Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on March 4th, 2008

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

I have no problem with doing that, but we were pretty close to the final draft of the report on Cuba, as I recall, but we hadn't adopted it.

[Marcus Pistor]

No, the Cuba document right now is not officially a draft report; it's just a summary of witness testimony, so I would need instructions if you wanted more specific recommendations, and so forth. So it's a discussion document.

We can redistribute those two documents as they are, pretty much in the next day or so, for all the members, and then meet next week if you wanted to discuss that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I am sorry, but I think I am the source of the confusion. I kept saying Cuba when I meant China, but I think we could probably do the report on China pretty quickly, I am guessing. The Cuba document would involve a good deal more work because it's just a summary of testimony.

Mr. Silva, please.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I just want to have some clarification on the China report. How do we make that report public?

If it's adopted here, does that mean it still has to go to the foreign affairs committee and that it's still confidential?

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Yes.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

And there is no way we could maybe just allow the report to be public? Can this committee do that, or not?

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

To the best of my knowledge, that's not permissible under the rules.

The clerk advises me that there is no way around that. I suppose some of the subject matter could be dealt with in a different manner—but that would be separate from the report. My understanding of how this works is that it's presented at an in camera meeting of the full committee, so even the presentation is something that remains in camera.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

On Mario's point, it seems to me that maybe there is a parliamentary trick we could use to legitimize its release. For instance, when we propose motions, those motions are not considered in camera, but they are technically in the form of a report to the main committee. For instance, our motion on Saeed Mortazavi and our motion on incitement to genocide—indeed, several of us have had motions—all of those were considered in ex camera sessions and were public. I stand to be corrected, but they were in the parliamentary form of a report to the standing committee.

Why could we not therefore take the 60 pages, or whatever they are, of the China report and word this as a simple motion and consider it ex camera and adopt a motion saying, the committee hereby adopts the following motion, colon—and then next 60 pages would run? It seems to me that if the committee is not acting in good faith, we're not bound to wait for over a year for our work to be public.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I see several hands.

If you don't mind, I'll just go to Mr. Silva first, because it's his thought. Then we'll go to Mr. Marston and Mr. Cotler.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I like what Mr. Kenney had to say. We had worked very hard and certainly the researchers have worked very hard on that report on China. There's a great interest out there in the public to know what's in that report. There's also great interest all over the world to know how human rights dialogues are conducted. Right now one of these very mysterious secrets out there is how countries are dealing with their human rights dialogues, whether they're working, whether they're effective or not.

This is going to be a very unique report. There are not that many reports out there. You just google it or you try to find it through the Library of Parliament or anywhere else--information and dialogues throughout the world--they just don't have that information. It certainly will add greatly to the body of knowledge that's needed out there as to how Canada is conducting their human rights dialogue with China.

That's one of the reasons I think this report is so important, so valuable to get out there in the public. I'm just terrified that if it goes to the committee again it's just going to sit there in a black hole and they're not going to deal with it. There would be an election by then and all this work would be for naught.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Marston, please.

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

Well, my understanding of that report is that we already sent that report to the committee. It was not referred back to us, as I recall, which means, to my mind, that they do not have ownership of it.

[Marcus Pistor]

Prorogation basically kills all committee work, and the subcommittee ceased to exist completely with prorogation.

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

So this is now a new edition of our report.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

The report as a legal thing has evaporated.

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

I understand that now.

I do not disagree on the value of this report, because it is significant in my opinion. And to be blunt, there were people who deliberately squashed it, and I'm not happy about that, as would anybody who worked on it.

The only thing I'd be a bit concerned about is whether we would be at risk if we followed Jason's view of how to deliver this. Would we not be at risk of being in contempt of Parliament doing that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I think it would probably depend on how we do it. One possibility is for me to make some inquiries and get back to you. If that's agreeable to members of the committee, we can do that. Perhaps I can report back at our next meeting.

I'm going to go to Mr. Cotler first.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

It seems to me the entire hearings were of a public character. I don't see how that which is of a public character can cease to be that. There ought to be a mechanism whereby that which is of a public character is just bound and released as this set of hearings before this committee.

What about the subcommittee's report? If adopted by the subcommittee, could that be moved in the House itself, in concurrence in the House?

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Kenney.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

The whole problem is that the main committee has to report it to the whole House. We can't circumvent the main committee. We are technically a creature of the standing committee and we can only report to it. This has always been the problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

We can't report publicly. I think I'm still looking for an answer with the procedural experts, the clerk's office. Is there a way of taking the report, presenting it as a motion, without encountering any technical problems? Perhaps I could find that out.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I think we should get some creative procedural advice on whether there's a remedy to this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I'm sure it's always creative and always thoughtful.

Madame St-Hilaire, s'il vous plaît.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We all agree that subcommittee members are disenchanted and feel that their efforts are wasted. The report on China is a good example of this malaise.

Foreign affairs matters are also at issue. I would not want to be publicly chastised by the foreign affairs and international development committee. We are the ones who worked on this file and I would not want to make public, through some roundabout way, something that people do not wish to make public for one reason or another.

Our first challenge would be to have the chair find out what the subcommittee needs to do to become a full committee. I do not know what the procedure for that is. Must the leaders or the whips become involved? Must we make a specific request? Almost everyone seated at this table agrees that this is a challenge worth pursuing. Human rights are an important topic, but this is a subcommittee and I feel that this is viewed as a secondary topic. We have neither a human rights minister, nor a human rights committee. Perhaps this is a battle that the subcommittee should take up, instead of taking a difficult route to do things it does not necessarily have the right to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

The clerk has advised that it is the Standing Orders that list the various committees of the House. We would require a change to the Standing Orders that lists the human rights committee. If that were set up through a change to the Standing Orders, the procedure and house affairs committee would then go through the process of appointing members to that committee, as it does with all standing committees.

Mr. Silva, please.