonder if you could comment on that and any representations you've made through the centre on this issue to the Government of Mexico and indeed to our own government.

• 1615

My final question is for Ms. Mahoney or Mr. Allmand and it's with respect to the whole issue of economic, social, and cultural rights. As we know, there are two international covenants, and sometimes we tend to downgrade the significance of economic, social, and cultural rights. Canada itself was recently the subject of some pretty harsh criticism for our role in that area. I wonder whether you could indicate whether, and I know you're just coming into this new job, this is an issue you are prepared to have a look at. It's the balance in terms of the focus that we put on economic, social, and cultural rights as well as civil and political rights.

Mr. Warren Allmand: You've asked quite a range of questions.

First of all, with respect to the core countries, in the early years of the centre the centre was funding at one time up to forty countries. There was an evaluation done, and it was felt that we should try to make a greater impact in fewer countries. Instead of scattering our money all over, we should try to make a difference in countries by concentrating our funding and our projects in a limited number of countries.

At that time the president, with the board.... By the way, the board decides how many and where on the advice of the staff, but of course the staff might recommend A, B, and C and the board may decide to add D or take away B. But a few years ago they decided on more or less the same countries that we have now, although last year we added Indonesia and Nigeria. It was before the change of government in Nigeria. At that time we were supporting an opposition offshore radio station, along with Norway and Holland and a few other countries, which was broadcasting democratic news and so on into Nigeria, not for any one particular party but simply for democracy.

There were certain criteria before I arrived at the centre for the choice of core countries, but we reviewed that last year, and about a year ago the board of directors approved a new set of criteria for choosing core countries and how long we should be there and what should be the conditions of exiting. You have to be careful when you exit. You don't leave somebody holding the bag you have set up.

So we have these core criteria. I'd be pleased to send them to you or to any other member of the committee. The board meeting is this week and the board will be reviewing our program for next year. We're actually, because of financial reasons, scaling down. Whereas we had thirteen core countries, we will have twelve next year. But the demand...the countries Mr. Mills mentioned are all extremely important.

I happened to sit down about a year ago with the Kurdish community from Canada, with people who had escaped from Turkey and come in to see me. They made a strong plea that we work there, and of course when I sat down and listened to them I was convinced that something had to be done, but I had to say to them that we couldn't do it.

What we try to do, and we can't do it all the time, is I either try to get CIDA to help or another organization, Peace and Development, some of the churches, whatever. We try to broker help with other groups we know, but unfortunately so far.... Really what is pointed out to me now is there was a plea for help from the Kurds a year ago, two years ago, three years ago, and the world did nothing; and now we've seen the results of it, with violence around the world because nobody was listening. It's a bit like what happened in Rwanda.

Unfortunately we haven't been able, but we're continually reviewing and we have criteria.

With respect to Mexico, it so happened I was in Geneva at the UN Commission on Human Rights when they adopted the declaration on the rights of human rights defenders. Mexico supported it, and within three days they were throwing out two Canadians who were there working on human rights. They were using these visa requirements as an excuse.

I protested to the President of Mexico, to the foreign minister. I sent letters to Mr. Axworthy asking him to speak more strongly on this issue. And by the way, we, the centre, are here today and for the next two days because we're taking part in the annual consultations with the Department of Foreign Affairs on what their position should be at the UN commission, which will start on March 22 for five weeks in Geneva. Part of our submission tomorrow will be on this very issue. I don't want to read it all here now, but we are talking about the various human rights violations in Mexico, including civil and political rights and economic, social, and cultural rights. We have a series of recommendations. Again, I'd be pleased to distribute those to you.

• 1620

Finally, and I'll hand over to Kathleen in a minute, one our fourteen programs is on globalization and human rights, which means economic and social rights. In the last few years we have put a much higher profile on economic and social rights. I use the argument over and over again that unfortunately, in Canada none of our human rights statutes, in any of the provinces, deals with economic and social rights. They only deal with civil and political rights, despite the fact that we've ratified the International Convenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, despite the fact that the universal declaration, which we celebrated last year, in articles 22 to 26 talks about the right to housing, the right to food, the right to work, etc. Canada was a great supporter of the universal declaration and the international convenant, but Canada isn't alone, unfortunately, in the marginalization of these rights. We in the centre have been trying to increase it. I know Kathleen might have something to say about it too.

Ms. Kathleen Mahoney: Yes, I do have something to say.

First of all, I'd like to thank you, Svend, for your very kind remarks. I might want to put on the record that he's being far too modest. In my view, he's the star of our graduating class.

On this issue of economic, social, and cultural rights and the indivisibility of rights, I have given this a fair amount of thought. One of the challenges for the centre, which we've been advised to look at, both by the minister as well as by the team who evaluated the centre, was to try to be more focused and develop a thematic identity. In fact, one of the ideas I prepared something on to bring to the board on Friday is the notion that one thematically consistent approach we could take, and constantly evaluate ourselves and present ourselves to the world, could be through the concept of the indivisibility of rights. We could make the point absolutely clear to all of the clients we deal with, and NGOs and so on, that the end of the Cold War signalled the end of this polarization of ideologies, of communism and first world democracy, and that true democracy requires an indivisible notion of human rights, which combines civil and political rights with economic, social, and cultural rights.

It seems to me that one small contribution we can make to that understanding, which needs to be universalized, is for centres such as ours, which in my view will increasingly take a more important role in the world of human rights, to identify ourselves with that concept and have that as part of our mainstream programming. It is already, but it's not as much to the forefront as I think it could be.

So your advice is very well taken. It's a concept that's extremely important, and it's certainly something I will be bringing to the board on Friday.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): On the 17th we're hoping to have the department before the committee to hear the results of your consultations this week. So maybe you'd better, if you have any problems, give us some questions to ask them when they appear.

Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome to you all. It's an honour to be able to have some all-too-brief discourse with you this afternoon.

You may not want to answer this question here, Warren, because you told us you'll be coming back before this committee.

Mr. Warren Allmand: We've asked to come on the WTO and the FTAA.

Mr. Julian Reed: That's precisely what I'd like to focus on. Maybe the best I can do is just leave you with the challenge.

We often feel that we walk into something of a Catch-22 situation when it comes to trade and human rights. We wonder sometimes if it is a chicken and egg situation. In other words, if you want to have a presence and you want to have an influence and you want to help the economic rights of a country, if you like, trade is a very strong part of that process. Yet at the same time, the argument can come back to say yes, but what do you do to insist on human rights in this process of trade? It is really a difficult thrash, I think, for all of us.

• 1625

You talk about economic rights, the right to food, the right to housing, the right to work. They all depend on some kind of endeavour, some kind of activity. You can't create a job out of thin air, and you can't provide a roof over a head unless there's some kind of base there with which to do it. I think I'll leave you with that challenge. That's exactly what we're wrestling with in respect of the WTO and the kinds of recommendations we're going to make when it comes before us within the next few months.

Mr. Warren Allmand: Maybe I'll just give you a brief answer.

We argue strongly that it's not a question of a choice. It's not either trade or human rights. We argue strongly that trade actually will flourish in a situation where there is respect for the rule of law and for basic human rights, more than it will where there is not. If you ignore human rights, you end up with civil conflict, strikes, riots in the street, and much worse situations that make it very difficult for foreign business to operate. As a matter of fact, where there's no respect for human rights or for the rule of law, you don't even know if you're going to get paid and get back your investment. So we would argue that you should build trade and human rights. It's not one or the other.

It's interesting to note that we criticized the Canadian government two years ago when they withdrew their sponsorship of the resolution condemning China at the UN Commission on Human Rights. Mr. Axworthy argued that he was setting up a bilateral agreement with China, and that would replace it. We said the bilateral agreement is good, but you should do both until China improves its situation.

A number of countries withdrew their sponsorship of the China resolution, but little Denmark picked up the ball Canada had, sponsored the resolution, and its trade with China increased the following year. China tried to bully people by saying if you support this resolution, we won't buy your stuff. In fact, Denmark sold more. I hear there's another example as well where they sponsored the resolution. Denmark had good products to sell that China wanted to buy, and they bought them even though Denmark had sponsored the resolution.

We'll have more to say about those issues. We're preparing a very specific brief on a lot of those issues.

Mr. Julian Reed: I appreciate that very much. The challenge I see is in the process, how you get from there to here and where you say yes, we should be trading and under what circumstances, or no, we shouldn't be.

Mr. Warren Allmand: We don't say we shouldn't trade. We say trade is good, but try to make sure you're not supporting sweatshops, exploiting children, or using slave labour. You hear of situations in China where people are locked in for 12 hours a day. We had some testimony last year about a bunch of women who were burned to death because they were locked in a factory and couldn't get out.

Canadian companies can't do that in Canada, and they shouldn't put money into that stuff abroad. I think most of them would agree. That was the reason for this conference we had last week. We were discussing ethics and doing business abroad. Canadian companies doing business in Canada can't do any of those things, and we have more trade in Canada than we do inside those countries.

Mr. Julian Reed: We'll anxiously look forward to your presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

Along the same lines, I'm wondering about Kathleen's position on the feasibility of the government drawing up basic human rights criteria before we lend money through EDC, ODA, or any of the other publicly sponsored government programs. Do you see that as being feasible and saleable to our trade department?

• 1630

Ms. Kathleen Mahoney: I would agree with Mr. Allmand.

Frankly, I have had some personal experience with this. I organized a workshop in Calgary with CEOs of companies and NGOs in the human rights field to discuss this and to see what was feasible in their minds. By their minds I mean the CEOs, because, as you probably know, CEOs and non-governmental human rights organizations don't normally have lunch together. In any event, we spent in fact two days of lunches and coffees and what not together and came to quite a few surprising areas of common interest and common solutions.

One of the points of discussion that emerged very clearly from those two days of meetings was that businesses are primarily concerned with corruption, but once we began to take apart that notion of what is corruption and how can corruption affect your business, it became quite clear there was significant overlap with human rights violations. All of a sudden, something they thought they weren't interested in or didn't want to be concerned about became very much something they were concerned about. It was a matter of what do you label these things. All of a sudden this becomes a bottom-line issue as soon as you can tie it in with the notion of corruption.

They were very interested in suggestions such as the Good Housekeeping seal of approval you find on certain consumer products, where you could have a similar approval rating that would actually appear on products to indicate that the manufacturers, the distributors, and so on had observed fundamental human rights standards as set out in the universal declaration or in other human rights standard-setting conventions. That was of interest to the business community, because they could see a competitive edge there that could be arrived at through recognition of human rights, rather than see that as some kind of drain on their resources.

My conclusions from those discussions were that, first of all, it depends on communication and discussing common interests and not labelling something in a way that could create resistance; secondly, it's important to communicate with each other so they can see that people can work together toward a common goal; and thirdly, they can understand this is a bottom-line issue that will improve their situation rather than detract from it.

So I think it's quite feasible. Obviously it very much depends on cooperation, but I think the cooperation can be arrived at through more communication and more understanding of exactly what's relevant to their concerns.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Warren Allmand: Madam Chair, I just wanted to bring your attention to an outstanding model in this area. At our conference last week we had people from the ethical trade initiative in Britain. Britain is way ahead of us on this. In this ethical trade initiative we have 15 of the biggest companies in the U.K. working with 15 major NGOs and 15 major unions, and they've put together a code of conduct and a monitoring system, which is now in place. These companies do billions of pounds' worth of business. There's also a similar organization developing in the United States. We found it fascinating to listen to these British people explaining from both the business side and the union side how they've worked together and developed this ethical trade initiative.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

Madam Debien.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: Mr. Allmand, my question will be along the same lines of those pursued by Mr. Reed and by our Chair. You say that the Centre has criticized the federal government's position regarding human rights and the supremacy of trade over those rights. Do you believe that situation still prevails? In your opinion, is Canada more militant, if I can put it that way, about respect for human rights in countries where it maintains trade relations?

[English]

Mr. Warren Allmand: I think there has been an improvement.

• 1635

I must tell you that I was in Santiago, Chile, last year when they launched the FTAA, the free trade in the Americas initiative. I was there with a lot of NGOs and civil society representatives, and we asked to meet with Mr. Axworthy and Mr. Marchi and their senior officials. We had about a two-hour meeting with them, and at those meetings launching the FTAA Canada took a very good position. First of all, they tried to put forward proposals to include civil society participation in the development of the FTAA. Unfortunately, that was rejected by nearly every other country, although the United States has come a bit onside too, because the trade unions in the United States have been pushing the President. The AFL-CIO has been trying to get him to do this. But I must say that Brazil, Peru, and Mexico would have nothing of it. I just had recent conversations with the minister, and they're still pushing for this.

Another sign of improvement was the statements of the Prime Minister in Kuala Lumpur and in China this year, compared to the previous APEC meetings. I have the speech Mr. Chrétien gave to the university in China, in Beijing, and it was quite a marked improvement, I think, stating in favour of human rights, and also one of the speeches he gave in Kuala Lumpur. So we feel that the lobbying maybe is.... I don't know if it's the crash in Asia or the changing situation, but we feel the government is coming along in this respect.

Now, I found that Mr. Axworthy was always quite open, but I know how the system works: there's cabinet and there's cabinet solidarity and they come to a position. But I must say, if you read the speech Mr. Chrétien gave in Beijing, it was a considerable improvement.

When the APEC meeting was in Vancouver, we couldn't get the Prime Minister to come out strongly at all for human rights. We kept plugging away, plugging away, trying to make the arguments I've just mentioned today, and there was quite a bit of improvement. As a matter of fact, in Kuala Lumpur, Canada was one of the few countries—I think the only country—that supported the civil society meeting, which took place before the official APEC meeting.

There are other areas. For example, we're still not too happy with the China situation and some other country situations.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: Earlier, Svend raised the issue of Chiapas, whereas I'm talking about the situation in Mexico in general, with which the Centre is very familiar. I think you know better than I what goes on in the maquiladoras. And yet, Canada never seems to have raised its voice or even lifted a finger to denounce this dramatic situation experience to this day by the Chiapanecos and the maquiladoras. In your opinion, what should Canada be doing about this?

[English]

Mr. Warren Allmand: You're quite right on the situation in Mexico. We pointed out time and again to the Canadian government and to the Mexican government the situation in the maquiladoras, and in other parts of Mexico as well.

I must say that while we've made yards with respect to the government in other countries, Canada has not yet moved on the Mexican situation. Whether they're saying things privately to the Mexican government or not, we don't know, but they certainly have not come out publicly condemning some of the human rights abuses in Mexico. What is the reason—is it because they've become very friendly within NAFTA? I don't know the reason, but the fact of the matter is that there's been hardly any criticism.

Now, I mentioned that in the next two days we'll be having consultations with the Canadian government, and very high on our list.... We have our statement, which I said I would give to Mr. Robinson—I would be glad to circulate it through the clerk to the whole committee—on Mexico, and we're very critical. We feel that the Canadian government should speak out against the Mexican government on these abuses.

Canada would never tolerate those sorts of things here in Canada. Canadians wouldn't tolerate those sorts of things. So that is one country where we have to keep pushing to get the Canadian government.... It's not for the Canadian government's sake or for the Mexican government's sake; it's for the people who are being exploited in those areas. They really are being exploited. Somebody before the meeting we had last week pointed out that a shirt produced in these areas for ten cents is sold for $55 in Canada.

• 1640

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Mr. Cannis.

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let me also welcome the panel and our former colleague, Warren Allmand.

Ms. Mahoney, congratulations to you on your appointment as well. I'm sure that with the qualifications you presented and the expertise you bring to this assignment, there's a lot of good work that's going to be done.

You mentioned in your opening statement that you were successful in categorizing acts such as forced pregnancy, rape, etc., as genocidal acts. You indicated that you accomplished that while you were on the legal team representing the Bosnia situation against the Serbs. I would be very interested in how you accomplished that.

I'll tell you what I'm driving at. Prior to the new year we also were fortunate to have Ms. Robinson before a joint session with the Senate foreign affairs committee. In her presentation she indicated that part of her responsibility was to devise means and ways of how to move the agenda forward and get certain things accomplished. I asked her specifically about certain resolutions. As we were celebrating the 50th anniversary of the declaration, I asked why the UN has repeatedly over the years brought forth so many resolutions and so many different issues and yet it seemed to us that there was no compliance, no means of enforcement. Her response, I must say, and I will be constructively critical, was hogwash—there was nothing concrete to say that we are running into these obstacles and we'll work on these methods to overcome them or seek compliance or enforcement and so on. I was very impressed when you made that statement.

Beyond that, I want to pick up where Mr. Mills commented on seeing what's happening. I mentioned it to you earlier, Warren. I think it's the topic of conversation for most of us—some of these scenes we're seeing on television in reporting back from Iraq. I mean, if we're not moved by seeing hundreds and hundreds of children and youth and women, etc., literally being killed, I don't know what's going to move us. Is that, in your view, not a genocidal act? I'd like a comment on that. I know it is difficult, and I'm not here supporting Saddam Hussein, by any means.

I also want to touch upon what Mr. Robinson said with respect to the Kurds. In my view, and I'm sure in the view of many others, what has unfolded is a double-faced or two-faced agenda where you've got the bombing of the Kurds on one side and the no-fly zone, and then the Turkish government is sending in troops on the other side. These people are all over the map. As much as we give them our ears, I don't think we are equipped to really move the agenda forward.

I also would like you to comment on how you work with the NGOs, how the relationship unfolds, etc.

I'm impressed, Warren, that I see your directors here being all female. My staff is 90% female, and I'm very proud of them. I was just wondering if you can give us an overview of the organization. Is it strictly you and all females? Maybe that's why you're getting a lot of accomplishments—and how that breaks down.

I just want to close by wishing you, Kathleen, all the best in the good work that I know my former colleague Warren does. Taking the position is one thing, and achieving or getting compliance is another. There is a lot of frustration—I can go on to different situations all over the world—which I'm sure you're quite familiar with. How would you, taking on this new responsibility, set something in motion to at least get closer to getting some compliance—that the UN indeed is listening to the centre, that indeed the centre is making progress, that indeed the centre is making an impact? If we are seeing these signals through this good office, then I am confident that any government would come forward and say yes, you need support; we must find means and ways to support.

Thank you.

Ms. Kathleen Mahoney: Well, that's quite a bit to comment on, but let me try.

• 1645

First of all, I think you're right on the mark in focusing on compliance. So far, in the history of the UN and the worldwide human rights movement, most energy has been spent on setting standards rather than looking to the next step, which is implementing those standards. There seems to be, in the world community now, some consensus that we have enough standards. There will be more particularized conventions negotiated for sure over time, but the essential instruments are there.

The emphasis is very much turning toward implementation, and this centre is very much focused on implementation. I think that's very important and should remain the focus. There's no more need to put out the rhetorical questions and the rhetorical answers to those questions. Those standards have been set, and it's the job of the centre and those it works with to try its best to implement them.

On your specific question with respect to my work with the legal team representing Bosnia before the World Court—and I remind you, I said it was putting forward arguments—that case was set to one side politically. It has never come back before the court. Nevertheless, my task in representing Bosnia on that team was to develop arguments that have now come to fruition under the Rwanda tribunal.

Basically, the argument was very similar to arguments we've made here in Canada through various advocacy. I was a founding member of the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund. That's precisely what we did. We looked at laws the way they were and saw what they would be if women's rights were taken into account.

If you look at the genocide convention, this is how the argument was developed. The genocide convention defines what genocide is. It talks about mass killing; it talks about torture; it talks about destruction of the cultural identity and artifacts of the group. It also talks about interfering with the births of the group. But like many pieces of legislation, the drafting was not done necessarily with women in mind; it was done with men in mind.

In fact, my research brought me back to the travaux préparatoires, which is the equivalent to Hansard in international language, to look at what the committee discussed in drafting that legislation. They did not look at what genocidal effects can be brought on women. Even interfering with the births of the group was thought to be forced abortion, which, if you think about it for a few minutes, is through the male concept of birth and what is interfering with the ongoing population of that particular group.

It wasn't too difficult to point out, if we looked at this through the lens of women's human rights, how the genocide convention would look. We made the argument that forced pregnancies and the rape of women, particularly in the context of the Muslim faith and in the context of the former Yugoslavia, effectively amounted to destroying their reproductive capacity and destroying the identity of their fetuses, if indeed they were raped and forced to carry the fetuses through to birth, and so on. So it wasn't too difficult to make that argument in a very commonsensical way.

This is also where other legislation became very helpful, like the CEDAW convention—the women's convention that mandates equality. The universal declaration mandates sex equality. So does the civil and political rights convention and so on. You're able to say “Here's this guarantee in this convention. It should apply to the genocide convention.” So you web the two together and you get the result.

Making those arguments before a body that could then reinterpret the genocide convention to include women effectively ended, in the Rwanda example, with the result that mass rapes of women in Rwanda were recognized by the tribunal as being genocide. That was a major legal victory, and its effect will be the protection of women—at least in terms of the statute.

It's not a very positive thing to say, after the fact, that we can recognize genocide against women, but nevertheless it's another recognition that women have human rights. That's essentially the way that was done. We took human rights norms and standards and used the vehicles that are available to implement them in the real world.

Insofar as the Kurds are concerned, I concur with everything you say. As Mr. Allmand has already said, the mandate of the centre does not specifically address the Kurds, but I would add that the centre can do things that don't necessarily require it to engage its budget and projects already in train, but rather can make statements and put forward positions on, for example, the scandalous approach the Turkish government has taken to the trial of Mr. Ocalan, which is absolutely unacceptable by Canadian or any other standards in terms of fair trial procedures.

• 1650

Mr. John Cannis: You just triggered something on the pending trial.

Warren, as a centre, would you recommend that international observers or organizations such as yours, for example, be present during the trial? Because some of the things we're reading now, about how he's being interrogated, etc., with nobody with him to monitor, are really unheard of. Would you recommend that international bodies be present during the trial to make sure it's transparent and fair?

Mr. Warren Allmand: Well, as Kathleen pointed out, we do make statements, sign declarations, and even write letters to presidents and prime ministers in countries that are not core countries. But we're not spending project money. We can do that, and I've done that with respect to Algeria three or four times. I've done it with respect to Colombia, and in a few other countries. So we can do that. I could send a letter asking for that. That's a very good suggestion.

You had another question that....

Mr. Svend Robinson: Would you send us a copy as well?

Mr. Warren Allmand: Yes.

You asked what the percentage of women is in the centre, or whether we have all women. I should point out—

Mr. John Cannis: The structure of this.

Mr. Warren Allmand: —that we have 25 staff people now after the cuts; 20 are women and five are men. But all our positions in the centre are open to open competition. It seems that more women apply, although the five men we have are very good. Kathleen and I weren't hired under the civil service rules—we use them even though we're not public service—because we're both order-in-council appointments, and it was the minister who put our names forward.

By the way, in our statute, which is different from that of many organizations, they have to consult with the opposition. That assures that you don't get people who are just too partisan to the party in power when they appoint. That is something unique to our statute. But all the other positions—Patricia, Marie-France, and Iris—are open to competition within and without. Right now we have a position that is being advertised for an assistant coordinator to the coordinator for globalization and human rights. We're receiving applications. But it so happens that we have twenty women and five men in the centre.

Ms. Kathleen Mahoney: He asked the question of how you work with NGOs.

Mr. Warren Allmand: How do we work with NGOs? By the way, it's one of our rules of operation that we would never go into a country unless we were invited or did so with a partner in that country. The partner could be an NGO, a trade union, a church, a business, a professional association such as a teachers' association, or it could be the government. But we would never presume to go into a country and start telling them what to do unless we had support in the country.

In other words, we find these NGOs. As I said, these Kurds came to my office and pleaded with me. We had Palestinian organizations in my office pleading with me. I had people from the disabled community in Central America pleading with me to get into disabled rights in Central America. So the NGOs come to us. Sometimes they're referred to us. We meet them through our other work and we develop new contacts. So we work with NGOs, but we also work with churches and unions. We work with, like last weekend, business associations. We had the Retail Council of Canada with us at that conference we had last week. We build from our experience, from other references, and from people coming to see us.

Mr. John Cannis: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: Warren, one of the things we get probably the most letters about is religious persecution—various religions across the map. I wonder what assistance you can give us as members of Parliament in areas like that, because for so many of them, it's pretty hard to find an answer. What can the centre do to help members of Parliament in that area?

• 1655

Mr. Warren Allmand: We run into that quite a bit in our core countries. For example, last summer we had our democratic development forum in Pakistan and we were in touch with the Christian minority in Pakistan, and also the Ahmadi Muslims, who are a minority, and of course the Hindus and Buddhists, who are also minorities in Pakistan, and there were some terrible examples of persecution. We help fund the Pakistan Human Rights Commission, which is a private organization. It's not like our Canadian Human Rights Commission. They take up cases like that.

Also, in Indonesia now there is some persecution of Christians. Of course East Timor is principally a Christian area.

Mr. Bob Mills: There's a huge list. I guess what I'm asking is when we get all of these letters, and we're trying to answer them, can we.... Do you have papers on the various areas?

Mr. Warren Allmand: Yes. Well, we do on the countries in which we work. We're not specialists in religious persecution in general, but in the countries where we work we deal with religious persecution because it's a violation of the universal declaration, it's a violation of the civil and political rights covenant, of freedom of religion. And in helping general human rights institutions in those countries we help combat it.

In certain areas we would be able to help you a lot more than other areas. Even in some of the African countries you've got conflicts between the Christian areas and the Muslim areas or the animist areas, and we help organizations trying to build consensus and tolerance and acceptance of the other.

It would depend, Mr. Mills. We would certainly be pleased to be a resource. As a matter of fact, we invite members of Parliament from all parties to participate in some of the round tables we've set up. Some of you have come. I know Madam Debien has come on occasion. I know it's hard to get down to Montreal, but we'd welcome your inquiries and be pleased to help where we can. I know we can in some cases, but in other countries we wouldn't maybe have the information.

Ms. Kathleen Mahoney: If I might just add to that, Mr. Mills, remember I was mentioning one project that we would like to launch at the centre is an academic network throughout the country. It may indeed be possible once we have that up and running that if you made a request to the centre for information, say, on a particular religion in a particular country, we might be able to engage the network and find precisely that. We might not, but we would probably be able to lead you somewhere once we get this network up and running.

That's what I mean by a smart centre. We'd be able to provide those kinds of contacts for you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Ms. Almeida.

Ms. Iris Almeida: Very briefly, I'd just like to add two little things. The first one is, in terms of information, there are lots of groups across this country who contact us for different types of information. We have a documentation centre, which Patricia leads, that provides resources over the Internet to people or gives them some guidance in where to look for it. At universities young people who are doing research or activists have contacted us on a regular basis, in fact on an everyday basis.

I'd just like to say that in terms of our discussion today and in terms of our own future, there seem to be three key areas that influence the human rights agenda. One of these is the changing nature of conflict and war. In many of the countries of the world today.... In 1996 a study showed that 95 out of the 105 armed conflicts were intra-state. This is a very important reality when we look at solutions or implementation—the changing nature of war is making it intra-state and creating a lot of displacement of peoples and migration and internally displaced people, not just refugees.

The second point is the fundamentalism. There is a growing fundamentalism, religious intolerance that you talked about, of different kinds, which is accentuating in this context.

Then the third very important debate is the need for a clear and coherent linkage between trade and human rights. They go hand in hand, not one coming after the other, you know. I just wanted to add that to summarize.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I'd like to ask a few yes-or-no questions, and then I'll explain why later.

First of all, is the federal government your only source of funding?

• 1700

Mr. Warren Allmand: Almost, but the statute provides that it should not be so. We're set up to be a charitable organization, and twice when Mr. Broadbent was the president they conducted campaigns to raise money outside. But those were direct mail campaigns to individuals, and there was some controversy about it, because some of the other NGOs thought we were treading on their territory or on their donors. So it didn't work out too well.

I put a proposal that we conduct a fundraising campaign but with foundations and UN agencies, but not direct mail individuals. That's another thing we'll be discussing at the board this weekend.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Since the federal government is your major donor, are you under more financial scrutiny than an NGO would be, audit-wise?

Mr. Warren Allmand: Yes, we're audited by the Auditor General every year, Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Okay. Now, the reason I'm asking you this is because you were part of the government when we changed our policy. We had less money so we just divided the pie up and gave more to NGOs than we did to organizations that were directly responsible to the government.

Do you believe this was the correct approach? We all assume that NGOs, because they're NGOs, are going to spend the money better. From a number of things I have been hearing, that's not necessarily so, and in fact we have limited resources and it's easier for NGOs to misspend. Do you think we should perhaps be reversing the trend, from throwing the cash and giving the responsibility to NGOs, back into organizations such as yours? I don't mean you per se, or the answer's obvious.

Mr. Warren Allmand: I think there are some excellent NGOs we work with. It's true we're subject.... In our statute it provides that we have total reviews every five years—outside audits—and we're audited every year by the Auditor General. On the other hand, I cannot generally criticize the efficiency of the NGOs. Some of them, that I'm aware of, are extremely efficient. Maybe there are others I'm not aware of. It seems to me that back ten years when were set up as a centre, there was more money for both efficient NGOs and for groups like ourselves.

By the way, the UN recognized us as an NGO because we're at arm's length from the government even though we get money from the government—like the CBC and other organizations. All I can say is that if the $5 million a year that we got at the beginning could be kept up to date in terms of inflation and our dollar—in other words, if we had the same spending power today that we did ten years ago, we would be perfectly happy.

Mr. John Cannis: You pay rent in Canadian dollars; you don't pay rent in American dollars.

Mr. Warren Allmand: No, but we work in various countries. For example, I have to go to Geneva to appear before the UN Commission on Human Rights. To buy an airline ticket now to Geneva with our Canadian dollar costs an awful lot of money. It takes $1.08 Canadian to buy a Swiss franc. I can remember several years ago we bought a Swiss franc for 75¢ or 80¢. Then if you take inflation into account....

You're right, John, in Canada we don't have too much trouble in our purchasing and so on. But because we do a lot of work outside the country.... If you go to a country like Pakistan, it's very cheap; but if you go to the UN in New York or the UN in Geneva or even some of the other countries, it's very expensive to fly there. Marie-France could give you the figures.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): What are you doing in India, and what NGOs are you working with?

Mr. Warren Allmand: We're in Pakistan, not in India.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Oh, you're in Pakistan.

Mr. Warren Allmand: We've got a new initiative that's happened as a result of our work in Pakistan. At the democratic development forum that we had in Pakistan last fall, it was agreed that the problems of Pakistan cannot be solved just in Pakistan, due to the India-Pakistan conflict. So now we're going to support an initiative that will try to teach, through youth television, human rights and democracy to the young people of India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. We're working up a project with the people in the region to try to indirectly inform the young people through a youth TV network. We think that if we're going to turn things around in that part of the world, we have to do it with the new generation. This is a proposal that came from them, so these broadcasts will be broadcast in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal, with the purpose of trying to educate and inform people about why it's good to have respect for human rights, why democracy means respect for human rights, and so on.

• 1705

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): Thank you.

Are there any other questions? Madame Debien.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: I would like to get back to the question that you raised, Ms. Beaumier. The annual report contains a balance sheet showing expenses in the order of $1 803 172 for projects. Are these grants going directly to specific projects in the countries in which you work?

Ms. Marie-France Cloutier (Controller, International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development): Yes, that amount of $1 803 172 represents grants given to groups in developing countries. Just beneath that you will find a list of projects. I have here the English version where the heading reads "Staff managed", whereas in the French version, it probably says "Projets gérés par les employés" or...

Ms. Maud Debien: Par le personnel.

Ms. Marie-France Cloutier: Five hundred and sixty-four thousands dollars were allocated for projects managed by the staff of the Centre for the benefit of the developing countries. For example, part of that amount is used to organize the conference that took place here in Ottawa last week. We organize such conferences in order to discuss the problems that persist in these countries and to find solutions.

Ms. Maud Debien: Am I to conclude that the $1.8 million, or almost $2 million, is allocated directly to NGOs in these countries?

Ms. Marie-France Cloutier: Yes, that money is allocated directly in those countries.

Mr. Warren Allmand: These amounts may have been given to NGOs, or perhaps to unions, etc.

Ms. Marie-France Cloutier: To groups.

Ms. Maud Debien: And the difference, mainly $3 million, is used to cover administration costs. Well, I'm not referring to administration as such, but rather projects that are managed by the Centre staff, by the workers of the Centre.

Ms. Marie-France Cloutier: That's right.

Ms. Maud Debien: But these amounts are always used for the projects in the countries you serve.

Ms. Marie-France Cloutier: These are projects that are undertaken in those countries or projects carried out here for the benefit of these countries or these issues, of course. We often organize conferences, undertake research projects or initiatives but don't go directly to other countries, but whose purpose is always to help these countries.

Ms. Maud Debien: All right.

Mr. Warren Allmand: When we fund projects in these countries, Madam, our employees monitor their progress and require assessments. Even if money is given to these groups...

Ms. Maud Debien: Over there.

Mr. Warren Allmand: ... they manage the projects. We have established monitoring and evaluation systems.

Ms. Maud Debien: Very well. The Centre has published an extremely important work entitled Putting Conscience into Commerce: Strategies for making human rights business as usual. I would advise all my colleagues to read it. During your speech, you referred to a symposium that had taken place on ethnics and the trade practices of Canadian business and you stated that there was virtually no codes of conduct governing these companies. I would like to know if you distributed this document, which I feel is an excellent one, to Canadian businesses. Have you done any marketing with the Canadian companies? I believe that this could be a basic tool for companies that want to design their code port of ethics. I'm aware that they are cost-related to the distribution of such a document, but I do believe it should be distributed very widely.

[English]

Mr. Warren Allmand: We have two volumes, the first of which is called Putting Conscience into Commerce. We did try to distribute those widely. As a matter of fact, we should distribute them whenever we have an opportunity.

Patricia, do you remember...?

Ms. Patricia Poirier (Director of Communications, International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development): They have been distributed widely through other symposia whenever....

[Translation]

When conferences take place, we sell them to different businesses, and we give some to NGOs operating abroad.

• 1710

The French version of the first publication referred to is now out of print, although it is still available freely on our Web site, as are all our publications. Therefore, our publications remain available even when we've run out of printed copies.

Demand for that document was really strong when it was published a year ago although it has tapered off somewhat in the last six months. As a matter of fact, it's because of this high level of interest that there are no more printed copies available in French.

Ms. Maud Debien: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Warren Allmand: I want to just say that those are the publications on putting conscience into commerce. This is the report on democratic development in Pakistan. And three times a year, we send out Libertas, which is our newsletter on human rights, in both French and English. We used to put it out in Spanish and send it to Latin America as well, but we can only do it in two languages now because of money. So we have these publications and they are available. And as somebody said, we also have a documentation centre, which Patricia runs—it's under her responsibility—and in which we have lots of documentation on international human rights and democratic development, and members of Parliament are free to use it as well.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier): I think this could probably go on and on, because we have all sorts of questions. I'm therefore going to say that I'm looking forward to coming to visit you in Montreal so that we can continue this dialogue.

I thank you very much for your presentations and your representations today.

Also, on behalf of the committee I can say that we're all extremely pleased with your appointment, Kathleen.

Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.