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

[Elisabeth Eid]

As I explained, that is one of the issues we are going to have to study carefully. To my knowledge, no study has been done regarding the resources required by the protocol. That is something that needs to be reviewed. For example, if we were to establish a new mechanism, we will have to do an evaluation of the cost that would be involved. It is something that needs to be determined. It would not necessarily be done by the Department of Justice. Each department and the provinces and territories will have to do their cost assessment.

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

Do you think a province could refuse to be involved for cost reasons?

[Elisabeth Eid]

A province or territory could definitely raise concerns about costs. At that point, the federal government would have to decide whether it wants to be part of the treaty without the support of a particular province.

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

That is not something it usually does.

[Elisabeth Eid]

That would not be an ideal situation.

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

Could the federal government defray some of the costs for the provinces?

[Elisabeth Eid]

I imagine that is something we would have to look at.

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

Something that would have to be negotiated.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Thank you.

Mr. Sorenson.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Again, thank you for coming, by the way.

It seems to me it's taking a long time. I don't know if it's longer than should be anticipated or if it's longer than usual, but it seems to me it's taking an awfully long time.

In 2005 we had a meeting of decentralized states in Geneva. I don't know what all came out of that. Is the holdback the provinces? I know you've listed all the different places in which the provinces play a role in this thing. There's the correctional part, there's the policing part, there are all the other different provincial areas you're meeting with. I think Madame St-Hilaire brought this up, but generally speaking, is this going to mean extra structural changes to the province's correctional system? What's the real roadblock or holdback here?

[Alan H. Kessel]

Let me respond to the first question you posed, which is why these things take a long time. I don't think this is out of the ordinary in terms of international instruments that have a large federal and provincial-territorial aspect to them.

Quite clearly, if we had an international instrument that was totally within the ambit of the federal government, things would go quicker. But we have a separation of powers in this country that provides for detention facilities in provinces, and now more frequently within aboriginal communities, which is a new thing for us. In that respect, I think we're doing the due diligence on this particular international instrument.

The process is certainly there. I think the provinces feel they're being consulted well, which I think is one of the key things in any international instrument that Canada enters into.

I think I'll let Elisabeth answer the infrastructure question you mentioned.

[Elisabeth Eid]

Obviously, if you have a treaty and the obligations only fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government, it's quite easy. We have cases in which we've been able to move very quickly forward on human rights treaty ratification when it's just the federal government. It is true that it gets more complicated when you have matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. Usually those treaties take several years before we're in a position to become a party.

In this case, there is also the issue of consultations with first nations, because of the possibility of places of detention on reserves, for example. Also, there is a possibility of having a situation where you acquire new measures, such as new legislation, and financial implications that also can bog down the process.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

You both mentioned the first nations a couple of times. We see a lot of the things that are provincial, but is there a hesitancy from first nations?

[Elisabeth Eid]

No. We know there are places of detention that could fall under their jurisdiction that we have to look at, consulting with them fully and understanding the implications and their perspectives on it.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

If this thing were implemented, what about the reporting back? I would take it that reports are filed. It's an international convention we're signing on to. Would it be something the federal government would be reporting on, or is it a combination of...?

[Elisabeth Eid]

The protocol, as I understand it, does not create a reporting obligation as such; it creates a visiting mechanism, both at the international and at the domestic levels.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

But there must be reporting.

[Elisabeth Eid]

There would be requirements to provide information, of course, and the subcommittee would issue a report respecting Canada. So there is information.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

But it would be a federal report that would be filed?

[Alan H. Kessel]

If I may just answer that, remember that this is a protocol to the Convention against Torture, on which we report fully right now. In fact, Canada has appeared a number of times before the committee, and there's a requirement that we not only report federally but on all the provinces and territories. There's a major operation that goes into effect each time Canada has to prepare to appear before one of these committees.

The Committee Against Torture has reviewed Canada's report on a number of occasions and has found certain issues that they've taken up with us. This applies to the other treaty bodies as well. As you know, Canada has filed reports before the Human Rights Committee and the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee.

So we have a process, which finds its home in Canadian Heritage with a terrific team of people who spend a lot of time putting together basically 13 or 14 reports that we need to put together, as Canada, to present to the committee. There's a lot of reporting going on.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Mr. Marston.

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

I guess you can catch the theme that's going around the table: why does it take so long to do something that's so fundamental to the belief structure of Canada? Of course, you've provided information to that. It strikes me as very ironic as well that Canada shepherded this particular agreement through the United Nations and voted to adopt it, and now 34 nations have signed on ahead of us. It just doesn't seem right, I'm sure, to an average person who might hear what's going on in this place.

You mentioned privacy of information. It strikes me that in the case of a person who's a prisoner, their crime and conviction is a matter of public record, so I'm wondering why there would be that concern, or whether I'm reading it wrong.

[Elisabeth Eid]

Basically, there's an obligation on the part of the government to provide information to the subcommittee. The subcommittee can ask for all types of information, including particular information about the treatment or the condition of detainees. That may involve perhaps their medical information and it could involve some sensitive personal information about individual detainees.

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

I have another question. With all of the dialogue that seems to be happening on a number of fronts, have you met resistance? If you have, where?

[Elisabeth Eid]

As I said, we are engaged in consultation with the provinces and territories, and also with other departments and agencies. I did describe the issues for you. It's really a matter of the work that needs to be done to put us in a place where we feel we're fully in compliance and to move forward--issues of new measures, issues of possible legislative changes, issues of resources--and be able to actually calculate the amount of resources that may be required.