In the lead up to the last US presidential election, Donald Trump kept repeating one thing he'd end the Russian war on Ukraine on day one. But here we are, almost a year into his second term and the biggest, bloodiest conflict Europe has seen since the Second World War rages on. Thousands have died and it can feel like there's no end in sight. So where do things actually stand? How close are we to a peace deal? And what's giving Ukrainians hope after years of hardship and loss? Then today is Human Rights Day, and we're taking a hard look at where Canada needs to step up. And we're asking a big question is the safe third country agreement with the US actually helping refugees or failing them? Welcome to The Rundown.
Oleksandra Matviychuk is chairwoman of the centre for Civil Liberties, the same group that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2022. Since the Russian invasion, she's been raising awareness of war crimes and other human rights abuses. I sat down with her to talk about democracy, diplomacy and the role Donald Trump is playing in peace talks. Oleksandra, thank you so much for taking the time. How are you today? >> I'm fine. Thank you for your invitation. >> Recently, we have seen a flurry of diplomatic efforts to bring a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. Yet you recently wrote a piece titled Transactional Diplomacy cannot bring Peace to Ukraine. What do you mean by transactional diplomacy? >> I mean that when you based your political decision only on geopolitical interests, even if you benefit in the short term, we will all await for catastrophe in the long term. And that's why we must base our decision not only on geopolitical interests, but on human rights and freedom. >> In terms of the the negotiations that are happening right now. What do you think is missing from those if it's not transactional diplomacy? What should they be focusing on? >> Look what's going on. In recent months we heard a lot about natural minerals, Russia's territorial claims, geopolitical interests, even about Zelensky's youth. But we didn't hear about people. And it's not okay. We still have no idea what will be. With more than 20,000 Ukrainian children separated with their families and illegally deported to Russia. What will be with thousands and thousands illegally detained civilians, men and women, as well as prisoners of war, subjected to horrible torture and sexual abuse daily. And what will be with people in Russian occupation? In general? We speak about millions, millions of people who live in grey zone. They have no tools how to defend their rights, their freedom, their property, their life, their children and their loved ones. So we must return human dimension into negotiation process, because without human dimension, we will never find a path to sustainable peace.
>> Were you surprised that US-Russia talks were unable to secure a deal with Ukraine? >> No surprise, because Putin doesn't want peace. Putin started large scale war not just to occupy more part of Ukrainian land. It's not the war for Avdiivka or Bakhmut. Majority of Russians can't find this tiny Ukrainian cities in the map. Putin started large scale war because he want to occupy and destroy the whole Ukraine and move further. He see Ukraine as a breach to Europe. His logic is historical. He dreams about his legacy. He wants to forcibly restore Russian Empire. So in order to make Putin stop, it's not enough to roll in a red carpet. We must demonstrate strength to make Putin understand that it's impossible for him to achieve his goal. >> You were part of a group that started initiative called called tribunal for Putin. What is the objective and how is this different from sort of the other work that this centre for Civil Liberties has done? >> We was the first human rights organisation who sent mobile groups to work on documentation of war crimes in Crimea and eastern regions in Ukraine in 2014. But when large scale war started, we faced with enormous amount of crimes. So we built national network of local documentations and covered the whole country, including the occupied territories. And now in our database of tribunal for Putin initiative, we have more than 91,000 episodes of war crimes, which is a huge amount, but still just a tip of iceberg. And all this atrocities are possible only because Putin and his surrounding decided to break the peace and to start this bloody war. So they must be accountable. And that's why we are advocating to create a special tribunal on aggression. >> You speak of accountability, but there are institutions already the International Court of Justice. You have the European Union as well. Why do you feel we need this tribunal? >> Because we have accountability gap. There is no international court which can prosecute Putin for the crime of aggression. But it's not just important for Ukrainians. If you want to prevent wars in the future, we have to punish the states and the leaders who start such wars in present. It sounds like a common sense, but even International Criminal Court in The Hague has no jurisdiction to prosecute for the crime of aggression. In situation of Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. So we must to fill this gap and to create such special tribunal to, to to show that if you will start the war in the future, you will be punished.
>> Do you feel that these institutions have let Ukrainians down? I know you speak of the gaps there, but these institutions that I had mentioned. >> It's a general problem. I don't know how historians in future will call this historical period, but the world order, which is based on UN charter and international law, is collapsing before our eyes. This system was created after the Second World War to prevent wars and mass violence. But now we just stolen and reproducing ritualistic movements for the obvious reason. Even my smartphone has an expiration date. This system has never been reformed. Now it's totally paralysed with a veto power of Russia in Security Council. >> I'd like to ask you about something you wrote in a recent essay, and you write, current generations inherited democracy from their grandparents. They began to take it for granted. They've become consumers of democracy. Their understanding of freedom is the opportunity to choose between different cheeses. In the supermarket. We are living very different realities as Canadians compared to Ukrainians right now. Help us understand what is the downside of taking democracy for granted. >> The direct impact is that current generations in well-developed democracies, they first start to put into questions the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And second, they start to exchange their freedoms for populist claim for economic benefits. And first and foremost, for their own comfort. They forget that you can't attain your freedom and human rights once and forever. We make our own choice every day.
>> Despite everything that your country has gone through. What gives Ukrainians like you hope? >> I think we must define the hope properly, because hope is not a confidence that everything will be fine. Hope. It's a deep understanding that all our efforts have a huge meaning. And I know from my own experience being a human rights lawyer in situation when the law doesn't work, that when you can't rely on the international system of peace and security, you can still rely on people, and ordinary people can do extraordinary things. >> Aleksandra, we're going to leave it there. Thank you so much and wishing you all the best. >> Thank you very much. >> I enjoyed the conversation.
>> According to the feds, the safe third country agreement is supposed to help Canada and the United States better manage access to each country's refugee system. That's the government messaging. But how does it actually work? TVO Today producer Adit Dixit digs in to the fine print. >> There's a quiet rule between Canada, the US that decides what country a person fleeing danger has to ask for safety in. It's called the Safe Third Country Agreement. But what is it exactly? >> It's supposed to limit the ability of asylum seekers to claim asylum in Canada if they've passed through the United States. >> It meant that if someone reached the Canada-US border, the first country that they came through would be the country that would take on their protection claim unless they qualified for an exception. So if someone arrives in Canada first, Canada is responsible for hearing that claim. But if they arrive in the US first, then the US is responsible for hearing that claim. >> This was in many ways a Canadian driven agreement seeking to slow the number of people coming from the United States to Canada. >> The agreement came into force in 2004 and it was controversial even then. >> The reasons why something like the safe Third Country agreement may have appealed to policy makers and politicians was because of concerns about the overwhelming of Canada's asylum system. The number of arrivals in Canada is fairly minor compared to that of a major refugee accepting states. It really is premised on the idea that refugees can get fair and equal treatment and access to protection in both countries which signed that agreement, which is to say, Canada and the United States. >> If either countries were to become hostile to refugees, it would defeat the principle of the agreement entirely. That's what some refugee groups are saying is happening right now under Trump. >> Canada and the United States have very different refugee determination systems, and we're really seeing the acceleration of this under the Trump administration. But not only the United States cannot genuinely be considered a safe country for refugees. Their level of protections are much lower. They have many more barriers to becoming a refugee. And so the US and the Canadian system are not really that comparable.
>> I want to put a little focus on us here as a nation. Canada. We have a lot of discussions at TVO over the years about Canada's place in the world. There's been a growing sentiment that Canada, as a middle power, fails to punch above its weight. If you were to grade us, how are we doing in human rights? >> I would give us a C right now, maybe even a C-minus. And I say that with a sense of sadness and dismay, because there are times in the past when I would have given us a B-plus or an A-minus, because I think Canada has had some notable contributions to the world stage. You think back to the the late '90s, early 2000, for instance, when Canada led in banning landmines, in protecting child soldiers, in establishing the International Criminal Court. You know, huge breakthroughs that the legacy of which are still with us today. But you really have to look that far back. That's what, 25-plus years now for those golden moments. And so, yes, we are now punching if maybe back in in those days we were punching a bit above our weight, I would say we're now punching below our weight. I'm hard pressed to point to something that Canada is bringing to the world stage when it comes to human rights, that we should all feel a sense of pride about. We're there, we're in discussions. You know, we we vote the right way on numbers of resolutions at the United Nations. Not always. We're not leading the charge. We're not using our political and diplomatic capital to advance, you know, a bold new human rights initiative at a time when we are desperately in need of such. And and we can be that we have been that in the past. And there are other countries, countries that don't have the heft and influence that Canada does. You know, people talk a lot about what Norway does in sort of global human rights and humanitarian spaces with, I don't know, about a 10th the population of Canada, Ireland, Spain. You know, a lot of people have been noticing the courage and conviction of of those countries and others, for instance, in speaking out about genocide in Gaza, for instance, whereas we get timid and tie ourselves up in knots, won't use the language. We abstain from resolutions rather than supporting them. That's not good enough. It's never been good enough. But right now, when universality is so frayed and needs not just support but champions, Canada needs to be there.
>> Something that you talk about safe third country agreement for people who aren't familiar with that, what is that and why is that something that you say needs to go? >> So the safe Third Country Agreement deals with refugee protection, and it's an agreement that Canada and the United States entered into over 20 years ago. And it's had various different phases to it, but essentially it has more or less shut down access to refugee protection in Canada for refugees who pass through the United States and then try to cross the Canada-US land border to be able to make a refugee claim here. The agreement's premise is that Canada and the US both have refugee protection systems that meet international standards. I've always disagreed with that when it comes to the United States long before Donald Trump, but nonetheless, that's the premise such that in order for there to be a responsible, equitable, equitable approach to refugee protection, refugees should be expected to make their claim in the first country that they pass through. There have been many, many problematic chapters, you know, even under George Bush, even under Barack Obama, even under Joe Biden, when it comes to refugee protection in the United States. And whether it truly does meet those international standards. But now we're in a stage where essentially there's no other way to say it. Donald Trump has declared a full-out war on the rights of refugees and migrants in the United States, and we stay silent. We do not raise a whisper of concern about what is happening to to refugees and migrants in the United States, and we continue to maintain the line officially. Cabinet ministers say this to journalists that the fundamentals of refugee protection in the United States are still in place. Therefore, there is no need to revisit, let alone to scrap, this agreement. That is unconscionable. It is. It is, I think, in my mind, the most obvious example of where we could take an immediate step that at least demonstrates that we have some backbone when it comes to human rights in this very troubling time. But we're staying silent. That's a disgrace.
>> Closer to home, there are calls on the government of Ontario to withdraw Bill five, the Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act. Where do we begin or start with something like that? >> So I'll just name two issues in particular that I think have a real Ontario specific resonance. Absolutely. Bill 5. And and with that more broadly, are still absolutely lacklustre. Would be generous but problematic approach to where we situate the rights of indigenous peoples in our decision making, in our lawmaking, in our in our resource development, in our investment decisions. And Bill 5 is a perfect example of that. Federally, we have at least taken the step of of adopting the UN declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into federal law that has happened provincially in one province in British Columbia. Ontario should take that step as well to bring that instrument domestically, directly into Ontario's provincial laws, and then ensure that things like Bill 5 bill are being are being governed by that. That absolutely would be a crucial thing to do. Another issue that I want to highlight is is homelessness, which is in every way imaginable a human rights issue. You know, from the very beginning, international human rights norms, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights talks about the essential right to adequate housing. We obviously are falling dramatically short everywhere across Canada and around the world, in fact, but very much so in Ontario. And one of the places this comes up in a very direct way around human rights protection is, is how we handle the issue of of people living in homeless encampments. And one of the things that's been so troubling to hear from Premier Ford's government and from a number of municipal governments across the province, is their willingness to just completely run roughshod over the rights of homeless people living in encampments by using the notorious notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights, which is essentially the the get out of jail free card for governments when it comes to human rights violations. Those are the kinds of things we need to change.
>> All right, Alex, what are three concrete actions Canadians can take right now to advocate for better universal human rights. >> At the federal level? It is absolutely time to scrap the disgraceful, safe third country agreement that we maintain with the United States that is built on the fiction, that somehow all is okay for refugees and migrants in the United States right now. Secondly, here in Ontario, withdraw Bill 5, which is an assault on the rights of indigenous peoples in this country, in this province, and and simply should not go forward as law. And then, number three, I think this is very concrete. Have a conversation today with a friend, a co-worker, a neighbour, a stranger on the bus and mention universal human rights. Ask a question about universal human rights. Make it clear to someone that you care about universal human rights and encourage them to do the same. >> Alex, we're going to leave it there. Thank you so much for giving us hope. >> Thanks very much. I enjoyed the conversation.