Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on June 12th, 2007

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

From your response, my sense is that you have not met resistance to this but you have a technical side that's causing an encumbrance to get through it--but not actual resistance.

[Elisabeth Eid]

Yes.

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

You might be thrilled to hear this.... Oh, Mr. Sorenson has left the room.

I believe it's the responsibility of the federal government to pay the cost of this. It's a federal agreement, for what that is worth. I appreciate your due diligence.

I heard mention of the length of time to complete the process. Are we talking months, years, or...?

[Elisabeth Eid]

We're doing the best we can to move the process along. I can't put a fixed time period on it.

[Alan H. Kessel]

The shepherding process did take ten years originally, so I think it's quite clear that even sitting among a community of nations, when you're dealing with 180 countries all trying to herd those cats into one vision of what we should be doing, it's an accomplishment in and of itself.

We've learned from experience in this federal system that working hard with our colleagues in the provinces and territories is an effort well worth the time, because it avoids problems in the future. A good foundation and a good open dialogue with our colleagues makes for a much better relationship, and I think we're putting that time in now for that purpose.

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

Great. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

With the indulgence of the committee, I would like to ask a very brief question to the witnesses.

First of all, I'm concerned about Canada's image in the world. Canada has always been a leader. By virtue of whatever delays that are taking place, we are looking very negative, and I'm concerned about the image of Canada. Hopefully, the two departments are quite aware of that as well.

The other thing I'm concerned about is the sense that is out there--whether or not it's true--that departments tend to work in silos, that sometimes there's bickering between departments and there's not the cooperation that is needed. Maybe you can comment on that, whether you've encountered that and whether we can have full cooperation to get this thing implemented as fast as possible, because it's not giving Canada any credit out there internationally.

[Alan H. Kessel]

I'll talk a little about the image. I think Canada's image is rather good. I don't believe we have a problem with respect to image on this issue.

If we were a country that didn't have any domestic mechanisms, or we hadn't signed onto the Convention Against Torture, or we weren't a leader in human rights, I could understand. Maybe there are countries out there that have no intention of signing onto this that could be in that category, but I don't think Canada is in that category. We're doing our homework, and Canada will, as it usually does, deliver a good product at the end of that discussion. I give credit to my colleagues, certainly in Justice.

In terms of talking with the other departments, everybody has a point of view in terms of their particular mandate. The department that manages prisons, Public Safety, is also a major player in discussions of this nature, and clearly they are involved in determining future costs and how things will run. So we are all of a vision, which is to work as quickly as possible to make this thing happen, and I think we're doing that.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Thank you very much to the witnesses.

Now I'd like to call Mr. Alex Neve to the table.

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

I have a 30-second question. Is it okay with you? We have four minutes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

That's okay, with their indulgence and very quickly.

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

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Mr. Kessel, you mentioned the timeframes, and that is of concern. When did you start working on this, what direction did you get from the previous government, and what sort of timetable was set for this, if any?

[Alan H. Kessel]

Like all international instruments, we talk to departments and our provincial counterparts at the beginning of the process, so we started talking about this issue when we were negotiating the protocol.

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

Was it a year, or what...?

[Alan H. Kessel]

Was it a year? During the period, I don't know....

[Elisabeth Eid]

It would be during the negotiation process.

[Alan H. Kessel]

Right. Was it 1992?

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

It was in 1992; we're in 2007.

[Alan H. Kessel]

It's very interesting you say that, because I spent ten years working on the development of the International Criminal Court treaty. It started its discussions at Nuremberg and Tokyo. We were grateful when we got what we did, and I think you have to look at each specific issue in and of itself.

I think this is progress. It's not as if we're creating something totally new, but we do have something that is a proactive mechanism rather than a reactive mechanism, and I think we give the due diligence necessary to make it happen and happen well.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Thank you.

Thank you very much for coming before the committee.

Now we have Mr. Alex Neve, from Amnesty International.

[Alex Neve, Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, committee members.

Despite being unconditionally banned in numerous international human rights treaties, national constitutions, and laws around the world, the ugly and very vicious reality of torture continues to be commonplace and to haunt every corner of the globe.

In 2000, Amnesty International issued a major comprehensive report documenting the prevalence of torture worldwide. At that time, we noted that torture was occurring in three-quarters of the world's states, that it was systematic and widespread in almost one-half of the world's states, and that children experienced torture in one-quarter of the world's states. This is no trivial concern. Torture truly, clearly, is an international human rights crisis.

This reality stands in sharp contrast to the firm, unwavering laws that ban torture. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: no one shall be subjected to torture. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: no one shall be subjected to torture. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: no child shall be subjected to torture. In the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment itself, no exceptional circumstance whatsoever—whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency—may be invoked as a justification for torture.

Law is clear; practice is something very different. Torture, the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering, is absolutely and entirely illegal, but everywhere around the world torturers thrive.

One reason is that torture happens behind closed doors, in secret, far from the scrutiny of the courts, the glare of the television camera, or the awareness of the public. Secrecy is one of the torturer's greatest allies, and piercing the shroud of secrecy that surrounds torture is therefore absolutely essential to this campaign to try to put torture to an end once and for all.

That is why, four and a half years ago, the United Nations finally adopted this incredibly important new human rights treaty that seeks to shatter the secrecy about torture. Through the optional protocol, the United Nations has set out a powerful new system for inspecting detention centres, all with an eye to identifying and eradicating the conditions that encourage torture. The optional protocol requires states to establish national-level bodies for carrying out such inspections. It also, of course, establishes a new international-level expert committee empowered to carry out such inspections. National and international inspections are precisely what is needed to shine light on the practice of torture and ensure the scrutiny and attention that will make it impossible for torture to continue.

It was, of course, one thing for the UN to agree to the optional protocol, agreement that came after more than ten years of sometimes difficult and contentious negotiations among governments, many of whom at various points along the way sought to weaken the effectiveness of the new inspection procedures. It was one thing for the UN to agree; it is now quite another to encourage individual governments to ratify the optional protocol and thus commit to being part of this important new system. Twenty states had to ratify it before it would even enter into force and the new international committee would be established. That finally happened last year, and the optional protocol has now been operational for almost one year. Thirty-four countries have now signed on, the most recent being Cambodia and New Zealand, in March. The ten members of the subcommittee of the UN Committee Against Torture, the new international expert body entrusted with the task of carrying out inspections, were elected in December of 2006. The system is up and running; 34 countries are onboard, but not Canada. It has been four and a half years since the optional protocol was adopted. It's time for Canada to be part of the club.

Canada needs to ratify because we must as a nation stand firmly on the side of doing everything possible, supporting every initiative, endorsing every law, that seeks to abolish and end the despicable practice of torture. We must do so to ensure that we have everything in place nationally to guard against the possibility of torture or ill treatment in our prisons, but we must do so primarily to ensure that we have done everything we can to create strong global laws and institutions that can confront and eradicate torture and ill treatment in other countries.

Canada has always sought to make a difference in the global struggle to protect human rights. We have always sought to lead, not merely follow. By virtue of that history of leadership, it is noted when Canada is absent, or silent, or tardy. Other states feel less compelled to step up if Canada has not yet done so. When Canada leads, others truly do follow. That is what this nation stands for. That is what the world needs. That is certainly what women, men, and young people at risk of torture need.

Of course, we cannot overlook the cruel reality that torture can strike very close to home. Recent cases--such as Maher Arar, Abdullah Almalki, and Muayyed Nureddin in Syria, Zahra Kazemi in Iran, Ahmad El-Maati in Egypt, William Sampson in Saudi Arabia, and Kunlun Zhang in China—all remind us that Canadian citizens are vulnerable to torture abroad and all tell harrowing stories of how their torture took place in secret.

Of course, the issue of monitoring has come into sharp focus recently with the current debate under way about how to ensure that prisoners, apprehended by Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, do not experience torture in Afghan prisons.

This is not just theoretical. It is not just wishful thinking. It is an approach that works. In 1987, the Council of Europe established the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. That committee began its work in 1990 and now has jurisdiction over 46 European states. Over the past 17 years, the committee has carried out over 225 visits, 140 of which were planned, 85 of which were ad hoc, rapid response visits. Has torture ended in Europe? Clearly not. Has the committee's work made a difference? Absolutely, and it will continue to do so. This year, visits are planned to 11 countries, including several where concerns about torture are grave indeed, including Georgia, Moldova, and Serbia.

Canada is rightly perceived around the world as a strong proponent of international human rights protection, including the crucial global ban on torture. That is all the more reason why Canada's failure to ratify after four and a half years is glaring and problematic. The world expects Canada to be on board with this new initiative. The world expected Canada to be one of the very first nations to sign on.

Why the delay? We know the federal, provincial, territorial, and first nations governments are discussing it and have been for some time. Provincial and federal authorities are reportedly not concerned about the international-level inspections, but apparently have questions and concerns about the requirement that national-level inspections be conducted. Who would carry those out, how frequently, how much would it cost? We've heard much of that this morning.

Three years ago, Amnesty International shared with the government the results of our own research that demonstrated that through the web of ombudsmen's offices, Correctional Services investigators, and other bodies, there was already in existence the means for complying with national-level inspections, in large part. Certainly, refinements, clarifications, and a boost in resourcing may be needed, but the processes and general architecture for prison monitoring are already in existence and provide the framework with which to move forward with regard to this treaty. But still we wait. We have found it very difficult to get much information about the status of discussions among the various levels of government and within government because those discussions happen entirely behind closed doors. We do not know how far discussions have gone, for instance, in considering any reforms or additions that may be needed to existing prison oversight mechanisms. All we know is that consultations continue. It has been very difficult to get any sense of progress, no real sense of difficulties and challenges, no meaningful, transparent way for parliamentarians, for the Canadian public, to engage.

We hear about first nations involvement. It's not clear yet if that process of consulting is under way, or, if it is, what its status is, and this is something more widely symptomatic in terms of the difficulty of the Canadian public and parliamentarians accessing, in a meaningful way, intergovernmental discussions and processes in this country with respect to international human rights issues.

Let me end by stressing that Canadians want Canada to ratify. Close to 4,000 people have signed an Amnesty International petition calling on Canada to ratify. Eighteen months ago, in an open letter to the Canadian government, eight Canadian citizens who have either experienced torture themselves or lost a loved one to torture abroad, along with their lawyers, three Canadians who served as prominent UN human rights experts, 43 Canadian organizations, and 24 prominent Canadians, including former foreign ministers Lloyd Axworthy and Flora MacDonald, all called on Canada to ratify. That letter, issued in December 2005, urged Canada to ratify by May 2006, which would have marked the first anniversary of the expert UN-level Committee Against Torture, which called on Canada to ratify. May 2006 came and went--no ratification. Now May 2007 has come and gone--no ratification.

Canada still sits on the sidelines. Torture is too serious a concern and the importance of combating it is far too pressing a need for Canada to wait any longer.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Thank you very much.

Do you have any questions, Ms. St-Hilaire?

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

Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Neve. I have two main questions, because I think you described the problem very well. You heard the previous testimony and you spoke about the fact that you are rather disappointed about the slowness of the process. I would like you to elaborate a little on that. What is your response regarding the problems, the lack of a deadline, and so on?

My second question is more practical in nature. Do you have a strategy to force the various players to speed the process up? Do you suggest what could be done to apply more pressure to the various levels of government? I'm speaking here about gentle pressure, of course.

[Alex Neve]

Of course, toujours.

With respect to your first question, it has been difficult for us to get clarity as to where difficulties or concerns may lie. We've certainly heard, as you have this morning, on a number of different occasions, an assurance that consultations are under way. We've been very aware of some of the particular issues that are the focus of those discussions and don't doubt at all that those discussions are happening.

Because of the lack of transparency with respect to the coordination of international human rights processes in Canada, there is no public reporting of that. There's no ability for civil society—and I would suggest to you it's even difficult for parliamentarians—to get any clear, concrete sense of the status and nature of those discussions, to truly understand, for instance, if there is an emerging problem that could benefit from some political leadership, for civil society groups to know whether there are particular issues that we should be stressing or highlighting in our overtures to governments, or public education even, to generate the kind of awareness and understanding that build support for initiatives of this kind. But when we don't know what the progress is, when we don't know where the difficulties, if any, may lie, it's difficult for all of us, parliamentarians and civil society, to play the kind of role we should in advancing something so fundamental to what this nation must stand for as the question of how we're incorporating and bringing into our national fabric our international human rights obligations. So I'm unfortunately not able to shed any further light for you as to whether there may be some difficulties on that front.

With respect to a strategy, I think some of the questions have been asked here about whether it's time, for instance, to really push for a timeline and a calendar to start to be developed with some clear expectations as to when the consultation process needs to end, when some clear recommendations are going to come forward to various governments so that political-level decisions can be made. I have great respect for civil servants, federally and provincially, who are engaged in this work, and I know many of them personally, and I know they share the same passion I do with the need to eradicate torture in this world. They understand the role Canada can play in that regard, and they're doing a lot of technical work that is necessary, but we need to see things happen at the political level as well. I think clear direction needs to come at senior political levels, federally and provincially, that this is an issue that matters. There's an expectation politically in this country that Canada needs to be ready to do this and to do it soon; four and a half years is long enough to wait. By demonstrating that degree of political support and concern about the process, I think that bolsters the efforts of many within the bureaucracy who are trying to advance the technical work as well.

I think it may also then reach a point where we're going to need to see, for instance, federal ministers speaking with each other. If there's one department that is a little bit more reluctant than the other, then we need to see our justice minister engaging with our public safety minister, or whatever the case may be. Similarly, we need to see federal ministers engaging with provincial ministers to make sure a shared political vision emerges with respect to the importance of this instrument as well.

The last thing any of us would want to see is another four and a half years go by, with the consultations continuing and good technical work happening—and I'm not trying to suggest that it isn't—without that clear political direction being in place.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Thank you.

Mr. Khan.