Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue No. 49 - Evidence - Meeting of September 19, 2018
OTTAWA, Wednesday, September 19, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 4:17 p.m. for the election of the deputy chair; to study the impact and utilization of Canadian culture and arts in Canadian foreign policy and diplomacy, and other related matters; to study foreign relations and international trade generally; and in camera, for consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[Editor’s Note: Some evidence was presented through a Spanish interpreter.]
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. We will introduce ourselves, hear from our witnesses and then have an in camera meeting to bring you up to date on possibilities for our future business.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan from Toronto.
Senator Housakos: Leo Housakos from Montreal.
Senator Greene: Stephen Greene from Nova Scotia.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte from Quebec
Senator Dawson: Dennis Dawson from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to all the senators.
Before we turn to our witness, we have one item of business, which is to elect a deputy chair. Senator Cools has retired, so our first item of business will be the election of a deputy chair to replace Senator Cools.
I am ready to receive a motion to that effect. I see the hand of Senator Saint-Germain.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: On behalf of all the members of the Independent Senators Group on the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, I am pleased to nominate Senator Massicotte.
[English]
The Chair: Do we need a seconder? No. Okay.
Is there agreement that we now accept the nomination of the Honourable Senator Paul Massicotte as deputy chair?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Senator Massicotte, you’re with us, right?
Senator Massicotte: Is it now that I make my 10-minute speech or after?
The Chair: Much later.
I declare the motion carried. Welcome as the new deputy chair.
I’ve been eagerly waiting for the third member so we can get the steering committee going.
Now we will turn to the next item of business, which is our study on the impact and utilization of Canadian culture and arts in Canadian foreign policy and diplomacy, and other related matters. We’re very pleased and honoured to have Mr. John Ralston Saul, essayist and novelist and who has many other titles.
We have your biographies. We do not take the time of the committee; we circulate that in advance so that we give you more opportunity.
Before I turn the floor over to you, I want to thank you. You were on our agenda a number of times, and we had to cancel due to the scheduling of votes in the chamber in June. You very kindly did not abandon us and have come here today. I very much appreciate it and I know the committee does.
I have read many of your comments on the topic. You’re well versed, and you probably understand the Senate and its committees. We would like your opening statement, and then we would like to save time for questions. Welcome to the committee.
John Ralston Saul, Essayist and Novelist, as an individual: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Honourable senators, it’s a great honour to be invited, to be back here and to meet a number of you and to see again a number of you I’ve already met over the years. I have to say, the last time I was invited was 1994, so I don’t know what I did. The chair then was the great Allan J. MacEachen. It was a joint committee, and it was on the same subject. First of all, I was asked to write a paper on culture and foreign policy in 1994. I believe it was distributed to you in June, but the clerk tells me it can be redistributed if you don’t have it.
That paper was one of the two or three elements that led to the creation of a rethinking of foreign policy. I think it was called the three pillars of foreign policy of politics, economics and culture, which lasted, by Canadians standards, for quite a while. I reread the paper before coming here. It’s horrible to read your own stuff, because you think: Did I really? And it stands. It was written in 1994, but you can extrapolate from what I said then, and I think it’s worth looking at again. So let me start from that.
I’m going to read you a list of names. These names are famous all over the world. These are the most famous Canadians in the world, with all due respect to politicians, sports figures and economic figures, these are the people who remain famous and influential over the decades. Most people don’t know they’re Canadian, with a couple of exceptions.
Douglas Coupland and Generation X, Alice Munro, Margaret Atwood, Robert Lepage, Patrick deWitt, Michel Marc Bouchard, Thompson Highway, Dany Laferrière, Malcolm Lowry, Antonine Maillet, Rohinton Mistry. I put a few in who are dead because their influence is so great; it’s still very much with us. Those are all writers.
Opera: Robert Carsen, Michael Lavigne, Ben Heppner, Michael Schade, Adrianne Pieczonka.
Architecture: Douglas Cardinal, Arthur Erickson.
Music and dance: Édouard Lock, Maureen Forrester, Glenn Gould, John Vickers, Leonard Cohen, Rufus Wainwright, Drake.
Filmmakers: Xavier Dolan, David Cronenberg, Atom Egoyan, François Girard, Jean-Marc Vallée, Denis Villeneuve.
Thinkers: Charles Taylor, Marshall McLuhan, and I suppose myself.
The point about all these people is that they’re in dozens and dozens of languages around the world, followed by millions of people who grab on to them and stay with them throughout their lives. It’s what happens in the cultural world.
As I said in 1994, Canada’s profile abroad is, for the most part, its culture. When non-Canadians buy, negotiate, decide to be our allies or not, their attitude towards Canada will have been largely determined by the international projection of our culture. This is a really essential point, which is very hard for people in other sectors to understand. What the United States, France and the U.K. have always understood is that if you can get people abroad to buy into the cultural image of a country, the rest follows. The message of the cultural figures actually doesn’t matter. The important thing is that people say, that great writer, that great dancer, that great theatre director is a Canadian. That’s what Canada is.
These people — I guess I exclude myself here — are gold reserves. They’re proven reserves. This doesn’t go away. This is very solid. That’s the first point.
The second point I want to make is the digital world, the online world. This is the new cultural means of communication. Today there are five Internet monopolies in the world. All five of them are American. At a time of waning U.S. political and economic power, these five monopolies, as long as they remain monopolies, are the key to their chance at rejuvenating their influence around the world.
What I’m saying is beware of committing today to any long-term structures which cede any sovereignty or power to these monopolies, and therefore to the United States, on this front. The United States is desperate to lock in long-term agreements, treaties, at this time, because they know they cannot hold on to these monopolies for very long. Why? Because we’re in the very early stages of Internet development, and it’s going to explode, and as it explodes, they will lose their monopolies. They want to set the rules at the international level now, while they are in control.
Five years from now, 10 years from now, smart people around the world will be setting very different rules if they have not ceded their sovereignty in this area through binding agreements with the United States. Already the Europeans are breaking away very seriously. The Russians, of course, have broken away, and the Chinese have broken away. This is the reality of what’s happening. This is a very bad time to sign any treaties or bilateral agreements that lock Canada into their definition of power, their definition of the Internet, which involves ceding our control over our data and our sovereignty. Any agreement today of that sort will reduce us to a passive position.
This is not about Canadian nationalism. This is about American nationalism and their desire to reassert their international economic power through the Internet. This is a replay of earlier battles which we all know, and this committee knows, over such things as film and TV.
Finally, the third point is when most people think of cultural policy, they do not immediately think of immigration, refugees, citizenship, diversity and concepts of belonging. Today, this area is one of the central characteristics of Canada’s cultural framework. We now stand almost alone in the world in believing that diversity is a positive and that immigration is a good thing. It is very important that we be as aggressive, sophisticated and clever as possible in carrying the argument about our understanding of how diversity works to the outside world. This is a cultural necessity and a cultural project. I know about this, as some of you know, because I co-chair the Institute for Canadian Citizenship and, in fact, next Monday we launch our third international gathering on this subject in Toronto. It’s called 6 Degrees.
That gathering of 6 Degrees cannot be called political, in and of itself, or sociological. It is cultural to its very core because it has to do with everything that we do in this country, and we bring people from around the world to take part in this essentially cultural discussion about how people from diverse backgrounds can live together. That is expressed through culture.
Finally, of course, I’ve done this in English.
[Translation]
I am very happy to answer your questions in French or English.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Saul, and thank you for reminding me about 1994. I happened to be on that committee. I think I’m the only one left. I agree with you that we covered a lot of ground in that report, and some of the basics are still with us today.
I have a long list of questioners. I’m going to plead for everyone to make their questions short and the answers, if possible.
Senator Oh: Thank you, Mr. Saul, for your presentation. You are a co-founder of the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, which promotes inclusion of new citizens. You know the government likes to say that diversity is our strength, but diversity is a fact; inclusion is our strength.
From your experience with the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, can you share with us your approach to promoting cultural diplomacy?
Mr. Saul: First, I will give a Canadian example, which we created and which is expanding now, probably around the world. We created something called the Cultural Access Pass, which is soon to be renamed. At every one of the almost 3,000 citizenship ceremonies, the judge offers the new citizens membership in the Cultural Access Pass. We’ve been doing it in such a way that the membership is about to triple to probably about 150,000 a year. The Cultural Access Pass offers membership to all new citizens and their families in 1,400 cultural institutions around Canada — virtually every history museum, cultural museum, national parks, most provincial parks, and special prices to get across the country on VIA Rail, et cetera. And now the live arts — theatre, music, opera, et cetera — are increasingly signing up every night to give free seats to new Canadians. They simply sign in to our Internet system, they say, “I’ve got 30 seats at the opera tonight,” and they’re gone within five seconds. People say, “These people are too busy to go to the opera.” This is very elitist. I’m terribly sorry. In five to 20 seconds, every seat that goes up is gone.
It used to be people said to immigrants, “You’ve arrived, you’re going to work hard, your children will work hard and maybe in the third generation you can relax and become a writer or a politician.” That’s a joke. We can’t do that anymore. We have to do it right. People have the right to become involved as citizens right away, and one of the main highways into citizenship is culture. It’s one of the safe places that new Canadians can come with their families.
The impact of this Cultural Access Pass is enormous across the country, and it’s the only one in the world. I can tell you now that we’re in conversations with people in a number of other countries about reinventing this in other countries. That’s just one example.
Senator Oh: That’s a very good way of doing it. I have attended many citizenship ceremonies, and that is the most popular one.
Mr. Saul: Yes, it is, incredibly.
In the pre-app days, it was harder for people to sign up, but now we’re putting a sophisticated app in place. All this is funded on one hand by Heritage and on the other hand by a bank. People will be able to sign up easily and do many other things with them. One of the things that happens is that afterwards we ask them if they would like to stay in contact with us. We have several hundred thousand new Canadians who are in constant contact with us so we can keep getting them involved when we arrive in Regina and we say, “We’re doing something cultural and would you like to be part of it,” and they come.
We’re doing a lot of this at the international level as well. We’re doing pop-up versions of 6 Degrees at the international level. When people come to 6 Degrees, they’re amazed to discover that it’s not a meeting of academics, politicians or some kind of specialized group. There’s a lot of culture in it, because culture is central to understanding how people live together.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: Thank you, Mr. Saul. I have to say that the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications is studying the issue of culture and the future. The last time we amended our legislation on broadcasting and telecommunications goes back to 1994.
Since then, the world has changed and, unfortunately, Canada’s legislative framework has not evolved as quickly. I am glad that you recall those things. I am probably going to invite you to appear before the committee so that you can repeat what you just said about the four monopolies, because that will be a key point for the future. In my opinion, if we do not act quickly to establish a legislative framework and to do government promotion, we may well be invaded.
I would like to ask you about the Cultural Access Pass. Please excuse my ignorance; this is the first time I have heard of it. Do I understand that it operates all across Canada? Does it work in Quebec? Is there a francophone component in Quebec?
Mr. Saul: It is national. We started with six institutions in Toronto, five or seven years ago. That was a trial run and today we have 1,400 institutions all over Canada, including in the far north. In Quebec City, everyone is a member; I think that is the case in Montreal, too.
It is important to know that the institutions are not just in large cities. There are cultural institutions and parks all over Canada, even in small towns. If you are interested, I can give you the list of everything in Quebec.
Senator Dawson: I will visit your website.
Mr. Saul: There are 1,400 of them, which is a lot of cultural institutions in Canada.
Senator Dawson: Thank you.
Senator Saint-Germain: Mr. Saul, thank you for being here and for your remarks that bring together several of our issues. At the outset, this study seemed to us to be quite focused: cultural diplomacy in Canada, and how to invent and innovate in our time. We quickly realized that some issues were linked to new technologies, and you mentioned them. You also talked about some issues in terms of international competitiveness.
However, one of the issues that remains a mystery for us is evaluating the success of international diplomacy that adequately considers arts and culture. A number of groups have indicated that the Government of Canada provides little in the way of resources, contacts or leverage.
Here is my question: If we want to bring all these issues together, how can we evaluate the success of a cultural diplomacy policy? What modern, up-to-the-moment arguments would be likely to convince the government that they have to do more, do better, or perhaps do something else?
Mr. Saul: Let me take your excellent question and turn it around. I read you that list of names, but I could have given you a list three times as long. Canada probably has one of the longest lists of writers with an international reputation. It is quite surprising. Compared to our friends in Germany, we have many more writers at international level.
Not even counting the distribution system for French books, we have a very strong international presence. Our institutions have a huge international presence as well. What I am saying is that Canada is already enjoying cultural success internationally.
However, many people abroad believe that Glenn Gould is American and that Marshall McLuhan is American. They know that Margaret Atwood is Canadian but that is because she has built her reputation as such. As for Robert Carsen, one of the three best stage directors in the world, most people do not know that he is Canadian. The same goes for Michael Levine in the world of opera.
If there is one thing that an international policy can really do, it is to make sure that people understand that this is Canada, this is Canadian culture, because that is what the Americans, the British, the French and the Germans are doing, and it shows.
Since our success goes far beyond the label of Canadian, major evaluation work needs to be done. Basically, it is not the job of a dancer, a singer, a director, a writer or a philosopher to spend all their waking hours saying, “And I am Canadian too.” It is not our job, but we do it. The government has a huge amount of work to do; it must help people understand that this is Canadian culture, or at least a part of it.
Imagine that you take that list, you add a number of other names and you publish it. You put it in the papers, on Twitter, on Facebook, on everything: “Boom, boom, boom, Canada.” That would have a huge impact. People really are not in the habit of thinking that Glenn Gould, Margaret Atwood and Marshall McLuhan are Canadian. If we get to that point, we will already have changed the way in which people perceive Canada internationally.
Senator Cormier: Mr. Saul, thank you for your writing, through which you reveal Canada to us in all its complexity. On one occasion, drawing an analogy with a dissociative identity disorder, you said that “Canada is a multiple personality order.”
You have also said that, internationally, Canada is not relying on the right mythology to tell the story of what we are, and I rather agree with you on that. So, in a situation where we are looking to improve what Canada does in terms of cultural diplomacy, if you had to write a cultural diplomacy strategy, which mistakes do we most have to avoid, in your view? What would that strategy contain?
For example, you talked about promoting artists who are already known on the international stage. But what broad directions would we have to take to get a cultural diplomacy policy that would serve not only the artists, but also Canadian diplomacy in governmental terms?
Mr. Saul: First, the list I gave is of very well known people. But if you can establish in the minds of the rest of the world that they are all Canadian, it opens the door wider for newer ones. To promote our emerging artists internationally, we have to start to put the idea in people’s minds that international communication theory comes from Marshall McLuhan and Doug Coupland. People will say, “Isn’t Doug Coupland American?” No, he is from Vancouver. The invention of the idea of communication is Doug Coupland’s. And starting with Doug Coupland, dozens, hundreds of other young Canadians could be introduced to the world by that reputation that Canadian culture has. I think that is extremely important.
A long time ago, I wrote in one of my books that we have always said that Canada has two founding peoples and a multicultural country. I said that that is not at all true. The truth is that the country is built on three pillars: indigenous, French-speaking and English-speaking. We have built our complexity on that foundation. The complexity started as a triangle and then we went on to make it more and more complex. So it is extremely important for the indigenous component to be at the centre of the way we present ourselves. I can tell you that, in everything we do internationally, my wife and I have always championed the role of indigenous peoples and their powerful creativity, be in painting, in plays, in novels, and so on. It is an essential element. It does not mean that they have to agree with Confederation. It is not a political issue, it is an issue of presence, and their contribution is extremely important.
I believe that we also have to find how to explain the complexity. I will try not to get lost in philosophical ideas. But, as I have often said, the idea of the modern nation state is a monolithic idea. The idea that a nation state is one people, one language, one religion, one mythology, and so on, comes from the 17th century, with the treaties of Westphalia, and from the nationalist movements in Europe and America in the 19th century. The idea that the nation state is monolithic by definition has caused civil wars, wars on minorities, the banning of languages, and so on.
It must be said that, in Canada, we have regularly played the European game—you are Acadian, so you know that very well. All the minorities in Canada have experienced that problem in one way or another—the indigenous people, the Jews, the Ukrainians, and so on. But Canada was built with the idea of living in that complexity; that cultural message is found in our books, our plays, our music and our films. The idea that we are not a nation state in the American or European style, and that we base ourselves on that notion of complexity, is central to the cultural idea of Canada. So I feel that we have a huge amount of work to sell a very original idea about how we can live together in complexity, with our “multiple personality order.”
I have one last little comment: even when embassies have no budgets — I have seen this because, for six years, I have been the president of PEN International, the major international writers’ organization that works for freedom of expression. Almost 900 of our members are in prison and more than 200 are killed each year. So I have spent six years sitting down in front of dictators. As I have said to some of my colleagues, after six years, all dictators look alike and are not very interesting, to say the least. However, what I have noticed, in every country I have visited, even if the ambassadors had not a red cent for culture, they came up with some money to do something cultural, because all ambassadors know that our culture is how they can sell Canada. It is not about commerce, but people are able to understand what Canada is. After that, other subjects can be brought up, like the economy, politics and so on.
That was done with no money. With some money, the embassies can do an awful lot. We have to trust our ambassadors and our embassies. I have always greatly admired that system. When they are there in other countries, they know full well what they have to do to sell the idea of Canada. The automobiles, the radios, the political accords, and the like, all come after that idea of Canada.
Senator Massicotte: Mr. Saul, thank you for the decades-long contribution you have been making to our culture and to our country. All Canadians are grateful to you for your major efforts and your contribution.
Your message about our relationship with the United States was very clear. The message, if I understand correctly, is that we must not sign long-term agreements, treaties, or whatever, because it is a false premise to think that the power is going to remain as it is. If possible, I would like you to clarify that some more for us. Are you just talking about Internet rules — the idea of Net neutrality — or are you talking in technical terms? Are you talking about NAFTA, about long-term treaties? What is it you want to warn us about exactly?
Mr. Saul: I am not the greatest expert about the world of technology, but I understand the political side of technology. We must talk about technology that is on its way but that has not arrived yet. This is a novel with 15 chapters and we are probably at chapter 2. We do not yet have to decide how it will end. We have to be very careful not to decide about the end because we are only just at the beginning. It is like a game of cards: we do not play our entire hand at the beginning.
One of the major aspects is controlling data, information, access. As you know, the Europeans are in the process of passing a series of laws to control the five American monopolies. They have put a very significant privacy law in place. We are already seeing that the monopolies are looking for ways of getting round that law. The Europeans want to come up with other laws so that they do not give up their power over their privacy, and so on, to the five monopolies.
In a way, we are losing track of what is really happening, because we keep talking about Russian interference in our lives. The Russians will have influence on our elections. I assume that is true, but, by only talking about the Russians, we are forgetting about the Chinese, who are in the process of building walls, and we are not talking about the United States, who are in the process of creating an international structure that gives them the power to take our information, to take the privacy of Canadians entirely, for their own economic and political use. This is a very complex question. In my opinion, we have to be much more sophisticated than we are at present. It is beyond me. I have been involved in a number of discussions in Ottawa in the last two or three years with experts making policy decisions, and I am not talking about politicians. They were saying the same things as we were hearing 10 years ago. We have to take a very sophisticated approach. This is a power game. However, the new agreement with the Europeans is our ally not our enemy. We have to look very closely at how the Europeans will view this approach again in the years to come.
Senator Massicotte: You refer to the American monopolies, like Amazon and Google, that do business the world over. You also talk about Europe’s five conditions for protecting and sharing information on an international scale. I think this is a good example for Canada. We have to make sure that we protect our information and that we do not let the monopolies dictate the rules of the game internationally.
Mr. Saul: The European legislation is the first of its kind. There will be some 20 or 30 pieces of legislation. Monopolies move around all that. There are European experts within the European administration, as well as outside, since it was people from the outside who forced the passing of the legislation in Europe. Within 10 years, some 20 European pieces of legislation will completely change the power structure in this area. Canada must not become passive. No empowerment will happen by requesting that we be given 10 per cent of the power. That is a colonial position. It should be said that we invented all that. I am referring to McLuhan. Canada must not become a passive player, happy to get a small percentage.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Cordy: I would like to thank you for the tremendous contribution that you’ve made to culture in Canada. I think most people in Canada know who you are.
In your opening comments, you spoke about the cultural image of Canada. You said that we want people to say, “That great pianist or that great writer is a Canadian; they come from Canada.” You said that we do have a huge international presence. How do we sell our cultural image, or do we sell it? Does it come from what we do, or do we sell it or promote it on our own?
When you hear people talking about Canadians, it’s that they’re steady, solid, nice, and they’re talented; they understand that. However, are we doing a good enough job of promoting Canadian culture and the tremendous jobs that Canadians are doing? You gave us an excellent list at the beginning of your statement.
Mr. Saul: I’ll say something very obvious. Whether you’re having groups coming and saying, “We don’t have enough money to go abroad” or something else, in the last two years, there have been increases in budgets to the Canada Council, for example, which I think was a great idea. Give them more money and see what they can do with it. You can’t dictate, from a political or a civil service level, what it should be. You have to allow people to invent things that they can do. We know that these national organizations can do things the way our 6 Degrees can do things. You have to let all of us invent things and be as original as possible.
However, there is no question that the money available for the international promotion of Canada’s image through culture is just not what it needs to be. We have a gigantic and very important film festival. The Toronto Film Festival is known around the world. If you look at The Guardian during the Toronto Film Festival, it is filled with the Toronto Film Festival, just as it is with Cannes. It is one of the two or three most important film festivals in the world. That is being done because of the reputation; it’s called the Toronto Film Festival, so people know. There are other examples of that in Montreal and so on.
We’re not selling it; it’s the simplest possible thing. That’s what I was trying to say. It is just getting the idea out there of what we do already. That’s a first major step, and I think some of that can be done in very simple ways. It is empowering our embassies and institutions to do more. But perhaps it is also about being incredibly daring and original and doing crazy ad campaigns around the world about what Canadian culture is. You don’t have to say the adjectives. You don’t have to say, “Margaret Atwood is great.” You don’t have to say, “Douglas Coupland invented Generation X.” Millions of people know he invented it, but they don’t know that he’s Canadian. Or Xavier Dolan or Robert Lepage. You have to bring all that together into an image of the country.
Senator Cordy: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Good afternoon and thank you very much for your presentation. If I may say so, I am wondering whether you would make a distinction between the cultural diplomacy of Quebec and that of Canada as a whole. I just spent two years abroad as a diplomat, and that idea of people not knowing that Xavier Dolan is a Quebecer or that Céline Dion is a Quebecer does not seem to be in line with what I saw. I am not claiming to have done scientific studies — you have been involved in this area much longer than I have — but I am wondering whether a link has been established between Quebec artists and authors and the French fact in North America, which is more original in a way, since it is related to French language in North America. Do you think there is a different way to market Quebec in relation to Canada as a whole?
Mr. Saul: You are completely right. Saying that, we would listen to francophones in North America makes sense, but we also have to talk about Acadia and millions of francophones across Canada. As you know, there are some major differences in terms of that. It all goes beyond politics. We should never wonder — I saw this in embassies — for example, about the politics of a certain writer. That is not the job of the Canadian government, the House of Commons or the Senate. What may be missing is the knowledge that Leonard Cohen and Jacques Godbout are Montrealers. If you don’t understand the correlations with that experience, you have missed something absolutely essential. It’s the same thing if you don’t understand the potential connections between Xavier Dolan and David Cronenberg, who are very different, but who, at the same time, stem from the same geographic and political experiences. Whether they are on the same side or on opposite sides, they are part of the same experience. Do you see what I mean? That’s what is being missed.
Being a francophone is not the end of something; it is something that is absolutely essential. I think that Robert Lepage brilliantly expressed the complexity of both those contradictions and those accords. There are mainly other people who were a bit like that, such as Anne Hébert, who was a member of another generation I knew. All writers are part of this. For instance, Édouard Lock is not limited by a specific identity; he has a number of them, and that is his strength, if I may say so.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for your insightfulness.
[English]
The Chair: We’ve come to the end of our time. We could continue; I would like to explore it sometime. Perhaps you can reflect, Mr. Saul, on the issue that I struggle with, and that is the fact that you’ve talked about very famous, well-established people who are Canadian. What I hear back is how do we nurture new talent and put it into the equation?
Another is what is government’s role in assisting? We say a lot about small business. We’ve had some push-back that small business are these new technologies — the games, the videos that the kids are into and I don’t even know exist.
There’s a whole new culture and technology, and how do we capture that? Perhaps you can reflect on that. I know you’ve written a lot for us in the past. Perhaps you’d like to write more.
Mr. Saul: If you can establish the understanding that this ensemble is somehow Canadian, it becomes much easier for the nurturing process inside Canada of new talent to take on an international element. Because people suddenly see these new writers — francophone, anglophone, Indigenous, new Canadians — as coming out of this well of experimentation and creativity. Suddenly they say, “Oh, you’re a Canadian. You’re part of that.” Even if you want to blow it up or change it in some way, you’re still part of that. It’s getting that message out which is so important for the new artists and writers. That will help.
There are many ways, never enough, of nurturing them inside the country, but without this larger understanding of what Canada is abroad, it’s very hard to nurture them as much as we could at the international level.
The Chair: Thank you for your patience in coming after many attempts to get you here. You’ve added to our dialogue. If you have other reflections you think we should zero in on either as topics or concrete recommendations, the committee would very much appreciate it. Thank you for your experiences and reflections. Perhaps you’ll see some of it reflected in another report from the Senate.
[Translation]
Mr. Saul: Thank you, senator. Thank you, senators.
[English]
The Chair: The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is authorized to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to foreign relations and international trade generally. Under this mandate, the committee will hear testimonies today on the situation in Venezuela. The committee heard witnesses back in 2016 and 2017 about the political situation and the growing economic crisis in the country. Two reports were published, one in June 2016 and one in July 2017, which generated a government response tabled in the Senate on March 20, 2018.
The committee has mentioned it would continue to welcome opportunities to be apprised of the developments in Venezuela, the challenges facing the Venezuelan people and the implications for the region and internationally.
Accordingly, I am pleased, on behalf of the committee, to be able to engage with Mr. Diego Enrique Arria Salicetti, Former Permanent Representative of Venezuela to the UN; Tamara Sulay Suju Roa, Executive Director of Casla Institute, Czech Republic; and Antonio José Ledezma Diaz, Former Mayor of Caracas, Venezuela.
We have circulated your biographies. We know you have a short time and we have a short time. The biographies have been made available, so we can go directly to the presentations.
Perhaps I can remind you that at the end, there is a conference that you’re hosting to bring this to our attention. It is one that in our hemisphere we need to know more about, and we are we’re pleased we can get your perspectives today.
Who is first speaker? I don’t know if all of you are speaking or just one.
[Translation]
Diego Enrique Arria Salicetti, Former Permanent Representative of Venezuela to the UN, as an individual: I am honoured by the invitation to participate in this meeting that is so important to our country. I would also like to highlight Canada’s significant contribution to the relationship between Canada and my country.
[English]
You have probably heard before that some diplomats think twice before they say nothing. Because I’m no longer a diplomat, I will try to say things in tweets, so I’ll be very short.
If I may, I would like to add something: I’m an admirer of Mr. Saul. In Canada, you have created two of the most important cultural events in the world, which are the environment and the human settlements. Maurice Strong, a Canadian, put at the forefront of the world discussions the issue of the environment. I co-headed the Habitat conference in Vancouver where Maurice Strong brought to the fore the issue of human settlements. That’s a major contribution of Canada to the world.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to put into context the situation in my country. To begin with, we don’t have a government. Venezuela has morphed into a narco state. There are bands of criminals who run the regime. I think it’s very important, because we are such an unusual case in political development in the world. For example, Pablo Escobar, who I’m sure all of you are familiar with, or “El Chapo” Guzman were never presidents of Colombia or Mexico, but their equivalents are in Venezuela. The vice-president and president are all indicted on issues of narco trafficking, corruption and trafficking of arms, even by the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.
The president of our legitimate Supreme Court has been tried and indicted for two assassinations, so you can imagine what kind of regime we have.
Canada’s soft power in the world is so important for us and our region. You would probably be surprised by how influential Canada is because it’s always perceived as an independent broker, and that’s what we really need today: an independent broker committed to human rights.
Canada has seen enough human suffering. I met the courageous Canadian soldiers in Srebrenica and I saw them in Rwanda, so Canada knows a lot about human suffering. Precisely because of that suffering in Rwanda and Srebrenica, the United Nations developed the doctrine of responsibility to protect, or R2P, as an act of repentance to what some Canadians did. In the case of General Dallaire, for example, it was a contribution to the knowledge of how inadequate the United Nations was in facing these issues in the world. This responsibility to protect, which is now not very well followed, is an important contribution of Canada.
We are living in a world of attrition. When we drafted the Rome Statute, we never imagined that a government could promote a war of attrition against its own people. People are dying from violence, a scarcity of medicines and food, everything, and this is real. Today we have lost almost 10 per cent of our population. We have in Canada, in Calgary, where there’s a petroleum industry, more than 5,000 engineers. We have experienced a brain drain that will have tremendous and serious consequences for our country.
Canada has been so helpful in the last years in support of our goals.
[Translation]
We need that support even more.
[English]
Please continue in this because you are setting an encouragement to the whole region. When we heard the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs speaking at the OAS, the speech impacted the whole region. People look at Canada with great admiration and respect.
I am very thankful for the opportunity to be here today, and I’m sure my colleagues will provide more detail. I’d be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Who shall go next?
[Interpretation]
Tamara Sulay Suju Roa, Executive Director of Casla Institute, Czech Republic, as an individual: Honourable senators, thank you very much for your invitation.
Venezuela is today a huge concentration camp, an outdoor jail, a regime that has been accused of drug trafficking and money laundering. Even family members of the president himself are in jail in the United States, a regime to which the Inter-American Democratic Charter was applied, which doesn’t ensure the minimum fundamental rights of Venezuelans, such as right to life, physical integrity, food and health currently.
It has been examined by the International Criminal Court for possible crimes against humanity, including murder, arbitrary detention, the most horrible tortures, sexual violence, forced disappearance, accused of corruption and total capture of the institutions of the state which have been used as a tool to undo the rule of law and to persecute and repress dissidents and the opposition; a state whose authorities have a behaviour that rides roughshod over the international community and breaks international commitments and no longer ensures peace and world order.
Venezuela is a rogue nation. Eighty-seven per cent of all Venezuelans live in poverty, 61 per cent in extreme poverty and 56 per cent just entered this phase recently. The lack of medicines has reached 80 per cent. Cancer treatment suffers from 90 per cent lack of medicines. Only 7 per cent of emergencies and 8 per cent of operating rooms throughout the country are up and running. Seventy-three people die of cancer every day, and for most of these people it’s because of a lack of long-term care with medicines.
Kidney and heart transplant patients are dying every week. Fifty per cent of the doctors have left the country. Doctors and nurses prefer to just quit than become responsible for people who die because they don’t have enough medications and because of the precarious health conditions in the hospital facilities.
Last week, I heard from a mother who had a four-year-old daughter who died of cancer not long ago. Can you all imagine having a son or a daughter not only not having medical treatment for that cancer, but who dies suffering because there wasn’t enough medicine to help him or her not suffer? That mother said, “Doctor, isn’t it torture that the sick are dying and suffering because they don’t have treatment? That’s torture.”
The school dropout rate today in Venezuela is 45 per cent, and most of these children just don’t have enough to eat and are just fainting in school. Fifty-five per cent of the children under 15 years of age, according to Codevida, are malnourished. Can you imagine, honourable senators? What would happen if your child would cry him or herself to sleep every night because they don’t have enough to eat? Seventy per cent of the Venezuelan population eats only once a day.
Today, while I’m speaking with you, more than 340 persons are in jail for political reasons and more than 8,000 people are being tried just because they’re dissidents.
Many of these people are being tortured and mistreated. The crimes of arbitrary detention and torture have spread to the family members of those who are persecuted. Wives, children, cousins, grandparents are kidnapped by the security agencies and pro-government militias and tortured and mistreated for days to force them to say where the person they’re looking for is. Then they let them go, but they first threaten them to not say anything. The latest incidents of torture I’ve heard about seem like they’re right out of the Nazi Holocaust or the times of Stalin. They pull up fingernails with electric shocks. People are drowned in their own feces. They break their feet and apply electric shocks to genitals. These acts are armed civilians and clandestine centres of torture who take part, together with the intelligence agencies of the state. Currently, 147 officers of the armed forces have been detained for conspiracy and rebellion — generals and NCOs. Seventy per cent of them have been tortured or mistreated.
The international community has mechanisms in place to alleviate their suffering, provided that protection of human rights prevails above the state. The obligation of governments to protect the people, Venezuelans — we cannot do this alone. Economic isolation with further sanctions and personal restrictions is a mechanism, and we are grateful to the Government of Canada for having used these. The support of Canada in denouncing, before the ICC, brings hope to the victims of these crimes against humanity that justice will be done against these criminals. This suit before the International Criminal Court from civil states will mean that the regime will be destroyed because many of the people who hold high positions in the armed forces, as well as in the government, don’t want to be charged in this court. The Government of Venezuela knows this is coming down the pike, and they don’t want to be charged.
I’d like to ask the Government of Canada, on behalf of the Venezuelan people, to go along with this complaint before the ICC, to become a party to it, and to denounce the Government of Venezuela for crimes against humanity. Thank you very much.
Antonio José Ledezma Diaz, Former Mayor of Caracas, as an individual: I could take this opportunity to talk about my case. As a mayor, I was kidnapped twice and for more than a thousand days held in custody and in inhumane conditions. I could ask the principle of humanitarian aid activated to help the more than 30,000 Venezuelans who have been kidnapped in my country.
I could implore the international community. Why am I doing this? Because we’re the victim of a failed state in Venezuela. In Venezuela, it’s not even a conventional dictatorship. Venezuela is oppressed by a narco tyranny. If the DEA would conduct a raid there, it would take away the whole cabinet because all of the cabinet members are involved. This is not a reckless statement. You can see this in the records. It’s all on record. There’s evidence of all this. Also, there are records that link high-level officials of the inner circle of the mafias that govern Venezuela. It’s international terrorism. And Ms. Suju and Ambassador Arria have spoken about the crimes against humanity, of which the members of the narco dictatorship are responsible. That’s why we ask for you to act in providing humanitarian aid in the midst of great adversity.
The last competitive elections took place in December of 2015, and what the narco dictatorship did is they completely obliterated the parliament and took away the president. It is as if the president of the parliament would be surrounded by military men and would take over your parliament, and you would have to go through a tunnel. Armed activists would be harassing you and saying that you’re engaged in a false revolution with impunity. That’s what’s going on in Venezuela.
Our parliament members are besieged by these people. And together with the support of His Holiness Pope Francis, they have undermined the virtue of dialogue. We haven’t been able to come together. They’ve plunged us into an abyss in Venezuela. We have the highest inflation rate in the world, a rate of almost 1 million per cent yearly.
As for the humanitarian crisis, with 300,000 children, the OAS has seen people who suffer from chronic malnutrition. There are 18,000 renal patients who do not receive dialysis, 70,000 HIV patients who don’t receive medications, and people who are suffering from famine in the midst of a medical care, treatment and medicine crisis.
We implore of you that the principle of humanity be activated. The main argument is that this humanitarian intervention, this principle, has to be called upon because there’s massive and systematic repression. And Venezuelans who have been kidnapped within the country, either because of actions or failure to act under the current regime, they don’t receive food or health care.
There’s no public safety. Last year alone more than 28,000 Venezuelans died at the hands of common criminals because there’s impunity. This narco dictatorship tries to rope in those who are dissidents and criminalize dissidents. Venezuela is invaded by foreign forces, they claim. There’s more than 30,000 Castro — I’m saying Cubans are there that help and take part in this, and they’re controlling the lives of Venezuelans, those who are not on the side of the regime. We don’t want international organizations who are forced to protect the lives of millions of people to sit at a distance and see the tragedy that is going on in the country.
We don’t want condolences. We don’t want a posthumous statement. We want only preventive measures to be taken. As Luis Almagro of the OAS has said, he’s not only there exercising his position, but he is trying to protect and care for millions of Venezuelans, a country that’s losing its freedom and its democracy. Therefore, we believe that this intervention is more than justified for humanitarian reasons, this concept of responsibility to protect, which was explained earlier. Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: In our previous report, we did note the state of the situation in Venezuela, the humanitarian crisis and the difficulties of getting humanitarian aid to Venezuela, and the examples of Mexico attempting and then a misdirection, perhaps, to the army as opposed to the people. We also noted in our report the status of Venezuela in the hemisphere until the present administration and the difficulties that the people are facing. Our emphasis has been on a political resolution. But we’ve also been very mindful of the effect on the people, and you’ve underscored that today.
I want to start with a question that I’m not sure you can answer. I know what the Secretary-General of the OAS has done, and we’re pleased that Canada has been supportive. But I understand that meetings with the OAS are going on as we speak, and there is a difference of opinion of how far the OAS can interject itself into the OAS short of armed intervention. Is there anything else that can be done short of armed intervention? We appeal to the UN and the responsibility to protect. That has been done. What can we do now short of armed intervention, which apparently is the dialogue on the differences within the OAS at the moment?
[Interpretation]
Ms. Suju: I would like to reiterate the request that Canada forms part of the block of countries that will criminally sue the government of Venezuela before the International Criminal Court. This is important, because since the ICC was formed, this is the first time that a state or several member states have filed a suit against the Venezuelan government. This is important because the Venezuelan government believes that the arm of justice isn’t long enough to reach it. That is why it continues to infringe upon human rights massively and commit crimes against humanity.
The impact of countries filing a criminal suit before the ICC will — and also shortening the terms at the court to open an investigation. When they see that international justice is coming after them, then they will ask: What do you want us to do? Nobody wants to be tried at the International Criminal Court, and we know the Venezuelan government is afraid of that moment.
What these five countries have announced that they are going to do — Argentina, Peru, Colombia, Chile and Paraguay — is very significant because it will lead us to a breaking point in Venezuela.
What is the importance of Canada joining this group of countries? Canada has a history of institutional robustness in its democracy. Canada is itself an institution within the ICC, and it brought the principle of humanitarian intervention into the UN system. The robustness of Canadian institutions and democracy needs to support these Latin American countries before the ICC, because now it will no longer just be a block of Latin America countries; it will be another country in the hemisphere with a different language and different idiosyncrasies that is lending its support. That sends a signal that there have been crimes against humanity in Venezuela.
[English]
Mr. Arria: Would you like me to refer to specific questions regarding these mild disagreements in Washington about the OAS?
The Chair: Yes, if you can answer.
Mr. Arria: I’m sure you have seen many of those resolutions. They always call both parties moral equivalents, that both parties are equal. The last document or resolution was prepared by the Lima Group. In a way, it goes back to saying, “Let’s get the parties talking.” I saw that in the Security Council, but while we were doing that, 200,000 Bosnians were killed, 500,000 in Rwanda, 2 million in the Congo and X number in Cambodia. It’s again through diplomatic representation of getting the parties together. We are now suffering as we speak.
The Chair: We’ll now go to questions.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for all of your presentations.
My question is similar to Senator Andreychuk’s. There are still countries that are calling for a diplomatic resolution. Is the Government in Venezuela beyond that? Is it worth engaging them in dialogue? Canada has downgraded its diplomatic relations with Venezuela and has restricted its engagement with Venezuela. We’ve sanctioned some officials. What else would you like to see Canada do?
[Interpretation]
Mr. Ledezma: It is worth remembering that last May 20, the narco dictatorship perpetrated electoral fraud. This caused an almost unanimous response from the international community. With the exception of Nicaragua, Bolivia and Russia, Canada and the United States and everybody else did call this electoral process illegitimate. So we are talking about a government that is itself illegitimate. Nicolás Maduro was sentenced to 18 years in prison by the legitimate Supreme Court of Venezuela that has been forced to legislate in exile because its members have been victims of a political witch hunt within the country. When you’re not only responsible for crimes against humanity but also corruption, this leads to the malnutrition and famine that I referred to. The money that has been donated for food and medicine in Venezuela, for medical equipment, for operating rooms, is now in bank accounts in tax havens around the world.
The international community has already responded to this within the OAS. The latest resolutions had the favourable vote of 19 representatives. Only three representatives voted against. So the efforts by Mr. Maduro have been answered positively by the various governments represented there.
This is not about Mr. Maduro’s personal position; rather, it is an institutional position of an organization that has just published a report that is now at the ICC and which is supported by major members of the Lima Group, who have already said, as Argentina, Paraguay, Chile, Colombia and Peru have, that they will go to the International Criminal Court to lend their support to this report so that prosecution takes its course and these perpetrators of crimes against humanity are prosecuted.
We have looked for ways to address this conflict constitutionally, but there is no rule of law in Venezuela, so the constitution is trampled upon, so much so that a national constituent assembly was created. To allow you to understand the magnitude of our tragedy, it is as if somebody here in Canada would decide to set up a parallel parliament on the lawn of this sovereign parliament. That has happened in Venezuela. In Venezuela, the dictator set up a national constituent assembly, which is unconstitutional, so there is no longer a rule of law. In Venezuela we don’t depend on the rule of law; rather, we depend on the mood of the dictator. That is our tragedy. We cannot wait for a negotiated solution when dialogue is itself violated and disrespected.
We have paramilitary police. We have the so-called militias. We have “para” trade unions and the ones who are in charge of controlling jails and so-called militias. There are others that work in Colombia, like the FARC and the ELN, who are now demobilizing and going to Venezuela.
It is a true tragedy, and we are being killed with impunity. We are not saying we want a solution to come from heaven; we are not crossing our arms and waiting for others to solve our problems. No. Last year, 137 young people died. They put themselves in the path of the dictatorship’s bullets defending liberty.
There are political prisoners. I was one of them simply because I signed a document criticizing the regime. I was taken from my office. I was a sitting mayor, elected by over 800,000 votes in my city, and I was taken to prison. I had a single hearing, and I was given a 26-year sentence for having signed a public document. That is the fate of entrepreneurs, students, teachers, doctors, journalists and parliamentarians like you who have been assaulted inside parliament simply for criticizing the regime. That is why we are asking for help from the international community.
It is perfectly reasonable to apply the principle of humanitarian intervention in order to stop this massacre. Just like Hitler murdered millions of Jews in Auschwitz with poison gas, Maduro is killing people in Venezuela by hunger. Hunger is a state policy. It is convenient for Maduro for people to continue fleeing Venezuela in fear because, in the end, he is interested in controlling the territory because it has oil, iron, coal and mineral resources that are being placed at the service of drug trafficking and international terrorism.
Ms. Suju: To complement the interventions of the ambassador and the mayor, the senator spoke about how Canada has written reports, one in 2016 and one in 2017. We will request that you update your human rights report on Venezuela with what has taken place from 2017 to 2018, and to also apply more sanctions against Venezuelan officials who have violated human rights. The International Criminal Court has a list of 170 officials reported for crimes against humanity. So we also request more actions against them. And for Canada to also intercede on our behalf at the OAS to see if the position of some Anglo-Saxon countries within the OAS can be changed.
[English]
Senator Dawson: There are never any small steps. Senator Ataullahjan and I were at a meeting today of the Inter-Parliamentary Union committee for Canada. We will be holding an international conference in Geneva in a month. If there is one thing that the parliamentary association has to do, it is to defend parliamentarians. What happened in your country is a very good example.
So I think it would be an opportunity to have an emergency item added to our agenda. I’m certain that Senator Ataullahjan will help me so that we can, as a country, support other countries in bringing this debate up at the Inter-Parliamentary Union; 170 countries are represented there.
Venezuela hosted the IPU many years ago. I don’t think they would go this year, obviously, but it is an opportunity to give exposure to your problem, and I think that a Canadian delegation certainly could participate. It would be important that your group meet with other countries and have them join us in bringing this issue and debating it in the general assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The occasion is next month.
As I say, there are never any small steps. I’m offering that. It’s more a comment than a question, but I’m hoping you can meet with other parliamentarians from other countries. I’m sure Senator Ataullahjan and I will do our job here in Canada, but we need the support of other countries.
Mr. Arria: Might I add something regarding this last point? The influence of Canada in the Anglo-Caribbean countries is huge, and we have no persuasion in the Caribbean. There are 13 countries and most of them voted against Venezuela, against the freedom of Venezuela. I think Canada could play a very important role. I agree with what you’re talking about, senator, and taking it into consideration is very important.
Senator Massicotte: I could only add thank you very much for your presentation. Obviously, we’re not living in the same conditions you are, but I can tell you that the information you shared with us is quite equal to what the international press is telling us. We’re very much aware of the immense challenges you’re facing as a country, and your population. You have our deepest concern.
I would have the same questions: What can we do? What more can we do? I think you’ve answered those already, so thank you very much. I appreciate very much the difficulty you’re going through and sharing that aspect with us. Thank you.
The Chair: I’ve followed, and I think the committee members here have followed, the change in currency; I don’t quite understand what they’re calling it now. That had a dramatic impact on devaluing everything in the country. Unfortunately, some countries were assisting Venezuela in that situation. I don’t need to name them. Has that exacerbated the problem?
Then there is the issue between Colombia and Venezuela, which I think is right on the border in relation to the mass migration. Is there anything else we should be doing in that approach?
Mr. Arria: We are, in a way, going back to the Cold War. If you take a look at what is happening in the Security Council, it is a repetition of the 1960s. But now China joins the former Soviet Union, for example, in vetoing anything to do with the freedom in my country or in Nicaragua or in Syria, for example. So we are now suffering the confrontations of the United States with China and Russia in our own region, and we are the first victims, like Central America was at one time. We are revisiting those terrible experiences. These countries are playing. They see Venezuela and the regime as a strategic partner to confront the Americans.
Like I said to you before, this is not a Venezuelan issue anymore; we are a regional threat to stability in the region. We are really a clear and present danger. Imagine if you were sitting on the top of the biggest oil reserve in the world and very close to this part of the continent. So far, they have seen us as poor Venezuela. No. This is a threat to the Americans. I’m sure you are aware of that. I stress that increasingly, more and more.
[Interpretation]
Mr. Ledezma: Allow me to add one thing. Your question is very important, and it’s important for you to have an idea of the catastrophe happening in Venezuela.
In recent years, our currency, the bolivar, as lost eight zeros because they are juggling with our currency, trying to get a handle on the problem of inflation. Up until a few days ago, a dollar bill like this one was worth the monthly salary of a Venezuelan. These are poverty wages. That is why there is a famine and why the average weight loss is over 12 kilos for Venezuelans. That is why my country — the country with the highest oil reserves in the world — lives through the paradox of people who go to bed without supper. And we’re talking before you while children are dying from malnourishment, from lack of calories and protein. They’re dying today.
Women with breast cancer are dying because there are no chemotherapy services. And the regime is trying to monetize the deficit because they turned the central bank into a print shop where, on a daily basis, they print worthless money. They’ve invented this currency called the Petro. And I make use of your question to tell my friends from the governments of Russia and China that every financial operation they perform with this dictatorship is worthless and invalid. Without the endorsement of the national parliament, the Venezuelan nation cannot be mortgaged.
So Russia and China, what they’re doing now, the money they’re handing to the dictatorship will not ease our hungry. They will simply strengthen the dictatorship. The current inflation exceeds the hyperinflation that Germany suffered in 1923. The drop in our GDP is reaching 50 per cent, much higher than that experienced during the Great Depression in the United States after 1929. Senator, our oil production, by 1999 when Chávez took office, was 3,545,000 barrels a day with 40,000 employees in the national oil company, PDVSA.
Today, over 140,000 employees are producing less than 1 million barrels of oil, a drastic drop because they politicized our oil company. And just like the ambassador talked about, those island countries that have historically had a very close relationship with Canada, the truth is — and I don’t mean to offend anyone’s dignity. The Chávez and Maduro regimes used oil as a tool to colonize governments that are being humiliated by giving them oil, which is running out. We’re not producing enough to continue forcing their support at the OAS in the fight against this tragedy that I’m describing here.
[English]
The Chair: From the questions and the comments, I think you understand that this committee did take on the issue of Venezuela quite early. We’ve brought it to the attention of our government and to parliamentarians. I think you’ve heard the response today that we’re trying to find ways and means where Canada and our Parliament can support the people of Venezuela.
It is not for us to recommend any solution internally. What we are concentrating on is using international mechanisms, regional mechanisms and our persuasion to shine light on the plight of the people of Venezuela.
I assure you today that we will continue to monitor the situation and see what we can do. We will reflect on what you have said. We will continue to hear voices and see if we can be part of some better situation for the people of Venezuela.
I know that your time with us is compressed as you have an open conference this evening at 6:30 p.m. at the Ottawa Conference Centre. I thank you for coming and taking the time to be with us.
Senators, we need to have a short in camera meeting.
(The committee continued in camera.)