Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 20th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You are saying we should try to work within NGOs and groups within those countries, without sending to those governments.

In certain countries we do still send aid, but very little money that is targeted for democratic development. How can we take aid dollars and even if it's a place like China, where they have so much...? When it comes to democracy-building, you wonder at times if there is really much use in trying to promote democracy there.

How can we, Canada, try to take some of those aid dollars and make a difference for democracy promotion?

[Prof. Kathleen Mahoney]

I think the answer is to be very careful of where they're targeted. Some targeted areas are much more effective than others, and small amounts of money can go a long way; we certainly learned this at Rights and Democracy. Working with key NGOs that are proven to be effective, as opposed to ones that aren't well researched or that have unknown principals with unknown track records--that is effective, as is working with media.

Working with women has proven to be very effective; it's because women treat the dollars differently. That's been proven by the World Bank in the studies they've shown. If you give a woman a dollar, she'll spend 90¢ of it on her community. They've done a study on gender difference. If you give that dollar to a male, he'll spend 10¢ to 15¢ on the community.

It's targeting aid to groups that will deal with it effectively, and I'm not saying that in any kind of provocative way. The World Bank has proven that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

The work that the Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus did with microcredit recognized the importance of getting that type of credit into the hands of women.

I'm going to go to Madam McDonough. It will be the concluding question, if that's all right.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Your last reference to how women spend money compared with men in general makes you think that at the very least we should reverse the wage gap that exists now between men and women so that more of the money women earn would go into the community.

I know this is the international development committee, the foreign affairs committee, and we're very much focused on international initiatives in the international arena around democracy building, but I really want to return to the point you made about needing to ensure that people have the tools to allow them to actually participate in the process of protecting and advancing their own rights, and so on. I don't want to put words in your mouth at all, but I want to revisit the court challenges program cancellation.

It seems pretty obvious this is a step back, if we understand the point you were making: people have to be empowered with the legal capacity, the legal resources, to advance their own rights.

I'm wondering if you can comment further on that, both in terms of the implications for women's struggle for gender equality within the Canadian context and also in terms of our reputation in the big wide world, as we advocate gender equality and justice abroad while actually eroding the access to meaningful legal processes by those who are struggling for equality and justice at home.

[Prof. Kathleen Mahoney]

When I used to do a lot of travelling—I still do some—to international conferences, it was amazing how people all over the world knew about our court challenges program. They would congratulate Canadians, and often it was included in your introduction, if you were speaking to a conference, that Canada believed so strongly in democracy that it would fund groups to sue itself for its shortcomings and for things it may unconsciously do that have adverse impacts on women or minority groups. It was a huge card we could use to say that we had credibility, when we spoke. We knew of what we spoke because we implemented the values we trumpeted.

Lots of people can brag about their country, and how they believe in this, that, and the other rights, and how “we're better than you are”, and stuff like that. Not that the Canadians do it, but discussing the court challenges program certainly put Canada on a plane that was unique.

And other countries followed the lead. In fact, South Africa started its own centre for judicial support for constitutional cases, and other countries have done similar things. It was not unlike the way the world perceives our health care system. The health care system and court challenges program and the charter: those are the defining characteristics of Canada.

So my own belief is that it is a step back, because what it said was that Canada really means what it says. It really puts its values on the line when it develops something like a court challenges program, which was quite modest in terms of the moneys that were devoted to it. But symbolically, it was out there, and ordinary people could use it to actually get a result.

I don't know how familiar you are with Canadian jurisprudence, but the court challenges program has been implicated in some of the most important decisions in Canadian jurisprudence today, without a doubt; cases that not only have influenced our own country but have been cited in judgments all over the world. I can tell you this absolutely truthfully. Australia, New Zealand, even the United States of America, South Africa, India, Sri Lanka.... These judgments that came about because the litigants were supported by court challenges programs in Canada have had a profound influence around the world.

And they would never have seen the light of day in this country but for the court challenges program. I know this because I have participated in many of them myself as a pro bono litigant, on behalf of minority women, on behalf of the disabled, on behalf of violence-against-women cases, hate propaganda, pornography, and the like.

So it is very important. It's hugely symbolic, and not only is it symbolic, it has profound practical benefits that go far beyond what you can imagine, out there in the real world.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Goldring, then Mr. Rota, and then we're going to conclude our time.

We have some motions. We have a little more time set aside for committee business.

So proceed very quickly, Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Ms. Mahoney, there have been some suggestions of unhappiness with the court challenges program in the past, and one of the more significant ones has involved the English rights groups in Quebec on language rights.

I think specifically of a person I know very well, Brent Tyler, who's a well-known English rights activist in Quebec. For years and years there has been comment about the fact that they had no access to the court challenges program whatsoever. I don't know the details of other ones, but there seems to have been unhappiness with the program overall, and that is perhaps one of the reasons why, with due consideration, it has been limited.

Could you comment on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Goldring, there's not much of a question there. There may be a little comment on that case.

We've already quite clearly heard your position on the court challenges program, which is on the record now.

[Prof. Kathleen Mahoney]

I have just a short comment. The key to the court challenges program was that it was to assist the disadvantaged minorities in Canada. That's why, by and large, white men's groups, for example, wouldn't necessarily have ready access to court challenge—or English speakers in Quebec, the thinking being that they have other access to the courts. They have, by definition, broader access to power, broader access to resources than people who by definition are disadvantaged. That is who the court challenges program was targeted at, not the advantaged in society.

There may be exceptions to that, where some group could show disadvantage. But primarily, that's the profile of the court challenges program: that it supported disadvantaged minorities, as opposed to advantaged majorities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Rota.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you.

Many of the topics you brought up could probably be two-hour sessions themselves, so it's regrettable that you're only here for two hours, or not even that.

One of the issues you touched on earlier was the alternate legal system, and you spoke of a native community within Canada where reconciliation and healing were part of the resolution. You spoke of restoring harmony. That's one instance, and some of the other issues I looked at or that I'm aware of in the smaller communities are not so much based on reconciliation, but they're looking at retribution and punishment. That seems to be more of a visceral, immediate reaction, as opposed to long-term, but sometimes it's hard to get over.

How do jurisdictions blend what grassroots are doing with the mainstream and get them working in unison? I guess the question is this. How much freedom do you give the judiciary system to deal with that? Where they work, how much freedom do they give the alternate court? Can you maybe further elaborate on examples where this works or where it hasn't worked in the past?

[Prof. Kathleen Mahoney]

I think the Canadian example is the best. Some of the best work in the world is being done here in Canada. To give Justice Barry Stuart credit, he developed this concept of circle sentencing, so-called, in the Yukon because he recognized that so many of the problems that were endemic to the aboriginal communities where he was sitting as a judge were not being properly addressed. So many problems were related to substance abuse, grinding poverty, and people's inability to cope, as opposed to inherent criminal behaviour, so he developed this idea of community support for people, instead of sending them away, as I mentioned earlier.

That approach was appealed in the B.C. Court of Appeal as being inappropriate. The B.C. Court of Appeal held that it was not inappropriate, that it was appropriate, and that it could continue. That was a huge breakthrough legally that having a rich cultural component and having a community-based component wasn't too far out there that it couldn't be taken into account in the mainstream justice system.

So that was where the first breakthrough occurred. Then in Alberta this pilot project was started at the Tsuu T'ina Nation reserve, and the way it works is that court is held on the reserve--regular, provincial court--only an aboriginal judge is the sitting judge. There are aboriginal lawyers, the community can come and watch, and so on. It's just held in a room somewhat like this.

The difference is that there is a peacemaker who operates with the judge, and there are also elders who sit and can advise the judge, but the peacemaker's job is to go out into the community, once complaints have been made, to try to figure out how they can deal with this in an alternative manner that's more satisfactory to the community and will not detract from it or cause it to disintegrate even more. That person then works with community members who are prepared to carry out the sentence with the accused once he's pleaded guilty. In other words, if a person has alcohol issues, they will help him to stop drinking, take him to AA, provide support if they sense the person is going to revert back to his former behaviour. They will protect family members who may have been abused by this person. They will have someone stay with him or take the abuser out to live in another place or go out on the land or whatever is appropriate for that particular individual to help him get over the problems that he's manifesting in his behaviour.

When you ask, how does this work--is this a separate justice system entirely in terms of its relationship to mainstream justice--it's very interconnected, because before this sentence is approved, the peacemaker comes back with the accused. They sit before the judge and the crown prosecutor and they present the plan, and the judge has to agree to the plan. Then they must come back after a certain period of time and report on the success of what they've said they were going to do. Was it successful? Are people doing what they said they were going to do, or aren't they? If they're not, the judge can call the accused back and sentence him in the normal way. If that involves jail time or whatever, that's what happens. But if it's not the case and if people say no, it's functioning, and they report back the progress of the program, then it's left to carry through its course of activities. The matter is then resolved.

The reason I know a little bit about this is I've invited these people to my classes at the university to come and discuss it with the students and to explain how it works. From all appearances and from what they've told us, it's working very well. The community is enriched because of this. They feel more committed to their own community and to doing things in their own way that makes sense to them, plus it's backed up by our whole mainstream court system, if it's required.

There are some offences that are inappropriate for that type of solution. This type of solution is more for minor summary conviction matters, family matters, and things like that. Huge problems such as rape or murder or something like that would go directly to the mainstream system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

We're pretty well over time and I want to leave enough opportunity for our committee business today.

We want to thank you for being here with us today and for taking the extra half hour to stay and answer our questions. I know that it's been a very engaged group here, with lots of questions. So we thank you for being here.

We're going to suspend for a couple of minutes and then we'll come back to committee business. We'll give the opportunity to our guest to make her way out if she so chooses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Order.

Welcome, Mr. Patry.

I want to remind the committee that there is another committee meeting right at eleven o'clock here, so we cannot go past eleven. We want to move into committee business, and other times it seems that the committee business has been perhaps cut short. We don't want to do that. We have a number of motions that have been tabled with the clerk.

First of all, we have a notice of motion from Ms. McDonough in regard to disabled persons.

Ms. McDonough, would you like to speak to your motion, please?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you very much.

I'm very pleased to bring forward this motion. It's very straightforward and very brief, so I don't think I even need to read through it. Basically, it's asking that we have the Minister of Foreign Affairs and appropriate officials who he would choose to bring to brief the committee on the federal government's efforts to ratify the International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities.

The reason for this is that Canada actually distinguished itself at the UN in terms of the engagement with organizations representing persons living with disabilities. It was a major player in the adoption of that covenant in mid-December. And we're now coming up to the window in which there is the opportunity to ratify. I'm very much hoping that we can push forward to remain in the forefront in a leadership role.

So I would urge the support of committee members. I know we've got a lot of other business to do, but it's really a straightforward information-seeking session by ourselves to try to advance this agenda, which is very much in keeping with what we're doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly this would allow the minister to come forward and explain. I would certainly think that in looking at it I'd want to know some more information on exactly want the covenant is and some details on it. Certainly from the service of it I would think that everybody wants to improve the international understanding of people with disabilities through the convention on this. There are some concerns here, though, that the convention may be touching on provincial responsibility as well as federal responsibility, so it would probably necessitate further consultations from the minister provincially, municipally, federally, and throughout.

But I do agree that a briefing from the minister to update us on what direction possibly will be taken on it would be favourable and be beneficial to everybody.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Does anyone else have any comments?

Mr. Patry.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I agree with Mr. Goldring in the sense that any time we could have the minister here to ask him any question about any issue is good for the committee, and on this issue we'll support the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Patry.

I know Mr. MacKay always looks forward to appearing before this committee and is very open to doing so. On this one in regard to the rights of persons with disabilities, it would give him the opportunity to respond on what Canada is doing and what we're doing in preparation for the signing of the convention on March 30.

Would anyone else like to comment? I agree with Madam McDonough; I think it's something we can all support.

Go ahead, Madame Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

I agree with what was said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. Thank you, Madame Barbot.

Can we call the question on Madame McDonough's motion in regard to the signature and ratification of the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?

Let it be recorded that it is carried unanimously.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right, the second motion on the table is a notice of motion from Madame McDonough in regard to the report on Bretton Woods.

Madame McDonough, would you please speak to that motion?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I can, very briefly; I'm certainly not going to read all through it or it will take up the remaining time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Make your motion shorter, then.