Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue No. 8 - Evidence - June 22, 2016
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 22, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 11:32 a.m., in public, to monitor issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations (topic: human rights in Vietnam); and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft report on the steps being taken to facilitate the integration of newly arrived Syrian refugees and to address the challenges they are facing, including by the various levels of government, private sponsors and non-governmental organizations.
Senator Jim Munson (Chair) in the chair.
[Editor's Note: Some evidence was presented through a Vietnamese interpreter.]
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators and viewers, welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. Today we are holding a special one-day hearing regarding human rights in Vietnam.
I would like to start by having our senators introduce themselves, beginning with the deputy chair.
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Salma Ataullahjan, Toronto, Ontario.
Senator Martin: Senator Yonah Martin, British Columbia.
Senator Ngo: Senator Thanh Hai Ngo, Ontario.
Senator Omidvar: Senator Ratna Omidvar, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Senator Raymonde Gagné, from Manitoba.
[English]
Senator Hubley: Senator Elizabeth Hubley, Prince Edward Island.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. I'm Senator Jim Munson from Ontario.
We're pleased to welcome our first panel, as an individual Vu minh Khanh, Human Rights Advocate; and from VOICE Canada, Hoi Trinh, Executive Director.
I would like to note to all senators that there is simultaneous interpretation from Vietnamese this morning. So good morning, Vietnam.
Ms. Vu, I understand you'll make a statement and then we'll have questions. It's a real pleasure to have you here today. Welcome.
Hoi Trinh, Executive Director, VOICE Canada: Good morning, honourable senators and distinguished guests. My name is Hoi Trinh and I would like to open the floor first for Ms. Vu to testify before you regarding the situation of her husband, Nguyen Van Dai in Vietnam right now. Following that will be my presentation to you.
Thank you very much.
[Interpretation]
Vu minh Khanh, Human Rights Advocate, as an individual: First and foremost, I want to thank the Parliament of Canada for giving me this opportunity to present the situation of my family.
My name is Vu minh Khanh, wife of Nguyen Van Dai. We are both Protestants, myself serving our church in Hanoi. My husband Dai is a human rights defender, now in jail.
My husband was first arrested in 2007 and sentenced to four years of imprisonment, plus four years house arrest, for violating article 88 of Vietnam's penal code — that is, conducting propaganda against the state.
While in prison, my husband was disbarred and his law office was shut down. After being released in 2011, my husband was then placed under house arrest until March 2015. During this period, he was not allowed to leave the locality where we live without police permission, and he was also forbidden to leave the house whenever there was a group of foreign visitors coming to Vietnam.
On December 16, 2015, only nine months after having completed his four years of house arrest, my husband was arrested again and charged under the same article.
He has been imprisoned for six months now, yet I have not received any information about him. He is, at present, not allowed to meet with any family members nor with his defence lawyers because the authorities claim that he is under investigation for violating the national security.
This ill-treatment is a gross violation of many international human rights treaties that Vietnam has ratified. Due to his isolation, I do not know for sure what happened to him. Twice a month I am permitted to bring food to detention centre B14 in Hanoi for his daily needs, but I don't know if he has received any of it. In fact, I honestly do not know if he is really held at detention centre B14, because in Vietnam the public security force can do whatever they want. If they transfer inmates, they do not inform the family members accordingly. This happened to blogger Dieu Cay. For instance, if my husband has been tortured, I would not even know.
For more than six months, the public security force has not granted defence certificates to the three lawyers our family has hired. Therefore, to date they still cannot start working on the case. My husband has not even been allowed to receive a copy of the Bible given to him as a gift from the U.S. ambassador. At the moment he has no defence and is completely isolated. I am, therefore, very concerned about his health and safety, not to mention that 10 days before his arrest he was attacked and severely injured. That was the day he gave a course on human rights for about 60 people in Nghe An Province, about 300 kilometres from Hanoi. During the training, public security officers intervened and pressured my husband to stop, but he didn't agree and even invited them to join in.
After they beat him, they threw him into a car and drove him to a location 30 kilometres away. In the car they continued to beat him, using their arms to choke him and elbow him and hit his face, his temple and eyes.
At that time, though it was winter, they removed his coat, stole his wallet and left him at an isolated beach. When my husband was finally able to call his friends for help, the police continued to follow and chase him, which forced him to run into the jungle and through small alleys. With the help of his friends, my husband was able to return to Hanoi. Ten days later, with his wounds not yet healed, my husband was arrested and detained until now.
Each time Dai is attacked, these attacks are all related to his work because the government does not like it and has asked him to stop. However, my husband believes that his activities are within his rights under the Vietnamese Constitution and international law. The Vietnamese government would know clearly who attacked him. However, the government claimed that they did not know who the assailants were when my husband filed a complaint.
My husband has hepatitis B; therefore, I am very worried about his health condition.
My husband experienced democracy initially in Germany having witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall. After that he returned to Vietnam and studied to become a lawyer. In 1997, my husband ran for the National Assembly with the hope that he could speak on behalf of the people. In 2000, my husband officially began his activism and fought for freedom of religion and was a human rights lawyer.
The first human rights case my husband took was in 2000 when he defended a member of the Protestant church who was brought to court because she tried to stop the police when they came to disband a prayer service at the local church. Thereafter, my husband provided legal services to Christians who were oppressed based on their religion; those who fought for democracy and human rights, who were harassed and detained; victims of land grabs or home loss; people who are physically attacked or arbitrarily detained; and he led training courses about human rights at his law office. He studied classes on human rights and wrote articles on the rule of law.
Since he started his activism in 2000 until now, aside from the four years he was in prison from 2007 to 2011, he has continued to raise his voice and protect human rights, even when he was still under house arrest. He fervently tried to fight for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly through non-violent methods and providing education on human rights.
My husband has connections with foreign governments and has worked with many embassies in Vietnam.
Regarding my husband's arrest in 2007, the police arrested him at his law office while he was teaching a class on human rights to his students. The topic was based on a book on civil society that the American Embassy in Vietnam had published.
As for his arrest this time, it was while my husband was leaving the house to meet with members of a delegation from the European Union who were in Vietnam for the annual EU-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue.
My husband is currently charged under article 88 of the Penal Code and faces three to twenty years of imprisonment.
Ms. Le Thu Ha, one of my husband's colleagues, was also arrested on the same day and charged under the same article 88 or conducting propaganda against the state. Her family is, however, afraid to interact with other activists; therefore, I'm not sure about her current situation.
The arrest and continued detention of my husband have to be considered arbitrary under international human rights laws, which Vietnam must comply with, especially while Vietnam is a member of the UN Human Rights Council.
My husband has worked hard to protect human rights, and these activities cannot possibly be seen as criminal. Therefore, I hope that the Canadian Parliament and the Government of Canada will call for his immediate and unconditional release.
I sincerely thank you for spending time to listen to my husband's case and am now ready to answer any questions in my own limited capacity.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. It's a very compelling story.
Mr. Trinh, do you have a few words to say? Could you keep it within seven minutes as we have many questions to ask the two of you?
Mr. Trinh: Thank you very much, senator.
To follow up on what Ms. Vu said, that is just one example of the many political prisoner cases in Vietnam right now. No one really knows for sure how many prisoners we have right now in prison because the Vietnamese government does not publish such facts. VOICE does hold a record of over 200 political prisoners. I want to mention the five prominent cases of political prisoners, apart from Nguyen Van Dai, who is the founder of the Brotherhood for Democracy. He was charged under article 88 in 2007. Now he faces, like Ms. Vu said, a prison term of between three and twenty years.
Another prominent political prisoner is Tran Huynh Duy Thuc. This is a photo before he was sentenced to 16 years' imprisonment under article 79 of the Vietnamese criminal code for supposedly conducting activities aimed at overthrowing the state. I want to show you some pictures so you can know that these are not just names. These are pictures of real people in prison right now in Vietnam.
This is a picture of Nguyen Van Dai, who was assaulted before he was sent to prison. As we all know, he has been charged but not tried yet.
This photo is of Nguyen Huu Vinh and his assistant who was sentenced to five years' imprisonment; but they were actually imprisoned for two years without trial. The problem in Vietnam is not only about political prisoners but also about the treatment of political prisoners.
The fourth photo is of Phan Van Thu, who was a religious leader before he was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2013 under article 79.
The last photo is of Ngo Hao, a democracy activist sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment, also in 2013 under article 79.
You can see that Vietnam uses the law to imprison dissenters as well as political activists.
We want to point out one of the UN guidelines: the United Nations' Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Rules 59 and 68 specifically say that prisoners shall be allocated to the extent possible to prisons close to their homes or their places of social habitation. Tran Huynh Duy Thuc is in prison over 1,000 kilometres from his home in Saigon. As a result, he went on a hunger strike for 15 days. We want to point out to you that the problem is not just political prisoners in Vietnam but also the treatment of political prisoners such as Nguyen Van Dai and Tran Huynh Duy Thuc.
The second issue I want to raise today is that Vietnam does not give us a timeline for the passing of amendments to the key laws they use to suppress dissent. The law on demonstration, even though the right to demonstrate is guaranteed under article 25 of Vietnam's Constitution, has never been adopted. As a result, Vietnam is violating its constitutional law as well as the law on association.
Right now, VOICE Vietnam is the only affiliate that is not registered in Vietnam because we are not allowed to register, even though we are just a civil society organization. In Vietnam, even though the right to associate is guaranteed under the Constitution, there is no law. Therefore, they have not done anything about it.
The law on beliefs and religions: I point that out because there is a guaranteed right under article 24 of Vietnam's Constitution, but because no law has been implemented, even religious freedom is curtailed. Like I said, the biggest problem in Vietnam is that they use the criminal code to suppress dissent. They use national security and vague laws such as article 258, article 88 and article 79 to suppress dissent.
I point out those laws because I want to bring to your attention Canada's own UPR recommendations back in 2014 that were accepted by Vietnam. One of the five recommendations that Canada made in Geneva and was in fact accepted by Vietnam says:
Amend the provisions concerning offences against national security which could restrict freedom of expression, including on the Internet, particularly articles 79, 88 and 258 of the Penal Code, to ensure its compliance with Viet Nam's international obligations, including the ICCPR.
Well, it has been two years, and Vietnam has not only not done anything about it but has amended the laws so that it could be worse.
For example, article 88 right now says that if you conduct propaganda against the state, you will be imprisoned from three years to twenty years. But now, in Vietnam, article 117, which has been amended from article 88 and will become effective on July 1, says not only that if you conduct propaganda you will be jailed but that if you are preparing to commit the offence, you will also face a penalty of one to five years of imprisonment. Not only does Vietnam not implement what it accepted, including Canada's recommendations, but it makes it worse. I think that is one of the growing problems in Vietnam.
The last issue we want to raise is that Vietnam should stop using administrative and extra-judicial measures to limit civil society space.
Right now, Vietnam places a travel ban on all activists who are deemed hostile to the state. I sent to the committee a list of 73 people who are now on the travel ban list. We know that there are many more because for the 73 we have actually obtained their specific consent to give you their profile. So, if you would like to have a record of that, we can provide it to you.
I also want to point out that two weeks ago the EU Parliament passed an urgent resolution, among other things, listing 17 clear examples of Vietnam's gross violations of human rights, and they made 19 recommendations. One of the recommendations is what I want to read out to you, and I hope that you will use your own power and means to pressure Vietnam to comply with its international obligations. Recommendation 16 of the EU Parliament resolution states:
Asks the EU Delegation to use all appropriate tools and instruments to accompany the Government of Vietnam in these steps and to support and protect human rights defenders; underlines the importance of human rights dialogue between the EU and the Vietnamese authorities, especially if this dialogue is followed by real implementation; stresses that this dialogue should be effective and results-oriented;
The last, but not least, example that I want to read out is that you will ask the Canadian government to implement all the UPR recommendations that Vietnam accepted in 2014. In front of me are the five recommendations that Vietnam has accepted from Canada; they are Canadian UPR recommendations. I have these for you here if you have further questions.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: And thank you very much.
I would really like to take a good hard look at those recommendations that you sent to us. We will start our conversation with our deputy chair, Senator Ataullahjan. I like to look at it as a conversation, not an interrogation.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for being here.
I want to thank you, Ms. Vu, for your compelling testimony. You spent some time advocating on your husband's behalf in the United States. How did the lawmakers in that country respond? What are you hoping to accomplish by meeting with legislators in Canada, and how can we help?
[Interpretation]
Ms. Vu: I have come here to help the Government of Canada provide assistance with the human rights situation in Vietnam and also, in particular, the case of my husband, which is a typical case in Vietnam. My husband has had a long history of advocating for human rights for 16 years, representing many other human rights activists in Vietnam. Now they arrested my husband, which has caused a bad impression for the other activists in the country. We hope that you can do something to help my husband.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: Have you had any indication that your international campaign to save your husband has in any way put pressure on or influenced the Vietnamese government?
[Interpretation]
Ms. Vu: I have advocated on behalf of my husband in the United States, in Australia and with governments elsewhere. When I was in the United States, the members of the House of Representatives said that they would try everything to help the release of my husband.
I went to Europe. I also presented a case at the European Union Parliament. The European Union passed a resolution about the human rights situation in Vietnam, saying that the arrest of my husband is a violation of international human rights treaties. The European Union also sent a letter of concern to the foreign ministry of Vietnam.
[English]
Senator Ngo: Thank you, Ms. Vu, for being here in Canada.
On December 15, your husband was charged by the Vietnamese communist government, under article 88 of the Penal Code, with spreading propaganda against the state. Six months have passed, and he has not been charged.
My first question to you is this: When did you last communicate with your husband?
[Interpretation]
Ms. Vu: Ever since his arrest, I have not met with him at all. He was arrested on December 16, and that was the last time I saw him. Since then, I haven't received any news or information about him.
[English]
Senator Ngo: So since December 2015, you haven't communicated with your husband at all.
My second question is very important. You have been advocating around the world. You went to the United States, Australia and Europe, and you're now in Canada advocating for your husband. Do you fear for your life by going back to Vietnam?
My follow-up question is this: What do you fear will keep happening in Vietnam?
[Interpretation]
Ms. Vu: I have been advocating for my husband, and I don't know what will happen to me when I go back to Vietnam. At the end of June, when I go back to Vietnam, I will know exactly what will happen. But I'm prepared to face whatever happens because I have no other choice.
In the case of my husband, he faces a possible sentence of three to twenty.
[English]
Senator Ngo: You didn't answer me. What do you fear will keep happening in Vietnam?
[Interpretation]
Ms. Vu: They will assault me in the same way that happened to my husband. They carry sticks, and many times I have been beaten and attacked by many people. I'm not sure what will happen.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: First of all, thank you for coming. It's courageous to do so.
This is an issue that has been before this committee in the past and no doubt occupies a lot of people, namely, how we get governments to respond to the international treaties, obligations and public opinion.
What else do you think the Canadian government should be doing to assist your plight in Vietnam? We have a bilateral relationship with Vietnam. We're trying to help on the development side. There is some movement in institutions. We're looking to investment and agreements. Yet, the Vietnamese government is not responding by reaching toward international standards, which would help them. They seem to be caught in their old communist mould.
I have two questions. First, what can the Canadian government do, more than it's doing now, or do differently?
Second, do you think that this issue is symptomatic of a group of the leaders, or is there some will in Vietnam to keep supporting the government as it is?
[Interpretation]
Ms. Vu: I hope that the Government of Canada will carry on the dialogue with Vietnam on human rights and also have a stronger voice with the Government of Vietnam. I hope that the Government of Canada will follow the movement of the fight for human rights in Vietnam.
[English]
Mr. Trinh: Can I answer? I have a few examples of what both the Parliament of Canada as well as the Canadian government can do.
On the part of the government, as you said, there's a bilateral agreement, as well as foreign aid given to Vietnam annually. I think there should be human rights provisions attached to such bilateral agreements such that if the provisions are not implemented, or at least not followed, then Canada should have a serious talk with the Vietnamese government.
I'm saying that you should make some grants conditional. That is what the U.S. is exploring.
The second thing the Canadian government can do is financially support civil society groups inside Vietnam. I know that the U.S. government is doing that; I don't know if the Canadian government is doing that.
The third thing the Canadian government can do is, like Ms. Vu said, ask the embassy in Canada to meet with human rights defenders. That provides legitimacy, as well as a measure of protection. That is what the government can do.
For the Parliament of Canada, one of the most practical things you can do is if you believe that what these five political prisoners are doing is right, please adopt them. You would be the sponsor. Write to them, and write to the Vietnamese government about their condition. It may not win their release, but certainly it will make the Vietnamese government think twice before they mistreat these people.
I hope that each of the senators can adopt one political prisoner in Vietnam. That's one of the things you can do.
Another thing you can do is monitor her return, as well as the return of other activists. After they study abroad, they go back and are placed on a travel ban. Please adopt them as well.
The Government of Vietnam is not only mistreating the activists; they're mistreating family members of the political prisoners.
Those are some of the practical things you can do. Thank you.
The Chair: Just a clarification: What do you mean by "adopt''?
Mr. Trinh: "Adopt'' means you will work directly with the family of that political prisoner. VOICE can help connect you with such family members. You can adopt them by writing to them in prison and writing to their family members. You can as well write to the Government of Vietnam, asking why mistreatment has taken place against the political prisoner that you sponsor.
The Chair: I appreciate the clarification. That's a brilliant idea, from my perspective.
Senator Martin: Does VOICE, as an organization, have a Canadian affiliate? How many countries have such affiliates?
Mr. Trinh: VOICE right now is registered in the U.S. VOICE Canada is an affiliate of VOICE, and it's registered in Canada. We have VOICE Philippines, VOICE Australia and VOICE Europe.
We have VOICE Vietnam, as well. This is a photo of our representative in VOICE Vietnam, but VOICE Vietnam is the only affiliate that is not allowed to be registered. No independent NGOs in Vietnam are allowed to be registered independently.
There was a huge environmental disaster in central Vietnam. It has been two months and no one knows why millions of fish died. VOICE is trying to help by raising funds to help the fishermen and is working with the UN to come out with statements. But the problem in Vietnam is that the government does not want anyone to know the real reason. No one is allowed to have an independent voice, so even our representative in Vietnam is always followed and watched by the government.
Actually, thanks for asking me that, because I want to bring to your attention the UN statement on that particular incident. It resulted, for the first time in Vietnamese history, in thousands of people going out into the streets and protesting against the government's unwillingness to disclose the truth.
I want to show you some photos where people were beaten up on the streets over the past two months in Vietnam. Every Sunday, there has been a demonstration calling for accountability and transparency.
In Vietnam, if I held up this poster on a street in Vietnam, which says "Fish need clean water and the people need transparency,'' I would be arrested and beaten up.
One of the things we do is to ask the UN to come out with a statement. I actually sent to the committee a statement from the UN that came out last month, on May 13, 2016.
You have people being arrested and beaten up on the streets, and yet people continue to speak up, including VOICE Vietnam, which is one of the few independent civil society organizations in Vietnam that continues to operate regardless of the government saying that we cannot.
Senator Martin: Further to that, how are you funded? Is it just the diaspora, or do you have other sources of funding?
Mr. Trinh: Funding comes to us both from community support as well as institutional support.
Senator Martin: You had arranged for Ms. Vu to be here, as well as on the European trip?
Mr. Trinh: Correct, together with other organizations. We have been working with international NGOs such as Amnesty International, which came out with a campaign in support of Nguyen Van Dai. We worked with Human Rights Watch and Front Line Defenders, as well as the FIDH, to get the urgent resolution passed by the EU Parliament. Together with other groups, we worked to bring her out.
Senator Martin: Will you be continuing to support Ms. Vu when she does return at the end of the month? The question from Senator Ngo asked what could happen. Obviously, Ms. Vu could potentially be imprisoned; I wanted to follow up on that.
Mr. Trinh: Yes.
Senator Martin: It concerns me what has happened to her husband, but I'm also wondering what sort of support she will have in Vietnam when she returns. You said there's VOICE Vietnam, but it's not officially registered.
Mr. Trinh: Of course we will continue to work with other organizations to monitor her return. The EU Commission said they would monitor her return, as well as the Australian and U.S. governments.
What exactly will happen to her in Vietnam, no one really knows. We have helped other family members of political prisoners in the past travelling to the U.S. and the EU to do the same thing. They were the aging fathers and mothers of the political prisoners, and when they went back, they were harassed but not imprisoned. We are hoping for the best, but of course we have to prepare for the worst.
Senator Martin: Ms. Vu, thank you for being here and for the work you are doing to extend your husband's advocacy and his voice beyond the prison amidst the uncertainty that you face when you return to Vietnam. I just wanted to comment that your testimony to us today is very concerning. I share the concerns of my colleagues and wonder about the role that Canadian parliamentarians can play. We have heard some specific asks of us today, but I don't know if there's anything else that you wish to say to us.
The one question I did have is this: Are there any sympathetic legislators in Vietnam? I know it's a one-party system, but I read in some of our research notes that the government is looking at participatory citizen consultations. I'm just wondering whether there is hope for what could happen within Vietnam, from among parliamentarians and legislators there?
[Interpretation]
Ms. Vu: Thank you for your question.
It is very sad for me. There is no one organization that would be interested in the question of human rights, especially in the case of my husband. When he was arrested the first time, I went to all the agencies in Vietnam — the public security agency, to the court, to the investigation agencies — but no one received me. I have sent hundreds of petitions to all of the organizations and to the officials at all levels, and to the Ministry of foreign affairs. I wrote not only once but many times about the case of my husband, but no one has received me and no one has responded to the question that I raised in the petition. I have sent it to many media agencies, but none of them have responded to my letters. They even said something contrary to the truth.
[English]
Senator Hubley: Thank you very much, Ms. Vu, for being here. It is a very brave thing that you're doing. I think you can be reassured that it is going to be helpful in the long-term plight of people who have been imprisoned in Vietnam.
Vietnam certainly is not an isolated country. In fact, many countries have diplomatic relationships with Vietnam, which is evident by the number of embassies there: the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand. In coming to your defence, are any of those countries finding solutions that you might be able to share with us? Is there a country that is doing more than others in trying to tackle the human rights issue in Vietnam?
[Interpretation]
Ms. Vu: Myself, when I went around on my advocacy mission, I think the issue has been given most attention in the United States. They did pay a lot of attention to the case of my husband, and they have responded strongly to the case. They have said that they will convey my reports to President Obama.
[English]
Mr. Trinh: If I may add, the U.S., for example, has offered asylum to both Nguyen Van Dai and her. Vietnam has said that it's willing to let Dai go. He has accepted exile, but because Dai insisted that he has not done anything wrong and that he should be released unconditionally, he's still in prison.
One way that the U.S. tries to apply pressure on Vietnam is to offer asylum. I hope Canada will also look at offering asylum or refugee status to the political prisoners. They might not take it, but it's a way of showing our support as well as pressuring the government to do the same.
The U.S. government is also supporting civil society movements in Vietnam. I don't know if Canada is doing that, but I know that the U.S. is doing it.
The U.S. government insisted on all the recommendations that Vietnam has accepted at the Universal Periodic Review cycle. I don't know if the five recommendations Canada has given that Vietnam has accepted have ever been brought up by the Canadian government and what has been done about it.
The Chair: I have a question from Senator Omidvar, who is not here, on international pressure and whether it really works. Is there a precedent in Vietnam where international pressure has actually resulted in concrete action to release human rights activists or political prisoners? Has it worked?
Mr. Trinh: In exile, yes, sir, it has worked. Last year Vietnam released at least two political prisoners into exile to the U.S., blogger Dieu Cay and blogger Ta Phong Tan, both of whom we worked with. It does work but only limitedly.
President Obama had a meeting with civil society leaders in Vietnam. Some were allowed to go and see him and some were not allowed. Even though we can't see the result, I believe that it provides a lot of legitimacy to the leaders. It's also a way of saying that civil society is okay. In a way, it's an educational process as well for the Vietnamese people because there's only one source of news in Vietnam.
When President Obama was unable to meet with some of the people he wanted to meet with, it said a lot about society in Vietnam.
Senator Ngo: It is very hard for me to ask this question since you don't have any communication with your husband while he's in prison. We know from the facts that prisoners have been tortured or beaten in prison. Has your husband been beaten and tortured in prison? We don't know because you cannot communicate with him. Do you think that has happened since it's been six months now?
[Interpretation]
Ms. Vu: At the moment, in the case of my husband, I know nothing about him. I'm very much worried about him. It is a very unfair, unjust and unreasonable to impose isolated imprisonment upon him. He is just a common husband who has done nothing wrong, and now he is in jail, in isolation. They have mobilized the whole machinery against the voice of conscience of my husband.
I really don't know anything about what has happened in prison. He could have been misinformed about what was going on outside or might have been pressured and forced to do something that his defence lawyers know nothing about. There is no one to help him. That is the thing that I am most worried about.
[English]
The Chair: We want to thank you very much, from the bottom of our hearts, for being here today. Your testimony is more than compelling. It tells a story where we hope we can offer our services. The suggestion about adoption is an intriguing one to make sure that we keep in touch throughout the next months and years to come. We appreciate having you here. You have come a long way, Ms. Vu, to tell your story. We hope that in some small way Canada can play a bigger role in the release of your husband and others who are in prisons in Vietnam. We thank you.
Mr. Trinh, we thank you for your advocacy work. It is about human rights and so are we.
For our second panel today, we're delighted to welcome, from Global Affairs Canada, Evelyn Puxley, Director, South East Asia and Oceania Relations Division.
Ms. Puxley, you have the floor.
[Translation]
Evelyn Puxley, Director, Southeast Asia and Oceania Relations Division, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am really pleased to be here today to discuss the human rights situation in Vietnam.
[English]
Most of my presentation will be in English, but, of course, I'm happy to answer questions in either language.
I believe that my full statement has been distributed to members of the committee, so I'm simply going to focus on the human rights aspect of the situation in Vietnam because that is the subject of your committee and just go through quickly some areas where we feel there has been progress on other civil and political rights.
Maybe I could begin by providing a little background on Vietnam, things I think most senators around this table would know but that bear being repeated, I think.
It's fair to say that Vietnam is an authoritarian state ruled by a single party, the Communist Party of Vietnam. There is an unwritten social contract between the Government of Vietnam and its people. The government provides sustained economic growth for wealth accumulation and, in return, maintains strict political and social control under a one-party system.
Today, in order to hold up its side of the contract, the Government of Vietnam is pursuing international economic integration, in particular through bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This integration and the requirements for harmonization on international laws, norms and practices that accompany it are cause for some optimism in the areas in which Vietnam lags behind, particularly with respect to freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and respect for legal rights and due process in Vietnam.
The Vietnamese constitution, as do many constitutions of authoritarian states, does provide for limited human rights protections, particularly with respect to civil and political rights. It's fair to say, however, that the government tolerates limited criticism and uses legislation, including, in particular, national security provisions, to stifle political dissent. There is reason for some hope, however, that with support to Vietnam in key areas, to its people and to its legal system, we will see more progress in the protection of human rights.
I think it's also fair to underline that progress on these issues will be a long-term project, and that while today we have a snapshot of the human rights situation in Vietnam, we need to keep in mind that change will be something that comes over many years, not suddenly or quickly, unfortunately for those who are suffering restrictions on their human rights.
As I mentioned, you have a very full statement that outlines areas of progress. I think it's important to understand that there have been areas of progress with regard to civil, political, economic and social rights, and I just want to summarize them quickly.
Particularly on economic and social rights, there has been remarkable progress recently, particularly when you consider the devastation that Vietnam suffered in decades of war and subsequent political developments after 1975. It's fair to say Vietnam is a development success story, with remarkable socio-economic advancements over the past two decades. It has a very high literacy rate, 93 per cent. This, of course, enables the Vietnamese people, in principle, to make socio-economic progress.
The Vietnamese constitution on women's rights prohibits discrimination against women and the violation of women's dignity, and there has been some progress in this regard. Most recently, this past April, Ms. Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan became the new chairwoman of the national assembly. This is the first woman to lead Vietnam's legislature and to assume one of the top positions in Vietnam's political system, so quite a breakthrough. This appointment, however, was not reflected in the national assembly body, which failed to meet its target of female representation.
Another area of improvement in recent years has been on LGBT rights. I won't go through all of the details there. It certainly has been an area in which our embassy has worked very closely.
There have been revisions to the Civil Code and the Penal Code, in November 2015, which we think are promising. There is also some hope that the law on referendums, passed in November 2015, which will take effect in July 2016, will also be a positive development.
I'm sure you're aware that Vietnam is a party, with Canada, to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This has been, of course, signed but not ratified by Canada, nor by Vietnam yet, but there is some hope that this will also lead to greater respect for the rights of workers to associate in free labour unions.
I'd like to focus today on areas of concern, given that this is the focus of the committee today, particularly on areas of concern with regard to human rights. I think it's fair to say that the Canadian government's Department of Global Affairs has serious concerns in this regard, the most significant related to restrictions on citizens' political rights, the right to change government through free and fair elections, limits on citizens' civil liberties, including freedom of assembly, association and expression, and inadequate protection of citizens' due process rights, including protection against arbitrary detention. I think it's fair to say that activists on these human rights issues, including those that are in contact with the Canadian embassy in Vietnam, are subject to regular harassment.
Reports by organizations such as Human Rights Watch indicate that throughout 2015 and the first half of 2016, hundreds of social and political activists were attacked, many of them before or after visiting released prisoners and victims of human rights violations or when attending events or meetings.
More recently, Canada has been deeply concerned and engaged on the case of prominent human rights lawyer and former prisoner of conscience Nguyen Van Dai, whose wife testified earlier today before this committee, and his colleague Le Thu Ha. Both were arrested in December 2015 on charges of conducting propaganda against the state. The arrests took place several days after Mr. Dai and three colleagues were assaulted by 20 men in plain clothes shortly after having delivered human rights training.
This case has been a real focus for the Canadian embassy in Vietnam in accordance with our regular practice in such cases. The embassy continues to monitor this and similar cases very closely, and we will continue to follow what may or may not happen to Mr. Dai's wife who testified earlier today, if and when she returns to Vietnam.
Following our usual practice, the Canadian Ambassador to Vietnam raised the case with Vietnamese officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Public Security, both bilaterally and jointly with like-minded missions in Hanoi.
The Canadian ambassador, on behalf of the ambassadors of the Group of Four — a group of four embassies that includes Canada, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland that collaborate on advocacy on human rights issues — sent a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and to the Minister of Public Security to voice Canada's strong objections to these developments and to request the immediate release of Mr. Dai. This letter was sent shortly after Mr. Dai's arrest. A diplomatic note was subsequently sent on behalf of Australia, Canada, Denmark, the European Union, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the U.K. and the U.S., requesting further information on Mr. Dai's case, among others.
In addition to these specific interventions, a number of key ambassadors, including that of Canada, Australia, the EU and the U.S., held a joint meeting directly with the minister of public security on this matter.
I'm sure you will have questions, in particular, about other aspects of what Canada might do in the future on Mr. Dai's case.
I think it's fair to say another area of concern for the Government of Canada is party and state control of religion. The government is known to restrict religious practice through legislation, registration requirements, harassment and surveillance. Although the Vietnamese people practise a broad variety of religions, religious groups are required to gain approval from and register with the government.
In the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, I will skip over the more detailed aspects of our concerns on state control of religion. I could refer you to reports published by Freedom House that describe Vietnam's religious freedoms as restricted, the views of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, issued a report last year, identifying "serious problems in Vietnam's approach to religion.''
The third area where we have concerns is the lack of legal rights and due process in Vietnam. There is no separation of power in Vietnam; all three branches of government are under the direct control of the Communist Party. The judicial system is considered opaque and political, and economic influences regularly affect judicial outcomes. Here, again, the law provides for the independence of judges, but, in practice, the government controls the courts through the appointment of party members. Further details can be found in the more general statement being circulated.
Apart from challenges in the judicial system itself, we are concerned about the standard of police professionalism and oversight. In summary, they remain low. There are reports of police intimidating and detaining family members, friends and supporters who try to attend trials or show up to express solidarity.
Finally, the death penalty continues to be imposed in Vietnam, though recently the national assembly has reduced the number of crimes for which it can be imposed — abolishing it for seven crimes and retaining it for national security crimes, such as spying and subversion.
I will move to what Canada is doing, which is perhaps the focus of the interest of your committee today. I hope you have gathered that Canada's embassy in Vietnam is actively engaged on human rights issues with both the government and the civil society in Vietnam. We work with the international community to encourage Vietnamese to uphold their international human rights commitments and to respect freedom of expression in accordance with their international obligations.
Canadian officials frequently raise human rights concerns with Vietnamese officials and work closely with like- minded embassies to advocate for greater respect for human rights in Vietnam. This is particularly true in the various UN agencies and the former Committee on Human Rights that is now the Council on Human Rights.
Canada has been actively involved in reviewing Vietnam in the Universal Periodic Review. I also understand there was some interest earlier today in making sure we continue to press Vietnam to follow up on the recommendations that we would have made most recently in February 2014 at Vietnam's second Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council. Our concerns and recommendations focused on freedom of religion, freedom of expression and association, respective of legal rights, due process and women's rights.
From a bilateral perspective, Canada and Vietnam signed a letter of intent in September 2014 to expand cooperation and dialogue, including on human rights. Since 2013, we have held annual bilateral consultations, the most recent having been in July 2015. This includes discussions of human rights. On such occasions, we also hand over, with the Canadian embassy, a list of persons of concern for human rights reasons.
Canadian international development assistance to Vietnam and the Canadian Fund for Local Initiatives play an important role in promoting good governance and human rights in Vietnam. These programs support disseminating products such as the "Right to Information,'' and they support workshops on human rights, including LGBT rights and understanding the rule of law.
Recent high-level engagements between Canada and Vietnam have also been important avenues for Canada to communicate to Vietnam the continued importance it places on human rights. The most recent visit was that of Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, Ms. Bibeau, was in December 2015, shortly after the new government was sworn in. She reconfirmed Canada's interest in maintaining a strong bilateral relationship with Vietnam but also used the opportunity to raise the important role human rights play in building a sustainable economy and prosperity.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my statement and invite any questions the committee may wish to pose. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Puxley. We do have a lot of questions, and we will begin with the deputy chair.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for your presentation. You gave us the good news, which was half a page first, before you got into everything else.
I know that there have been engagements between Canada and Vietnam. I want to go to Amnesty's report that said 45 prisoners of conscience still remain in detention in Vietnam. The majority were convicted under the vaguely worded national security provisions of the Penal Code under article 79, which is overthrowing the state, or article 88, conducting propaganda. However, we just heard from the previous witnesses that they will have an article 117, which is not only for conducting propaganda but if you even think of conducting propaganda, you will be arrested.
Is the Government of Canada concerned with the situation? I know you said we addressed it, but we're signing trade agreements. How much do human rights abuses come up when we're signing these trade agreements? Do they play any role at all?
Ms. Puxley: I could speak in more detail about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. As you know, the Government of Canada signed the TPP but has not yet ratified it. We're still in consultations through Parliament and with stakeholders in Canada with regard to ratifying the agreement.
The agreement provides for improvements in Vietnam's observance of labour rights but not human rights more generally.
As I think I referenced in my opening statement, we have had formal bilateral consultations with Vietnam that cover a range of issues, including human rights, since January 2013. I can assure you that, having been part of those discussions, human rights is prominently featured on the agenda of those meetings, and that we regularly hand over a list of persons of concern on that occasion.
With regard to the new proposed section 117, this is news to me at the Department of Global Affairs. We will certainly look into it, and from your description of it, it would certainly be a matter of grave concern to Canada if, in fact, a measure of this case were added to Vietnamese legislation. It's clearly an infringement on freedom of expression and freedom of association, which are basic human rights.
Thank you for raising that specific issue with us. We will look into it and, as appropriate, raise it with Vietnamese officials both here in Canada and at the next bilateral consultations on the occasion of any high-level visits. Certainly our embassy in Vietnam will be talking to our chief four partners on this issue as well, so thank you.
Senator Ngo: Thank you, Ms. Puxley. You mentioned the Government of Canada, or the Canadian embassy in Vietnam, has raised the issue of Mr. Dai's case and tried to work something out with the Vietnamese government. You said you have done something before and you are going to do something more. Could you us what you are going to do from this point to secure Mr. Dai's release?
Ms. Puxley: Shortly after Mr. Dai's arrest, the Ambassador of Canada sent a letter on behalf of the Group of Four — this is what we would typically do in cases like this — and there was a subsequent diplomatic note expressing Canadian concerns, and those of an even broader cross-section of embassies that are like-minded on human rights in Vietnam.
As I mentioned earlier, Canada follows particular persons of concern, including those who are in prison on various charges and awaiting trial, and those who may be subject to particular harassment or attacks when undertaking activities outside of prison.
Monitoring and bringing these issues to the attention of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Public Security in Vietnam is something we would certainly continue to do in Mr. Dai's case.
I would note that he should have been long since released; he was arrested in December, so he should have been released several weeks ago. It is a matter of concern to us that he is still in prison, and we understand without formal charges having been laid and without any indication of exactly where he's being held. These are issues, as I say, that we will continue to raise with Vietnamese authorities.
Obviously I can't assure you, his family or particularly his spouse, who testified earlier today, that there will be a positive outcome from these particular démarches. Sometimes action is taken, but there are no assurances.
Of course, we are not privy to the specific reasons why Mr. Dai or his associate would have been targeted. It's felt that it might have been associated with the run-up to the Party Congress that was held in January and was quite an important event in Vietnamese political history, but no one is certain of that. The bottom line is he's still being held without charge in a location we don't know and far beyond the mandated time.
It's a case we will certainly continue to follow. If and when his spouse returns home to Vietnam, we will certainly make sure we are in touch with her and, along with like-minded embassies who participate with us in monitoring these cases, do our best to make sure she is not subject to intimidation or physical harassment.
Senator Ngo: Thank you, Ms. Puxley, for the assurances you have made as to what you are going to do with regard to the return of Mr. Dai's wife.
Canada has added Vietnam to its list of countries of focus for government development efforts. How is the government considering adding human rights and democratization as objectives for the Government of Vietnam to strive for? Could you please explain to us how you measure Vietnam's alleged progress?
Ms. Puxley: Thank you for that question, senator.
As I think you know, the previous government decided that Canada would focus its bilateral development assistance on 25 countries. Vietnam, which has been a long-standing bilateral development assistance partner of Canada since 1990, was retained on that list of 25. That decision was made, I think, in 2014, so under the previous government.
Our development assistance programming in Vietnam, as distinct from other means that Canada has to support human rights and democratic development, has always included projects that deal with accountability and assistance over the long term to Vietnamese authorities in trying to shift their governance in a direction that we would consider more accountable and responsible to the people.
For example, a Canadian project delivered by the Canadian Bar Association is assisting the Vietnamese legislature in developing means of consulting the public, the same way that the Canadian Parliament does. As I mentioned in my opening statement, we're not anticipating immediate impact of these projects, and you might ask what we have to show for it since 1990.
I skipped over, as I think one of your colleagues mentioned, some of the indicators of what we consider progress. I think it's fair to say that some of the changes with regard to the death penalty, the law and referendum are indicative of a change, slight though it be. Certainly they're a long way from what we would consider an accountable, responsible government, particularly in the way the national assembly is elected. But there has been some change and, as I say, it's a long-term prospect. I think succeeding Canadian governments have felt it important, to wit the long-standing bilateral development relationship, to keep engaging with the Government of Vietnam and to keep ensuring that development assistance has an important component that focuses on accountability and governance.
As you're aware, senator, the new government elected last October announced a review of our development assistance programming, which is still ongoing, I believe. The Parliament of Canada is associated with that review, including the whole question of the 25 countries of focus for development assistance. We welcome the views of this committee and that of the other place on that review, and I'm sure that this question will be taken up and will form part of the government's deliberations with regard to development assistance globally, not just for Vietnam.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Besides Vietnam, Canada has relationships with a number of countries which are not democracies. Do we have a policy framework for dealing with non-democracies? You've outlined some things around human rights and so on, but what governs our choices with respect to non-democratic countries? How do timing, trade and politics come into it?
Ms. Puxley: Thank you for the question; it's an excellent one. I think various governments of Canada have had different perspectives on this issue.
The current government, through our Minister of Foreign Affairs, the senior minister now in a Department of Global Affairs that integrates trade, development and foreign relations, spoke eloquently of this challenge in an address at the University of Ottawa, commonly referred to as a speech on responsible conviction. His view and that of the Canadian government is that to make progress on issues and values that are very important to the Canadian people — human rights, democratic governance, accountability, diversity and pluralism — one has to engage with governments that are very unlike that of ours.
This doesn't mean that we support what those governments do. It means that we make sure there are avenues to influence their choice of governance going forward. Therefore, with regard to governments like that of Iran and even the Russian Federation, it's fair to say that we have chosen, as a new government, a different approach, that of engagement, which does not mean that we do not raise issues of governance and human rights, particularly as I tried to describe with regard to Vietnam. There are other governments with which we do not have such ties, North Korea being an obvious one. At the moment there, the sense is that that sort of engagement would have absolutely no impact.
Minister Dion, speaking on behalf of the department and government, feels that the current approach of engagement, while making clear what Canada expects and how we can in some instances help move governance and human rights issues forward, is the right approach. He is looking for results, not just to state the Canadian position clearly.
It's probably too early, only several months into the new government, to indicate which results might be apparent from that new approach. Certainly it's one that tries to integrate all aspects of Global Affairs: trade, development and foreign affairs. That, of course, was also a machinery-of-government decision undertaken by the previous government but one which I think makes it easier to deliver on the minister's commitment to have engagement that actually produces results in countries with whom we engage.
Senator Nancy Ruth: This would be beyond the list of 25 countries.
Ms. Puxley: Certainly. The 25 countries are ones with which we have bilateral development assistance programs. It's fair to say that there are also development assistance programs delivered in many other countries through international organizations such as UNICEF and the World Bank.
My particular region, Southeast Asia, includes countries that are extremely poor, such as Laos and Cambodia, where we do not have bilateral development assistance programs, but we do provide assistance through international organizations and a regional program that these countries can apply to.
As I mentioned, the 25 countries of focus decided by the previous government are subject to current review. Whether we as a government will maintain 25 countries of focus or divvy up in different ways the international development assistance funding available to the government is still to be determined.
I should also mention that the international assistance review is focused not only on what we call official development assistance but also on how to support fragile states such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya, et cetera. There are a number of factors, not just the poorest or most vulnerable countries. Under the mandate of the minister, official development assistance in principle is to be focused on the poorest and most vulnerable.
Senator Andreychuk: You have covered a lot of territory, Ms. Puxley, as usual. I have only one question.
There have been signs that Vietnam wants to lessen their dependence on China — the sphere of influence that China has had historically in past decades. We see that difference on the economic side, with the Trans-Pacific Partnership for example. Do you see anything in Vietnam to indicate that they want to move from the traditional understanding they shared with China on all human rights issues, development issues and women's issues, et cetera? Do you see it differently or are they still in the same camp on social issues?
Ms. Puxley: Thank you for the question, senator.
There are fraternal relations, as I would put it, between the Communist Party of Vietnam and the Communist Party of China. As you know, historically the two countries have had a very difficult relationship. I think it's fair to say that that relationship is continuing but in modern guises.
I'm not an expert on China and I'm not responsible for China within the department. It's fair to say from my interactions with Vietnam since 2013 and even before that that they are far more open to discussing what we consider core Canadian values — human rights, governance and accountability — than their neighbour to the north. Indicative of that is the kind of development assistance and other programming that the Canadian embassy is able to deliver in Vietnam.
As I said, progress toward something what we would consider to be responsible government is very slow. In my opening remarks I referenced some areas where we think there actually has been a shift in terms of making it possible for the national assembly to hold consultations with public stakeholders on LGBT issues. In particular on LGBT issues they're far ahead of anyone else in Southeast Asia. Those human rights are not recognized in most other countries, in particular China.
The recent visit of President Obama to Vietnam was indicative of an interest in Vietnam reaching out to non- traditional partners, not only a partner but a country with whom they fought a very bitter and costly war. Millions of Vietnamese died in that war, as well as thousands of American personnel. I think it's indicative of an interest in reaching out to the leader of the democratic world and gradually amending some of their internal governance practices in a way that is more inclusive of their population.
Progress is extremely slow; but as I mentioned, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and Vietnam's interest in acceding to that agreement is also indicative of an interest in diversifying their relations on the understanding that it will also mean in the longer term and per the TPP requirements greater respect for workers' rights to unionize and create free unions and an understanding that the TPP will also lead to greater openness more generally.
In the last year or so, it's been hard to see the progress. The treatment of Mr. Dai and many other bloggers in Vietnam is indicative of a clampdown on freedom of expression.
It's a long process. I would say the short answer to your question is that there are some signs of progress in an overall picture that is still of extreme concern to Canada.
The Chair: Senator Ataullahjan, you want to ask a question for Senator Martin, who had to leave.
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Martin has to attend another meeting. Her question is as follows: Vietnamese Canadians are productive, contributing citizens of Canada. They have raised concerns about the human rights record of the Vietnam government. Does the Government of Canada, you or your department, consult the community leaders on your engagement with Vietnam to ensure that you are taking a balanced approach, listening to Canadians and ensuring that human rights and Canadian values are upheld?
Ms. Puxley: Thank you to the absent senator for the question and to you for bringing it forward.
Canada is blessed by the more than 220,000 Canadians of Vietnamese origin who came here, many under very difficult circumstances. Indeed, as you indicated at the beginning, they have become very productive members of Canadian society and an integral part of the social fabric of Canada.
Under the previous government, and I expect this will continue under the new Government of Canada, there was a concerted effort to engage particularly on development assistance and the kinds of programming that Canada provides abroad, including in Vietnam, with Canadian communities, including the Vietnamese community. That was begun in 2014 and I'm sure will continue as part of the review of our international development assistance.
It's also fair to say that the Vietnamese community in Canada is not monolithic. There are various views as to the best way to engage Vietnam and the best way to make progress on human rights. I think that in consulting Vietnamese communities in Canada, the government, and the Global Affairs Department in particular, tries to take account of the disparate views in the Vietnamese community, and I'm sure those views will be reflected in the outcome of the review of the international assistance that we do provide, including to Vietnam abroad.
Senator Hubley: Thank you for being with us today.
I have a quick question on education. I was certainly impressed with the 90 per cent literacy rate. I would assume that the educational curriculum in Vietnam is prescribed by the government in some fashion, but I also noticed that those who complete secondary education and go on have the opportunity to study abroad. Are there restrictions on where they may study? If not, might we look forward to those students being able to experience other countries and their democracies or other ways of government? Is that one of those avenues that we might be looking at as a start of a change within the country?
Ms. Puxley: Thank you for that question.
We talked earlier about countries of focus for development assistance. The previous government also had what was called an International Education Strategy, for which there were countries of focus. Vietnam was identified as a country of focus for development assistance, for the International Education Strategy, and there was a third category.
It's fair to say that Vietnam is the most important source of students coming to Canada from Southeast Asia. There is already a very important people-to-people link in that regard. We would like to see more of that, not only in support of our Canadian educational institutions but to develop people-to-people links, for the reasons that you alluded to. It provides opportunities for Vietnamese, and particularly young people, to see how a very diverse country like Canada is governed and how we integrate various ethnic communities, including those who came from Vietnam after 1975. So, yes, the simple answer is that we would like very much to see more Vietnamese students in Canada.
I'm not aware of there being any restrictions on where Vietnamese students can study. In the case of Vietnam, it's mostly a question of funds available to Vietnam, given the very high cost, relative to higher education in Vietnam, of studying at a Canadian institution.
Vietnam, like every single other Southeast Asian country that we engage with, has mentioned repeatedly how much they would like to have greater access to Canadian education through scholarships and professional training programs. I think that's something the current government is working on. I hope that we'll soon be able to respond to some of those requests.
I think it's fair to say that Canada is a destination of choice for Vietnam because we offer post-secondary education in both official languages. Vietnamese students are already eligible for Francophonie scholarships, so there are a number who have studied at the best Quebec universities: Laval, Université de Montréal.
There isn't a similar program on the English-language side, but, as I say, we're hoping to be able to respond to requests for more professional training and more scholarships for students generally from Southeast Asia and particularly from Vietnam.
Senator Ngo: Since the late 1990s until 2012, Canada provided nearly $800 million in official development assistance in support of Vietnam's economy, reform and poverty alleviation initiatives. What kind of information are you using to assess the human rights situation in Vietnam?
Ms. Puxley: As I described, Canada is a very active, involved member of the Group of Four. This has been traditional for many years. That group is engaged day to day, month to month, week to week, year to year in monitoring the human rights situation in Vietnam, in attending trials when that's possible, in visiting prisoners of conscience that are in detention and, as I described with regard to the case of Mr. Dai, in diplomatic efforts such as meetings with high level representatives of the Vietnamese government, letters, and our provision of lists of persons of concern from the Canadian government, both in Hanoi and here in Ottawa at our bilateral consultations. As I say, I think we monitor the human rights situation very closely.
If the question is the extent to which our development assistance since 1990, which indeed has been considerable under a series of governments, has had a positive impact on the human rights situation in Vietnam, I think the picture is mixed. There have been some signs of progress, particularly on social and economic rights; fewer signs of progress on political rights, but still there are indications that Vietnam is interested in opening up in certain areas, the LGBT human rights issue being one in particular and some of their changes to their governance and the way the national assembly works being other issues.
I think you know that development assistance provided by Canada is very closely monitored to make sure that the intended recipients actually receive the funding and that the funding is disbursed accordingly. The results that these projects are deemed to produce are available on the Global Affairs Canada website, including the list of the current projects. I could send to you, Mr. Chair, the link to those documents if that would be helpful to the committee.
But, as I said, if I've skipped over the positive aspects of development in Vietnam, it's because I understood the committee was very interested in the human rights situation. I would repeat that the human rights situation in Vietnam is still of grave concern to the Government of Canada.
Senator Ngo: As to the funding we are giving to Vietnam right now, is it possible to share that funding with the independent civil society of Vietnam, not the government civil society?
Ms. Puxley: Through you, Mr. Chair, some of the Canadian government programming does go directly to NGOs already, to civil society organizations. Some of the funding that we provide to the government, as would be evident from the projects listed on the Global Affairs Canada website, goes to the government of Vietnam with a view to increasing citizen participation and engagement with civil society stakeholders. It's a principle, I think, that has guided recent Canadian development assistance to Vietnam and to other countries where there are governance and human rights challenges.
As I say, I think the information is available in the public domain, and I'd be happy to provide the appropriate links. It's available on the Global Affairs Canada website, and I'd be happy to provide that link to the committee through you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Ngo: In the coming years, do you think that you can provide funds to those civil society groups?
Ms. Puxley: I think that's been a feature, senator, of development assistance, whether it's official development assistance or through the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives. We have been supportive, for example, of LGBT groups seeking to get their human rights recognized and respected. I mentioned the work we've done on freedom of information. There is considerable programming already provided directly to civil society in Vietnam, and it's certainly a difference that is notable in Vietnam as compared to other countries that are essentially one-party states with authoritarian governments. The answer is: Yes, we've done that, and I'm sure we'll continue to do that.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Can I assume this funding is out of the Canada fund or something else? How big is this Canada fund that supports global initiatives?
Ms. Puxley: Some of the funding that is directly targeted toward accountability and governance is what we would call official development assistance, so those are the bigger pots of money. Senator Ngo referred to the millions that we have actually disbursed in Vietnam since 1990.
The Canada Fund for Local Initiatives is a much smaller pot of money. In fact, it was shrinking under the previous government; I think it's increasing under the current government, including to countries like Vietnam. That fund is, as the name suggests, supposed to fund local initiatives. Those are initiatives that come from civil society groups in the countries where we have diplomatic representation. In Vietnam, it would be to fund civil society groups interested in respect for human rights, advocacy, et cetera.
I don't think I have on hand the actual amount that we have dedicated to Vietnam.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Could you give me a guess? Are we talking about $50 million or $5 million?
Ms. Puxley: The CFLI fund for Vietnam is far less than that. As I said, it was shrinking previously. We can certainly get you the exact figure, though. I think it's about half a million. That figure has changed over the years and is set to increase now.
Senator Nancy Ruth: The other side of that question is in relation to civil society groups working in Vietnam and that they may have allegiances here. You've talked about the disparity of Vietnamese groups in Canada. We had VOICE in front of us. Is there a pot of money anywhere within the government — not only your ministry but anyplace else — that would support civil society groups in Canada that are working on human rights issues, such as VOICE?
Ms. Puxley: No, not from the Global Affairs Department.
I'm glad you mentioned VOICE, because I had actually forgotten to reference this. The department — not me, personally, because the last time they were in Ottawa, I was out of town — has met regularly with VOICE and has been in touch through email with VOICE. As I say, that's another aspect of our work.
But Global Affairs Canada doesn't have a mandate to support groups in Canada.
Just to make sure I was understood correctly: I spoke about the diversity of the Vietnamese community in Canada. There are different voices within the Vietnamese community — not the disparity — but different views on how to engage with Vietnam. As I say, that will be reflected in the outcome of the international assistance review.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Do you think there is a possibility under the new government that they might come to support civil society groups across Canada on a whole variety of issues, domestic and international? Have you heard any "gossip'' to that effect, so to speak? I don't want you to get your head cut off. Talk to me later if you can't answer in public.
Ms. Puxley: Minister Dion has spoken about the commitment both domestically and internationally, but since I'm here representing the minister and the department, I can only speak to what Global Affairs is able to do internationally, and not only in Vietnam; we support many civil society organizations in countries where there are concerns.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I would love it if you would take that question back to your minister or whoever. I'll tell you why I'm asking. Under the budget, they increased the Status of Women's budget for a variety of things, including opening new offices. However, they gave nothing — no money — to advocacy or core funding for women's groups. For the government not to have moved to support civil society in that way is unfortunate. It's something I'd like to see done by government, in all its aspects, internationally and domestically.
Thank you.
The Chair: In wrapping up, we want to thank you. I was curious about something.
You don't have to answer this question, obviously, why is it that big one-state governments fear the voices of so few in their countries? Based on my own experience in that part of the world as a reporter at one time, it seems to always be a big hammer overlooking those who do want to have a voice in their civil society.
If you want to engage that question, I would appreciate it. If you don't, I truly understand.
Ms. Puxley: I sense that progress on issues that are important in Canadians — human rights, governance — in many countries is a mixed bag, and in Vietnam as well. There are some signs of progress in Vietnam, but there's still a lot of work to be done. Why this is the case is a question of history, ability of like-minded countries who feel strongly about these issues to actually influence domestic governments and, frankly, the legacy of conflict and war, which makes it very difficult for some governments to see that respect for human rights will actually benefit their people, not only economically but in terms of human dignity and their own opportunities to engage with the wider world.
The Chair: Ms. Puxley, thank you. We appreciate having you here, as we did with the previous witnesses today. This was an incredible two hours to help us understand a little better what's taking place in Vietnam, and I hope we can all do our utmost to highlight these issues and also to seek the release of Mr. Dai.
(The committee continued in camera.)