Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on May 1st, 2007

Evidence of meeting #17 for Subcommittee on International Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cuban.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Human Rights in Cuba

Human Rights in China

Committee Business

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Nelson Taylor Sol Director, Ottawa Delegation, Cuban Canadian Foundation

Asdrubal Caner Camejo Social Democrat Party of Cuba

Ronald Silvester Interpreter, As an Individual

Philippe Leroux Cuba-Nouvelles

Colette Lavergne Table de concertation de solidarité Québec-Cuba

Sean O'Donoghue Caravane d'amitié Québec-Cuba

Clerk of the Committee Ms. Bibiane Ouellette

Marcus Pistor Committee Researcher

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Jason Kenney

Thank you.

This round is finished.

Thank you, ladies.

Thank you to all of the witnesses.

I would just say to Monsieur Leroux and to any of the witnesses that organizations—including Freedom House, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas, and in fact the Canadian Labour Congress—that appeared before us have all maintained that there is systematic repression of basic political and civil rights in Cuba.

If any of you have any information that you could furnish to the committee on how those organizations are part of a CIA conspiracy, we would certainly appreciate receiving it for full consideration in our report.

I thank you all very much. The committee will go in camera in a moment.

We're done and we're moving now to the next item of business, which is a review of the Burton report.

We'll recess for five minutes, because there's lunch served for the committee members. Grab a bite to eat and take a break, if you need to. We'll begin our proceedings again in five minutes.

1 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Jason Kenney

Colleagues, we will recommence.

The next item on our agenda is the consideration of the Burton report. As our regular members know, this is an ongoing drama at this committee. In effect, as a result of our various motions, we were all provided early on with the public version of Burton's “Assessment of the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue”, dated December 31, 2005. There was a confidential annex consisting of supplementary materials that had been excised from the public version of the report.

Pursuant to our various protestations, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has furnished us with an excised version of the confidential supplementary materials, which you have before you. You've all been sent copies, at least regular members of the committee have.

Originally we were told that this would have to be considered in an in camera meeting for 10 minutes, with no note-taking, but apparently the department has now furnished us with copies, so I'm advised that we're not required to review this in camera.

1 p.m.

A voice

Is that correct?

1 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Jason Kenney

Could the clerk please say something about that?

1:05 p.m.

The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Bibiane Ouellette

I received an e-mail saying that the report would be available and the committee didn't have to look at it in camera.

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Jason Kenney

So we're in a public session. I don't think there's anything to discuss here. We have what we have.

As I said at the last meeting, in terms of the process, this committee has already reported three or four motions to the main committee with respect to this issue. It is now up to the main committee whether they want to make any reports to the House of Commons on this. It's out of our hands, and this is what we have before us.

I would suggest that it would not likely alter any of our recommendations or the content of the report that we submitted to the full committee last Tuesday.

Mr. Sorenson, perhaps you could elucidate for us.

The full committee has received our report, is scheduled to review it, and hopefully adopt it on...which date?

1:05 p.m.

Marcus Pistor Committee Researcher

On May 10, next week.

1:05 p.m.

NDP

Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC

Chair, can I get a clarification?

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Jason Kenney

Yes, Madam.

1:05 p.m.

NDP

Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC

Our purpose was to compare and make a determination as to whether information was withheld. From what I read last night, it seemed like these two reports were comparing apples and oranges. There are blacked out portions that do not reappear in the last version, so you really have no point of comparison.

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB

The only point of comparison—

1:05 p.m.

NDP

Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC

Was the purpose to compare? If it was, then it seems like a pointless exercise.

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB

The only point is that now you see and know how much is blacked out. You're right, it does not disclose what's in there, and they have made that clear.

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Jason Kenney

Yes.

Denise, the point is that this committee has had an ongoing dialogue with the Department of Foreign Affairs. This goes back to when Professor Burton appeared before our committee and revealed that some information had been excised from the public view of the report, which had been made available to us by the department.

Pursuant to a motion moved by Madame St-Hilaire, the committee unanimously requested the unexpurgated version of the report, and then this became a complicated matter.

At the end of the day, the committee decided to ask DFA to send us whatever they would reveal, and that's what's before us. It's the position of the department that the blacked out bits are classified. The committee has adopted a number of motions on this matter that have been reported to the full committee. So I think it would not be fruitful for us to spend more time on the matter; the committee has expressed itself clearly on this.

Madame St-Hilaire, you look perplexed or concerned. If you would like to suggest anything, perhaps a discussion, it's in the committee's hands.

1:10 p.m.

Bloc