Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.
I'm very pleased to be here to discuss the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture. I will be discussing the consultation process in general terms. I will then move on to discuss the Optional Protocol in more specific terms.
Generally speaking, the Department of Justice is in charge of the consultations within the federal government designed to determine whether Canada should become part of an international human rights treaty such as the protocol. This is an internal review process which is very demanding on resources and requires the participation of a number of federal departments, as well as the provinces and territories.
There are a number of steps involved in the process of ratifying a human rights treaty. For the federal government, the initial steps are as follows:
First, there was a review done by the Department of Justice with respect to the provisions of the instrument and to look at the scope of the obligations.
Second, there was a review of federal legislation, policies, and practices by the affected departments to determine to what extent our existing measures meet the requirements of the treaty or whether new measures need to be adopted.
If it is determined that existing measures do not meet the requirements of an instrument, then options are considered. Consideration is given as to whether legislation must be enacted or amended, and of course the cost implications are also assessed.
Now where a human rights treaty relates to matters that fall under provincial jurisdiction, the government encourages a similar process to take place amongst provinces and territories. Similarly, provinces and territories may require additional new measures, and they may also need to do an analysis of the resource implications of any new measures that are required.
Obviously it's important to have provincial and territorial government support for signature and ratification in order to ensure domestic implementation where international obligations affect matters under their jurisdiction and to make sure that Canada as a country is in full compliance. Consultations with the provinces and territories are conducted through the Continuing Committee of Officials on Human Rights. This is a standing federal, provincial, and territorial committee. It was established way back in 1975, and one of its main functions is to serve as a consultation mechanism for the ratification of human rights treaties by Canada. These committee members participate in monthly conference calls, and the committee meets twice per year face to face. Canadian Heritage acts as a federal representative on the committee and chairs the meetings. As well, Justice and Foreign Affairs actively participate in those discussions with the provinces and territories.
It is possible that a human rights treaty may also impact matters under a first nation's jurisdiction, so that's also something to be considered. Then consultations with first nations governments would be required.
Consultations may also occur with non-governmental organizations. Correspondence from non-governmental organizations and members of the public, writing about a particular treaty, are certainly tracked and given full consideration.
Of course, where a parliamentary committee, such as this one, is examining the question of whether Canada should become a party to a human rights treaty, the testimony of witnesses, and obviously the report and recommendations of the committee, are given serious consideration.
Once the consultation process is complete, the issue of whether Canada should become a party to a treaty is placed before cabinet for an ultimate decision. A decision in favour of becoming a party is usually conditional upon receiving the formal support of the provinces and territories for Canada's ratification. Often, obtaining formal support from the provinces and territories can take some time, as they must undertake, as I just said, their own analysis of the treaty provisions. Many of the jurisdictions also require cabinet approval. In the case of Quebec, they require the approval of the National Assembly with respect to human rights treaties.
More particularly, with respect to the consultation process for the optional protocol, federal officials have begun the work on the consultation process. Considerable work has actually been done. The Department of Justice has analyzed the provisions of the instrument. We have certainly explained the requirements of the optional protocol to other departments, as well as to the provinces and territories. We have held interdepartmental meetings and bilateral meetings with specific departments as well.
On some of the particular considerations that apply to this instrument, places of detention are defined quite broadly in the protocol; therefore, there are places of detention that exist under federal, provincial, territorial, and aboriginal jurisdictions. Places of detention include a variety of institutions, such as prisons, federal penitentiaries, police stations, immigration detention centres, youth detention facilities, and psychiatric hospitals. Several federal departments and agencies are implicated, as well as the provinces and territories. Due consideration needs to be given, of course, to consulting with first nations governments.
As my colleague has stated, Canada already has a number of mechanisms in place federally and provincially to protect persons in places of detention from mistreatment. These include correctional investigators, and there are ombudspersons we are aware of in the provinces. There are police oversight agencies, human rights commissions, and the courts that ultimately oversee instances of problems in detention facilities.
Some of the issues that need to be examined include whether there are existing visiting mechanisms for all of the places of detention within the scope of the protocol and whether the existing bodies we have at the federal, provincial, and territorial levels conduct visits that meet the requirements of the protocol. The protocol requires that regular visits be made. Many of the current mechanisms we know are more reactive and will visit places of detention when there are complaints. But what is envisioned by the protocol are more proactive, regular visits.
The other criterion under the protocol is that bodies must be sufficiently independent from government. So there needs to be an examination of the existing bodies to determine whether they meet this criterion of sufficient independence from government under the protocol.
Another issue we're examining is whether relevant privacy legislation will permit the sharing of personal information between the government and the new UN subcommittee. There are other information-sharing issues raised by the protocol.
A further issue is to what extent the protocol requires--or it will be desirable to ensure--proper communication and coordination of the work between all of the various visiting mechanisms at the provincial, territorial, and federal levels. Of course, there are the resource implications.
Finally, there has to be a proper study and evaluation of the resource implications if we need new mechanisms to visit places of detention or if the mandates of the existing bodies need to be expanded.
Canada takes its international human rights obligations seriously. The general practice is to ensure that human rights treaties are only signed and ratified after Canada is satisfied that its domestic laws and policies meet the obligations under the treaty.
Implementation of the optional protocol will require significant cooperation from all levels of government, including agreement on financial implications and necessary resources.
This work takes time, particularly when we have multiple departments, agencies, and all levels of government involved.
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you about the Optional Protocol. We eagerly look forward to the results of your committee's study. I am now ready to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
