Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on June 5th, 2007

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Sorenson.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

In regard to our Canadian Forces abroad, would this protocol interfere in any way with the ability of our Canadian Forces to conduct legal interrogations?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Just to let everybody know, the reason I'm going to be announcing everybody's name before they speak is for Mr. Tremblay.

Dominique.

[Dominique Larochelle]

Thank you.

To answer your first question, from what I understand of the Protocol, it is more a monitoring mechanism than an instrument that confers rights upon people wanting to claim protection against torture. The debate regarding the return of such individuals to countries where they risk being tortured was partly resolved by the Supreme Court in the Suresh ruling. I know that a new application, which is now before the Supreme Court, has been made for reconsideration of the Suresh ruling. So, this matter is once again before the Supreme Court of Canada. I would just say that whether or not the Protocol is implemented, the individuals you referred to are already protected by the U.N. Convention Against Torture.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Sorenson.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

The second question is this. In regard to the forces, on legal interrogation, are you saying this protocol is not relevant?

[Dominique Larochelle]

I don't have an answer to that. Mr. Tremblay may wish to respond.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Mr. Tremblay, would you like to answer that question?

[Philippe Tremblay]

Yes.

I would simply like to point out that the visit mechanisms carry with them the responsibility to visit persons deprived of their freedom in places that are under the jurisdiction or control of States Parties. Therefore, if Canada were to ratify the Protocol, one could expect that Canada's national prevention mechanism would include visiting persons detained by the Canadian Forces beyond Canadian territory. However, that is still somewhat theoretical, and I will come back to the reasons for that a little later.

Practically speaking, if we take the example of Afghanistan, I do not believe the Canadian Forces detain Afghan nationals for extended periods of time. However, if that were the case, Canada's national mechanisms would have to provide for the power to order such visits. It's important to remember that the ultimate goal of the Protocol is not to judge or condemn states, if ever a violation of the Convention against Torture is noted. The whole point is to help states correct certain practices. Therefore, the U.N. Sub-Committee for the Prevention of Torture, which was established when the Protocol came into effect, carries out its work confidentially and in a spirit of cooperation and collaboration. It is important to emphasize that point, so that people are not left with the impression that the national mechanisms are intended to denounce certain practices. That is not at all the purpose. The idea is really to improve the way in which detainees are treated.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Thank you.

Ms. St-Hilaire. You have no questions. Very well.

Mr. Marston.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

It's really hard to have the discussion without talking about some of the tortures that are out there, or some of the inappropriate handling of people that has occurred when they were in custody of one country or another. Abu Ghraib is one of those places. If you've seen the pictures and the descriptions of what occurred there, the mistreatment of prisoners with humiliation and beyond, to my mind the protocol, as you've just indicated, helps countries that may stray into this area come back to the side of the line we all would expect of civilized countries.

The other issue we face—and it's not something that Canada is doing, so I don't want anybody to think I'm saying that—is the rendering of people to third party countries that are known to torture, and then to use that evidence. From Justice O'Connor, there was an indication that some of the evidence from Maher Arar had been gotten by torture. As a result of that, does it not taint anything flowing out of it into Canada?

I don't want to overstress the security certificates, except that those were in place for years. They were in place before 9/11. They were used. Their intent was to use around people who were facing deportation, to have control over that. Now I'm told that people who are held for five years in Canada were told if they wanted to go to another country, they were free to go.

I'm very troubled, because to me, not applying the court system of this country after five years on people's cases is a form of torture. You've withdrawn those people from their communities, from their families; you've put them into a place where they fail to receive the most fundamental right of our law, and that's the right to face the evidence against them and face the accusers against them.

So when we look at the protocol, it may sound strange to add that, but if we're not prepared to look at the ugly face of all forms of torture, then it's hard to make an evaluation. It's hard to understand at all how our country could not already be signed on to this.

I really appreciate what you've said to us about suggestions of whom to draw into this. Because when this committee's work is done, I want to ensure that we all are pushing hard for our country to sign on to this important protocol. Again, if we don't support the UN conventions that we do reach, then as a world community we're worse off for that.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Thank you.

Ms. Pate, do you have a comment?

[Kim Pate]

I just want to reinforce what Monsieur Tremblay said a few minutes ago, as well as what Mr. Marston has just said. The more one believes that Canada has a stellar reputation in terms of human rights protection, the more I would think we would want to sign on to this protocol, because it demonstrates that in fact we hold a very high standard, or a standard at least, which if we are not meeting, we certainly aspire to.

I'm reminded that in the last few days I've been in three of the federal women's penitentiaries. One of the things that more than one of the staff, including one very senior staff person, said to me was that my visiting helps hold them to a standard that they know they'll be looked at. They know I'll come in and I'll document what happens. They see that as a positive—most people.

Occasionally people will be concerned, but this is about holding that standard and aspiring to it, not about condemnation. Where there are problems—and there certainly have been problems, and I've outlined some of the problems I see that persist in our system—oftentimes the people working in that system recognize that a good living environment, if you will, for those who are detained is also a good working environment.

So aspiring to those kinds of humane, non-degrading, non-torturous...and I thank the chair for correcting us in terms of making sure we don't stray into trying to redefine what torture is. The reality is that when we have those standards, then as Canadians we can say we're living up to those standards as demonstrated by our desire to ratify and stand behind something we helped introduce. I think it sends a very clear message, not just to those who are detained but also to those who are working in those areas. They don't go into that work to be degrading or inhumane; they go into work because they want to do something positive.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Thank you very much.

The last question will be from Mr. Khan.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you for being here today. As you are aware, Canadians and Canada are very conscious of the issues we are discussing today.

I'd like you to comment on how it would differ or benefit—because I think what you're talking about is already covered to some extent , in the articles 2 and 11.

Article 11 says:

Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture.

So how does what you're proposing differ from this? Does it not automatically become the responsibility of an individual state, based on article 11, to follow this procedure?

If this procedure is not being followed, how would the next protocol signed by Canada and the rest of the world help in areas such as Somalia or other African areas where there's very little regard for law? How can it be implemented? What is the practicality of implementation?

What major countries have signed on to it, and can you name some that have not?

[Kim Pate]

Monsieur Tremblay deals with and is much more knowledgeable about many of the international issues, so I'll leave those questions to him.

In Canada, the main difference I see—and it's a very important and vital difference—is that by signing on to the optional protocol and then ratifying it, we could invite the special rapporteur to come to look at what is happening. They could come of their own volition. Recognizing the value we place on human rights protection—It's an added protection for you as parliamentarians who represent the Government of Canada to be able to go out to your electorate and all Canadians and say, “These kinds of protections are here. So confident are we in that, we have ratified and will call on others to come to have a look. We will be transparent in the way we're operating.”

If you're interested in more of what the implications of this will be, in addition to the Department of Justice you may want to call in the Department of Public Safety, for instance, and ask officials to explain to you what steps they are taking and have taken to assess in the past, and how they ensure there are human rights protections.

There are certainly some deficit areas that we see. I suspect they may also have had some discussion about what it would mean to implement the optional protocol in Canada in the oversight of penitentiaries, the RCMP, detention cells generally—especially remand, and how that would overlap when the RCMP are detaining in a temporary detention situation. What would it mean in oversight of aboriginal justice initiatives, and that sort of thing? There are all of those areas and immigration cells, including where they have exchange of services agreements with mental health facilities. You could ask for that kind of input as well. That would give you a much better picture.

But I think the recommendation that we do this is very much about increasing our ability to monitor and our likelihood of adherence to those international obligations, which I agree are very important and already exist.

So that's my view. I have a list of the countries that have signed on, but Monsieur Tremblay is much more involved in that internationally.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Monsieur Tremblay.

[Philippe Tremblay]

I quickly named some of the larger countries that have signed or ratified the Protocol. I am thinking of Germany, Great Britain, New Zealand, which ratified it in March, France, which has signed it and is preparing to ratify it, Brazil, Argentina and South Africa. If you were to ask which countries have not ratified it and have no intention of doing so, I would simply say that when the Protocol was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, only four countries opposed it.

As you know, the United States has ratified few international treaties, but we refuse to be discouraged by that. We have already travelled to Washington, and have had talks with people at the State Department to remind them of the importance and the ultimate goal of the Protocol. Japan expressed great reluctance. However, when the vote finally came, it abstained. Japan was assessed by the Committee against Torture several weeks ago and told the Committee that the Protocol is now being reviewed and that it is considering ratifying it. Nigeria, which was one of the four countries that voted against, told the Special Rapporteur on Torture a few weeks ago that it intends to move forward on this.

So, political changes are occurring. Australia has yet to ratify it. We are planning to visit Australia in September and work with our Australian partners to try and persuade Australia to join the group of States Parties. There is a real movement afoot. Of course, Russia, India and China are countries that are traditionally more wary and less willing to support this kind of instrument, but I do not believe Canada has any desire to be part of that group of countries which are dragging their feet. I think it would prefer to show leadership.

Very quickly, I would just like to mention what I see as obvious advantages for Canada in ratifying the Protocol. This would allow it to ensure complete coverage of all places of detention. I was saying earlier that the APT has not had time to carry out an in-depth study of the situation here in Canada, but it seems to me there are some places of detention in Canada that are not subject to visits through independent mechanisms. Therefore, ratifying and implementing the Protocol would be an opportunity to close that gap.

The U.N. Sub-Committee for the Prevention of Torture would come to Canada, as well as all the other States Parties, but only on an ad hoc basis. One cannot imagine the 10 independent experts being able to make very frequent visits to all the States Parties, but even if the Sub-Committee only came to Canada once every four or five years, it would still have a chance to make useful and practical recommendations. The Chair of the Sub-Committee is a British women who was previously a member of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, and she thus has a tremendous amount of experience. I believe Canadian authorities could benefit from the knowledge of international experts of that stature.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Thank you.

Before I thank all the witnesses, I want to make a little comment, since I didn't have a chance to ask any questions.

To the witnesses and the members, I strongly believe it's a question of time. Canada has always ratified and participated in international forums and conventions, so I fully expect that we will one day ratify it. I can't believe we will not ratify this optional protocol. It's a question of time.

Certainly as members of this subcommittee, which is part of the human rights committee, if we are not the ones encouraging the government to ratify this I'm not sure which other committee will do that in Parliament. I think we have a responsibility to hear from the witnesses what the concerns are. We will be hearing from the foreign affairs and justice departments next week on Tuesday, and also from Alex Neve of Amnesty International Canada.

At the end of the day, I believe it's going to be a question of time. Canada has always signed on to the major international treaties such as this one. We were very strongly supportive of the convention on torture. I'm sure we will also be there with the optional protocol.

I would like to thank Mr. Tremblay and Ms. Larochelle.

Also to Kim Pate, thank you very much for coming before our committee.

We now are going to deal with a notice of motion from Caroline St-Hilaire.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Would you like me to move my motion?

Fine. I'm sorry; I was trying to convince my colleague opposite to support the motion.

Basically, Mr. Chairman, this motion deals with Munir Said Thalib. Most Committee members have met his wife. Mr. Munir is now deceased. There was an investigation in Indonesia. I could read the motion, leaving out the whereases. Basically, what we are asking is:

That Canada use appropriate diplomatic means to express publicly to the Government of Indonesia its profound disagreement with the non-publication of the report of the Presidential Commission […]

There was a commission of inquiry, but the information was never made public, and that is what we are seeking through this motion.

I do hope I can count on the support of colleagues.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Is there any debate? Do you have any questions? Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Sorenson.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I'm just wondering. How long has this motion been in the works?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

I asked the clerk on that. She mentioned to me it was given 48-hour notice. It was given on May 31.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

All right. If it was given proper notice, it's certainly in order.

I'll level with you. I have not really studied this to any extent. I look at the motion, and it has the event that took place and what led to this motion. Again, I have some concerns when the Government of Canada is publicly expressing to another government its displeasure at not releasing a report. I have no other information as to why it wasn't released. Was it an internal document? Were all those things part of it? I haven't had the opportunity to really look into this.

Other motions have come before our committee as well that have expressed profound frustration with other governments, other sovereign governments, in internal matters. This certainly goes beyond being an internal matter. It's human rights. It's an atrocity.

But as for the specifics of why it wasn't released, this just says we express our profound disagreement with not releasing the report. I'm not prepared to vote on that, because I don't know any other information other than that the report wasn't released. Do we have other documents? Was this brought out of a news story?

I'll ask Madame St-Hilaire what moved her to bring this motion to this committee.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Munir's widow did come to Parliament Hill and, as I was saying, I believe she met with quite a few parliamentarians, particularly members of the Sub-Committee on International Human Rights. I understand your unease, but at the same time, that is precisely the reason why the wording is toned down, I would say, since it talks about diplomatic means. I realize that we are not necessarily asking… The Bloc is never particularly in favour of political interference in the affairs of other countries. However, there was a presidential commission of inquiry on the murder, and Munir Said Thalib is not just anybody. He was a very important figure as regards human rights. I believe the Sub-Committee has a mandate to pressure the government to ensure that proper diplomatic means are used. In actual fact, we are not asking for condemnation, but rather for bilateral dialogue with Indonesia, in order to request that the report be made public so that people are aware of what occurred.

I would ask that the motion be put to a vote today.