Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague Ms. Eid, representing the Department of Justice, and I are pleased to appear before you to discuss the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture.
I would like to start by explaining the role of the various departments at the federal level in relation to international human rights. There are three departments that are almost always involved. In very basic terms, the division of responsibilities among the departments may be described as follows:
First, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is generally responsible for leading negotiations on new international human rights instruments and for the maintenance of Canada's relationship with international human rights bodies.
The Department of Justice, my colleague, is responsible for assessing the domestic impact of international human rights instruments and for coordinating the federal consultations with respect to becoming a party to an instrument.
Canadian Heritage is responsible for the promotion of human rights within Canada, which includes federal, provincial, and territorial consultations on human rights. Other federal departments are involved when the subject matter falls under their respective mandates.
Mr. Chairman, let me start by underlining that Canada is strongly committed to the prevention, the prohibition, and the elimination of torture and other cruel and inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment globally. Indeed, Canada ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on June 24, 1987. It was one of the first states to do so.
I would just like to mention some of the existing international mechanisms with which Canada collaborates for the prevention and elimination of torture. Canada has recognized the competence of the Committee Against Torture, in article 22, and the Human Rights Committee, under the optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to consider individual complaints against Canada. As you know, there have been and continue to be hearings by that committee on issues brought to them by individuals in Canada. Detainees can file complaints to those treaty bodies with respect to their detention, and the committee will provide its views to us.
As required by the Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, we have also submitted to the Committee Against Torture and to the Human Rights Committee periodic reports that provide information on the legislative program and the policy framework that governments in Canada have put in place to implement these instruments, including its obligations with respect to the prevention of torture. The presentation of these periodic reports is the opportunity to have a dialogue with the Committee Against Torture and the Human Rights Committee during which conditions of detention and the treatment of detainees can be and are discussed. Through their concluding observations, the committees may make recommendations with respect to the implementation by Canada of these treaties.
In addition to its cooperation with the Committee Against Torture and the Human Rights Committee, Canada supports the work of the special rapporteur on torture. Canada has extended a standing invitation to all special procedures--that includes special rapporteurs and working groups--which means that Canada will always accept visit requests from all special procedures.
For example, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention visited Canada from June 1 to 15, 2005, at the invitation of the government. Although the focus of the working group is mainly the legality of detention, it visited 12 detention facilities, including police stations, pre-trial detention centres, facilities for convicts, a facility for young offenders, and immigration holding centres. In the detention facilities, the working group was able to meet with and interview, in private, more than 150 detainees.
While the convention does require states' parties to take measures to prevent acts of torture from being committed in places under their jurisdiction, the protocol complements the convention in terms of prevention. As you know, the objective of this protocol, as you've heard from previous witnesses, is to establish a proactive system of regular visits, undertaken by independent international and domestic bodies, in places where people are deprived of their liberty in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
Canada actively participated during the 10 years of the negotiation of the optional protocol and voted in favour of its adoption by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the General Assembly in 2002. We support the fundamental elements of the optional protocol. We believe the protocol can be an important tool in protecting human rights.
Canada has followed closely the developments with respect to the optional protocol and has been interested in what other countries, particularly decentralized federal states, are doing or plan to do to establish their domestic preventative mechanisms and to coordinate these domestic mechanisms.
To discuss implementation of the protocol on federal states, in January 2005 the Canadian permanent mission in Geneva organized a meeting of decentralized states. The purpose of the meeting was to exchange information in the hope of sharing creative approaches and problem-solving strategies in the specific context of federal and other decentralized states. While we're not a party to the protocol, as mentioned last week by the representatives of the Association for the Prevention of Torture and the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, Canada has a number of mechanisms already in place, both federally and provincially, to protect persons in places of detention from torture. Many of these bodies have the power to visit and do conduct visits of places of detention. My colleague Ms. Eid will elaborate on these mechanisms.
The monitoring mechanism created by the optional protocol itself is significantly different from those established by other UN human rights treaties. In other human rights treaties, state compliance is generally monitored by a committee of international experts. The optional protocol is the first instrument in force that includes domestic monitoring mechanisms. There are few models that can assist states in developing their own domestic monitoring mechanisms, and quite clearly the complexities of establishing independent, proactive, domestic visiting mechanisms, particularly in a federal state with a vast territory, must not be underestimated.
In April 2006, in support of its candidacy for a seat on the new UN Human Rights Council, Canada pledged to consider signing the protocol. Consultations and analysis began after the adoption of the optional protocol, and they are still ongoing. After this analysis is completed, Canada will be in a position to make a decision as to the signature and ratification of the optional protocol. We'd like to commend the Association for the Prevention of Torture for its commitment to the prevention of torture and for the excellent tools it has prepared to assist states in the establishment of domestic mechanisms.
As the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention stated, Canada is perceived of as a model and a point of reference for the people of many countries with regard to the rule of law and respect for human rights. This means that the highest standards are applied to Canada, and as Canadians, we can be proud of our reputation for taking our international human rights obligations very seriously. In order to ensure that we can live up to our future commitments and preserve our international reputation, we should continue to do the necessary homework.
I apologize for rushing through this statement, but I'm very much aware of the time constraints, and I hand it over to my colleague. Thank you.