Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on May 26th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Welcome to the 20 ^th meeting of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

We have two sets of witnesses today. First, Alex Neve, the secretary general of the Canadian chapter of Amnesty International, will be testifying and then taking questions until 1:15. We then have Adèle Dion, director general of the human rights and democracy bureau at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and Victoria Berry, who is the deputy director of the human rights policy division. We also have with us two personnel from the Department of Canadian Heritage: Diane Fulford and Liane Venasse. They will also have 45 minutes.

This means that our witnesses are free to give their testimony at the normal length, but questions will have to be shorter. We'll have one round of questions, as opposed to two for each of the sets of witnesses.

I will just note here that, as always, my assistant has given me the Wikipedia articles on our witnesses, so I have Alex Neve's Wikipedia article in front of me. Actually, I've known Alex for a long time, and he's always a welcome guest, but I can't help noticing here that he had a birthday two days ago.

Happy Birthday, Mr. Neve. We welcome you here and invite you to start your comments, which, of course, are on the Human Rights Council report on Canada.

[Alex Neve, Secretary General, Amnesty International]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can honestly say that I don't think I've ever had my birthday acknowledged in Parliament before, so it's kind of exciting.

It's a pleasure to be with you all this afternoon on an issue that Amnesty International strongly believes is of very real and certainly quite timely and pressing importance.

There's no doubt about it that perhaps the most significant outcome of the UN human rights reform process that began back in 2005 was the establishment of the universal periodic review procedure under the newly established Human Rights Council. As committee members may well be aware, Canada was a champion of the effort to establish this new review process, and has continued to be a leading voice in insisting that it must be a strong and credible process within the UN.

When it was set up hopes were very high, maybe naively so. I think many of us, governments and civil society alike, hoped and dreamed that somehow this might mark an end to the bickering and horse-trading that had paralyzed so many efforts within the previous UN Commission on Human Rights to ensure that all countries--any country with real human rights challenges--would have its record examined by the international community. The prospect, finally, of a universal review process that would mean that every single country, no matter how powerful or how neglected that country might be, would come under the microscope of international scrutiny was therefore a very promising and exciting one, to say the least.

The cycle for reviewing all member states of the UN is a four-year process made up of 12 separate review sessions. Sixteen countries are examined each time. We're close to halfway through the process now. Five of 12 sessions have happened. Most significantly for our purposes, of course, Canada has recently had its own turn before the review. That review happened on February 3 this year. The working group within the Human Rights Council that compiles the various recommendations states made to Canada during the course of that review was adopted on February 5. Canada has not yet indicated which of those recommendations it intends to accept, but it will be doing so.

Your session is very timely. Next week, in advance of the Human Rights Council's consideration of the final report on Canada's UPR, which is scheduled to happen on June 9, we understand, but we don't have a specific date, that Canada intends to submit its written report to the Human Rights Council.

In my remarks this afternoon, I'd like to touch on three topics related to the UPR. First, very briefly, are some general comments with respect to how the process is faring overall, not just with respect to Canada's review. Second is a a very broad overview of the nature of the recommendations that have been put in front of Canada by states. There are many, and some of them are quite detailed. I'm not going to give an exhaustive review. It will just be a broad overview. Finally, we have some concerns and recommendations with respect to the steps Canada needs to take to ensure that there is strong implementation of the recommendations emerging from this review.

First, how is the process faring? Amnesty International, through our office in Geneva, has followed closely and has participated actively in many of the reviews that have happened to date. I think that perhaps the most important thing I hear back from my colleagues in Geneva is that we must be careful not to rush to judgment. We are still less than halfway through what is a groundbreaking and novel process dealing with one of the most politicized and polarizing of all UN issues: human rights. Eighty countries have had their records reviewed. Some, like China, have never been reviewed before in this sort of setting, despite many efforts over several decades to make that happen. That in itself is a notable achievement. But there are still 112 reviews to come, so we have a long way to go.

The results to date, of course, have been far from perfect. There have been some examples of some quite good reviews. Two that come to mind are those dealing with Colombia and the United Kingdom.

There have been a number of woeful disappointments, such as Tunisia, Algeria, and Cuba. Some reviews, such as the one of China, are a bit hard to judge. It certainly was not the review we would have wanted, but as I said, the fact it even took place is a huge step forward.

Most come somewhere in the middle. There have been some positive impacts already. Many countries who have never had any meaningful process of dialogue at all with NGOs in their country about human rights do now have those in place. Several countries have taken or committed to a concrete agenda for human rights reform because of a review. Nigeria, for instance, signed three treaties and ratified one just before its review was conducted.

At this stage, Amnesty International is pressing for a number of procedural improvements to the process—and the strengthening of the UPR will only come incrementally. We're urging, for instance, that government delegations consider including independent human rights experts in the delegations they send to Geneva. We're pressing for governments to more consistently draw their legislative bodies into the UPR process, both before and after the reviews take place. Obviously, the fact this committee has turned its mind to the topic is very welcome.

At minimum, we've highlighted it is vital that the results of the UPR reviews be formally tabled with national parliaments. In Canada, given the provincial responsibility for a number of human rights issues, we would suggest this needs to happen with provincial legislatures as well.

Consultations with civil society groups must continue and need to be improved and expanded in many countries. And tactics that encourage only friendly interventions—a longstanding strategy used within the UN with respect to human rights debates—must also be cut back or curtailed.

Those are just a few general or overarching comments. Let me move to the second topic and highlight the nature of some of the recommendations that have emerged from the Canadian UPR.

The official report adopted by the UPR working group within the Human Rights Council lists 68 recommendations, many of which were made repeatedly by several different governments. Notably, additional recommendations made by 24 other governments—who did not have the opportunity to make oral representations during the review, because of a lack of time—are not included in the official report. It's one of the rules within the Human Rights Council that your recommendations only make it onto paper if you had a chance to stand up and speak in the session. If time ran out before your turn came up, your recommendations don't make it.

The recommendations cover a broad array of topics, all of which will be familiar to members of this subcommittee. They include the nature of consultations and dialogue with indigenous peoples and civil society; the approach taken to implementing human rights obligations; and Canada's position with respect to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

There were also calls for Canada to ratify a number of other international treaties, including the International Labour Organization's convention on indigenous peoples, the American Convention on Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.

Canada has quite a good record of signing on to international treaties, but as you can tell from the recommendations made, there are a number of important treaties we have not yet taken up.

There were, of course, numerous concerns expressed with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples, including the alarming rates of discrimination and violence against indigenous women, the need for significant improvements in protecting land and resource rights, high levels of poverty, inadequate housing, equal access to education and health care, and problems with the justice system and child protection.

There were also a range of concerns related to poverty, including calls to develop poverty reduction strategies and to deal with issues related to homelessness and inadequate housing.

Women's rights came up repeatedly, including domestic violence, trafficking in women and girls, and the treatment of women prisoners in federal penitentiaries.

There were concerns related to immigrants and refugees, such as the domestic live-in caregiver program, a program that's been in the news again recently in Canada, of course; unequal labour rights for some migrant workers; problems with family reunification; and detention of refugee claimants.

There were issues respecting the justice system, including detention facilities for juveniles, the use of taser guns, and Canada's clemency policy in death penalty cases. There were issues respecting anti-terrorism, on which countries expressed concerns related to fair trial issues in immigration security cases, failure to fully incorporate the absolute ban on deportations to torture, and racial profiling in security cases.

There were other issues around racism; discrimination; the treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered individuals; the equality of persons living with disabilities; and hate crimes.

As you can see, this broad overview touches on a range of human rights concerns familiar to most Canadians. Most have been raised with Canada over the past 15 to 20 years in the course of various reviews conducted by other expert bodies within the UN, such as the committees that monitor compliance with the treaties Canada has signed on to or the special rapporteurs, working groups, and other experts who make up what are known as the UN special procedures.

The main point that is important to highlight here is that this is a collection of important and reasonable recommendations, the bulk of which are by no means new to Canada and many of which originate with Canada's friends and allies.

That brings me to the last point, which is the issue of implementation. If many of these are recommendations that have been put before Canada before, some repeatedly, what is it that has stood in the way of implementation, and how do we ensure a better approach to implementation this time?

Canada, of course, demonstrates and exercises considerable and important leadership on the world stage when it comes to human rights, and has for many years. Canada does, sadly, have a dismal track record, however, of acting on the human rights advice we receive from the UN, something we certainly encourage and expect other countries to do readily. Recommendations come back to Canada and typically disappear into the labyrinth of federalism. The overwhelming bulk are not implemented. It is even more frustrating that it has typically proven next to impossible to determine the status of a recommendation, which level or department of government is looking at it, if at all, whether the government has any plans to move forward with it, and if not, why not.

The government generally points to a committee known as the Continuing Committee of Officials on Human Rights, which has been in existence for more than 30 years, as the vehicle that coordinates and ensures implementation. As members of this committee likely know, the continuing committee is made up of mid-level officials who generally have little decision-making authority with respect to what may often be complex and politically charged issues, and the continuing committee carries out all its work in secret, declining to even release its agenda to the public.

As a group that facilitates an exchange of information among government officials working on human rights issues, the continuing committee very likely plays an important role, but it was never meant to be a body that will ensure accountable and transparent implementation of important human rights recommendations that the UN directs at Canada. Something more, something different, is needed.

There should certainly be nothing secretive about human rights in Canada. The discussions about how to move forward with human rights advice from the UN should be accessible to all Canadians and should benefit from high-level political support and involvement that facilitates prompt and accountable decision-making among various governments in Canada.

As a notable aside, I'd like to highlight for committee members that there has not been a ministerial-level meeting in Canada focused on human rights for more than 20 years. The last such meeting was in 1988. Many issues, such as health, the environment, and justice, are recognized to be of such importance as to be deserving of yearly ministerial meetings; surely human rights are important enough to merit senior political attention more than once every two decades.

UN bodies have, with increasing impatience, called on Canada to develop a better approach for many years. The Senate human rights committee has often gone on the record with that same concern. And now, with this latest review, numerous other governments have urged Canada to improve.

That is what is different now. This is not only experts from within the UN human rights system. This is Canada's peers, other governments on the world stage, calling on Canada to do so. They have all highlighted that federalism can not and need not stand in the way of an effective approach to implementing human rights. Canada heard this from many countries, including such friendly countries as the United Kingdom, Portugal, Norway, and Mexico.

In many respects, this may be the most important issue at stake in this review. It is the one issue that unites indigenous and civil society groups across Canada. Regardless of their area of human rights concern, they all agree that the answer is to develop a better system.

A group of organizations wrote to the Prime Minister soon after Canada's UPR, urging that when Canada goes back to the UN in June to indicate which recommendations we are prepared to accept, we take up the recommendation that came from so many states to strengthen implementation.

Let me end by quickly sketching out the key points that NGOs have suggested should guide the development of a new approach.

First, we do believe it is time to convene a meeting of federal, provincial, and territorial ministers responsible for human rights. This meeting should review the UPR recommendations and should adopt a shared implementation plan.

Second, bodies such as the continuing committee and a federal deputy ministers committee that exists should be tasked with working closely with indigenous peoples, organizations, and civil society groups to support and facilitate the ministerial meeting and decision-making process.

Third, parliamentary and legislative committees across the country should actively review the UPR recommendations in sessions that are open to the public. The fact that both the Senate human rights committee and this subcommittee are doing so is a very welcome beginning. We'd like to see that continue at the federal level, even after Canada's report goes in next week. We would also like to see this start to happen at the provincial and territorial level.

Fourth, it is important that government works with indigenous peoples, organizations, and civil society to ensure that there is an accessible and timely process of dialogue and consultation about the UPR recommendations, including after the submission of Canada's report next week.

Lastly, we think it's important that the government begins to work actively to ensure that there are effective and accessible remedies across Canada for violations of all human rights. That needs to be a central part of an implementation agenda.

I'm going to end there. I'd just like to stress that it's very much our view, and I think it's a view shared by organizations nationally and internationally, that Canada's human rights leadership is on the line as we move into this final stage of the UPR process. If we are not able to move through this UPR and demonstrate a willingness, a determination, and an ability to implement and comply with the recommendations that emerge from this review, in our view the UPR, an important but tenuous innovation within the UN, will have lost a very important champion, and an opportunity to significantly strengthen human rights protection in Canada will have been squandered.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Those are my comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you, Mr. Neve.

It was our plan to have you as a witness until a quarter past. Since it's now five minutes to the hour, simple mathematics gives each party, in one round of questions, five minutes for both questions and answers.

I'll be timing you, members, with that thought in mind.

We'll start with the Liberals, with Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our witness, and I also want to thank Amnesty International for the wonderful work they do on promoting and supporting human rights in Canada and throughout the world. And I apologize for being late. I was in another meeting.

I want to take note of some of the issues you had raised. Number one, since we had the UPR report back in February of this year, has there been any progress at all by the government in terms of even trying to attempt to address some of the issues of concern?

Number two, of course we're very much dismayed by the fact that after years of both Liberals and Progressive Conservatives working on the rights of indigenous people, the declaration was not endorsed by this government. And I think that if there are to be any changes in the future, given the fact that it's not a protocol, I'm not sure how Canada would go about doing the endorsement, other than maybe just making a public statement. Maybe you can elaborate on that and how we go about doing that, because I think it is quite important that we do that.

The third question would be does the fact of our federalism sometimes present obstacles and barriers as to how we can implement, for example, certain protocols? The one I'm thinking of is the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. When I was sort of lobbying for that, the reference was always “Well, we have to deal with our provinces and there are a lot of issues there”. So does that present itself as a barrier to our moving forward with some of these protocols?

Those are the three questions.

[Alex Neve]

Thank you. Why don't I take them in reverse order?

Clearly federalism is a challenge. In our view it's not a barrier, but unfortunately for far too long it has been accepted as a barrier. That's why we—not just Amnesty International, but organizations across the country—have been pressing for this moment, this important moment of Canada's engagement with the international human rights system, as an opportunity for us to signal determination and will to develop a better, more coordinated, more transparent, and more effective approach to implementing human rights obligations within a federal state. We think it can be done. We think there are lessons to be drawn from other countries. We're not the only federal country in the world, of course. Every federal state is structured a bit differently, but there are many lessons to be drawn from other states.

It's not the only issue we grapple with within our own federalism as well. Certainly thinking across the public policy spectrum, I'm sure there are issues everyone would agree are perhaps better dealt with in a federal structure than others, but lessons can be learned from looking at some of those other fronts as well. That's why we think it should be among all the issues that are in front of Canada right now and coming out of this review. That's the one that really deserves priority attention—to really devote some time, energy, and resources to developing and putting in place a new process.

I think the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture is a prime example. Canada has been working on the possibility of ratifying that important new treaty for six years now—an important treaty that's meant to prevent torture around the world. We've not yet signed onto it, thus we can't even push, cajole, or encourage other countries where torture is a real concern to sign on, because we haven't done so ourselves.

With respect to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I think you'll note it is one of the most common concerns and recommendations that was raised by a whole range of governments, including allies and friends of Canada, including many other countries that have indigenous populations. They are all expressing concerns about Canada's opposition to the declaration and are all calling on Canada to reverse its position and to agree to support the declaration. You're right that because it's not a treaty there's not a formal process within the UN for Canada to go back and change its vote. I think the model would be to follow what Australia recently did. Australia, similarly, is a country that had voted against it, but has had a recent change of position and has decided to support it. That was done through very high-profile public statements made by Australian political leaders, making it clear both domestically and internationally that Australia now supports the declaration.

Lastly, with respect to whether there's been progress over the last few months in dealing with some of the issues, I don't think any of us were necessarily expecting that in that window of time, between the February review and June when Canada submits its report, that we'd see substantive work on some of the human rights issues. We're looking for some sign that a very thoughtful, and we would have hoped, much more public and politically accessible process of discussion about those recommendations and considerations among the 68 of which ones the government feels more inclined to accept and which ones not. NGOs had a one-day meeting with some federal government officials about this. That's the extent of dialogue or discussions that have happened between February and June. Unfortunately it really wasn't as much, or certainly not as high-level as would have been merited, given the importance of the issues. There has also been an e-mail inbox that people are welcome to send messages and recommendations to. But that's been the extent of the exchange and dialogue between February and June.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

Mrs. Thi Lac, the floor is yours.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Good afternoon and thank you for being here. It is always interesting to meet people who involved in the area of human rights and who are working to advance them in the world.

You mentioned major treaties that Canada has not signed. In your view, which are the treaties that Canada really should sign?

You also mentioned the 68 recommendations in the report. If you had to list the three most important, which would they be?

You also mentioned recommendations that could have been made, but that were not listed in the report. What are they?

You mentioned that Canada's leadership could be called into question if the recommendations are not implemented. In your view, is this about the power to do so, or the political will?

You mentioned the reforms that should be put in place and the great delay that has occurred. What would be an acceptable timeframe for implementing these reforms?

Thank you.

[Alex Neve]

Well, let me begin with the question of which treaties. In the course of the UPR there were probably somewhere in the range of six to eight treaties that came up that governments called on Canada to ratify. We certainly wouldn't disagree with any of those recommendations. I think among all of those treaties there are two that perhaps should be at the top of the list simply because we know these are two that Canada has been actively looking at already, such that much of the work has been done, and in our view, therefore, now is the time to cross the finish line and ratify them.

One is the optional protocol to the convention against torture, which just came up and has been actively under review for about six years now. The other is the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its optional protocol. Canada signed the convention, but has not yet ratified it. We know there are discussions going on within the federal and provincial governments with respect to that very important treaty. It's a groundbreaking treaty dealing with what is often the most overlooked human rights issue on the world stage, and that is the plight of persons with disabilities.

I'm going to decline to choose among the 68 recommendations because it's an impossibility. I shouldn't say that. I'm not going to totally decline. I'm going to highlight one, which is the one that I've been talking about in my presentation as well, and that is the recommendation about a better approach to implementation. The reason I want to highlight that one is that it is absolutely our view--and this is shared by indigenous peoples groups and NGOs right across the country--that if we got that right, if we had a better, more effective, transparent, accountable implementation process in Canada that really brought the federal, provincial, and territorial governments together in a better way around human rights issues, all of the other issues to a certain degree would start to take care of themselves. There would be a better, more reliable system to turn to with respect to disability rights or concerns, or refugee issues, or women's rights, or rights of indigenous peoples. That is the one that we would prioritize. That's not to suggest that the others aren't of concern, but that one is the tip of the iceberg, in our view.

Yes, we are concerned that leadership is an issue here. We're very proud of the positions Canada took over the last several years in pressing for the universal periodic review, number one, to be adopted. That wasn't easy. There were very difficult UN debates at the time. Many countries obviously wanted to either defeat it or weaken it and ensure that if it were adopted by the UN, it would not be an effective process, it would be toothless. We didn't get the perfect process, but we got a process in the end that we think can deliver some real improvements within the UN human rights system.

But Canada's continuing leadership matters. If we don't come sailing through our own review having demonstrated absolutely the best possible approach, then the strength of our voice when it comes time to push and criticize and encourage other countries with respect to their UPRs is that much diminished.

Lastly, with respect to a timeline around reform, and particularly this issue about reforming the approach taken to implementation, Amnesty International and other groups have been calling for reform for a good eight to ten years now. So we're well into that timeline, in our view. But looking over the coming year, we would consider this to be a crucial year, the time between June of this year and June of next year, which would be the one-year anniversary of Canada's UPR report's being finalized. In our view it would be very important to be able to demonstrate some significant progress--for instance, during that one-year timeframe to convene the ministerial meeting on human rights that we think is so long overdue, which in itself could start to become a catalyst for a lot of the other work that needs to happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Marston, please.

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

I want to thank Mr. Neve for attending here today, because Amnesty International has a worldwide reputation in the area of human rights and on this particular topic.

When we stop to look at the periodic review, and we start considering what is being asked of Canada, what is being pointed out as our shortfalls, we see that Italy is talking about the use of tasers in Canada, Cuba is referring to our aboriginals and how they're disadvantaged. Norway seems to be following your recommendation to establish a process to deal with what comes out of the periodic review. The Netherlands is talking about the optional protocol. I was the person who moved the motion to study the UPR and make some recommendations, because I'm concerned about Canada's international reputation on the human rights file.

We've procrastinated on several significant protocols, OPCAT being the one that stands out to me. The cases of Abdullah Almalki and Maher Arar are fairly prominent news stories. In some senses, Canada has been guilty of torture by proxy in cases like this. When the Canadian people hear this, it makes them take a step back, but that's a reality we're living with.

I hear coming from you a recommendation on ways to look at this protocol, the UPR, and to respond to it. Part of our problem is that we're facing a deadline for Canada's response on June 9 or 11. As far as this committee goes, it makes it difficult for us. I intend to bring a motion forward at the next committee meeting, and all members will have a copy. It will be about implementation, and I hope it's something we can move forward on.

Coming back to OPCAT, Canada was the country that led on this in the United Nations. Can you imagine why Canada wouldn't want to be part of it? We've heard rumblings. This committee heard presentations on it about two years ago, and it developed that the provinces were afraid to have our provincial prisons looked at from outside Canada. If that is remotely true, we have a serious problem.

I'd like your response.

[Alex Neve]

We should have a clear and obvious answer to that question, but we don't. The fact that we don't have a clear and obvious answer is itself an indictment of our current approach to human rights implementation. The process within Canada to consider signing on to an important human rights treaty such as the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture is secretive. The main vehicle for those discussions is the continuing committee of officials that I referred to earlier, which does all its work behind closed doors. It does not report publicly or share the issues, concerns, and roadblocks with Canadians. What they are, we're left to guess. We have to read between the lines.

We hear that some provinces may have concerns about inspections of their prisons. For what reasons, it's not clear. We've also heard that there may be some departments within the federal government that have misgivings, but that's not clear either. There have been debates about how widely the optional protocol would reach. Everyone would agree that it covers jails and prisons, but then you get into holding centres in police stations and detention centres operated by first nations police forces. Apparently, there's been some concern or uncertainty about this. But since none of it is made public, there's no opportunity for engagement between Canadians and the officials involved. We simply don't know. After six years, Canada has not signed on to an important convention, the sole aim of which is to prevent torture. Preventing torture is something this nation stands for, and we should have been among the first countries to sign on to this. One would have thought that by this time we would be leading the charge, pressing other countries to sign on to this treaty, including countries where Canadians have experienced torture, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt. But we can't do so.

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

The reality, too, of this situation is even if we have good souls working in the government departments, it's been 20 years, according to your testimony, since we had a first ministers' conference on human rights. Canada has a reputation in the world of being an all-star on human rights, and we haven't even done that in our country. I find that very disturbing to hear.

I have heard as well that even at the last one, we didn't have the federal minister present. I don't know whether that's accurate or not, but it really kind of leaves me at a loss for words, because we do have a very valued reputation on the world stage. Repeatedly people have come through my office from the Philippines, from Bolivia, from Colombia, from other places, workers who have had concerns about Canadian companies working in their countries, or other concerns.

Most of it comes back to one word. It's the activities of some countries killing with impunity, and the fact that Canada, because of its reputation, has a valued role to play at times like that. But if we lose our own reputation for human rights on the world stage, that will be a major international disaster, in my opinion. So I'm pleased to hear your comments about a structure that might guide us down a path to get us to restoring that.

I thank you, Mr. Chair. I must be out of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

You are indeed out of time, but I think that was more in the nature of a comment than a question, and on that basis I'll go to our last questioner, Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate Mr. Neve's testimony thus far. Clearly he has a passion for what are very important issues.

I guess that, coming to this committee, I will only speak from my background, having spent some time within indigenous politics, and I think I would probably frame my questions along those lines. I'm sure you're somewhat aware of our government's achievements in terms of extending the Canadian Human Rights Act to first nations people. I'm not sure how familiar you are, but for about 30 years, ever since the Human Rights Act was brought into Canada, the first nations reservations were actually human-rights-free zones. Many governments attempted to bring forward this extension of the Canadian Human Rights Act to first nations communities, and thankfully we were able to achieve that last year.

Of course, right now we continue our work towards extending matrimonial property rights to first nations communities, and specifically to women. These are important areas that I think we would both agree need to continue to have diligent efforts put towards them.

You did raise, obviously, a concern in relation to Canada's decision not to sign on to the declaration of indigenous rights. I just want to speak to that for a moment. I imagine you're pretty familiar with the declaration in terms of a number of its clauses. Are you familiar with article 26?

[Alex Neve]

If you could, please remind me of what it deals with.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Let me remind you, because I know you probably deal with so many protocols and declarations, it's tough to keep them all in your head. I don't blame you for not knowing the text off the top of your head. I don't know it either, but I have it here and you'll just have to trust me that this is the correct text.

Article 26 states in section (1):

Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.

This particular article is something I always had a difficulty with, especially in relation to Canada's extensive treaties. Of course, I come from the west, and as an aboriginal person we look to treaties 1 through 10 as being a very significant achievement in the negotiations between our indigenous peoples and the foreign countries that came to Canada. So treaties 1 through 10 are essential in maintaining the peace that was eventually found, but also in terms of the negotiation that many indigenous people had with the governments of the day.

There are many communities that rely on those treaties, and to me this particular article does begin to open up a legal opportunity to question the treaties that were signed. Do you have that same concern?

[Alex Neve]

No. We believe that provision will reinforce the importance of those treaties being respected. I think that position has really been borne out--more important than my voice or Amnesty International's voice on this issue--by the voices of indigenous leaders and organizations across the country. For years and years they were actively engaged in the debates at the United Nations as the difficult process of negotiating this declaration was proceeding. They feel very confident that the declaration that has emerged is good for them and consistent with ensuring strong protection of the rights they enjoy already in Canada and helping to ensure that those rights cannot and will not be eroded. This declaration is by no means only about indigenous peoples in Canada. It's an international document, and I think a lot of indigenous organizations across the country recognize how important it is for the rest of the world as well. It has to be supported for that reason also.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

There are some in the aboriginal community in Canada who feel that the treaties that have been signed are not adequate. In fact, they feel that the treaties perhaps negotiated by their ancestors didn't achieve the degree of reciprocity of value they would like. Some believe that the declaration would assist them in essentially opening up that opportunity to renegotiate.

[Alex Neve]

I don't think the declaration in itself opens up anything that wasn't already there. If a case can be made that a particular treaty is flawed or not complete, or historical evidence can demonstrate that a treaty was negotiated on the basis of misunderstandings, or anything of that sort, those kinds of assertions and arguments can already be made in Canadian courts. Whether or not they succeed would depend on the evidence and what lies behind those negotiations.

I don't think this declaration changes or adds to that. It simply says that the important rights indigenous peoples have to land and resources need to be respected, and that will be a bit different in every national context.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Reading the text of article 1, an argument could be made that the entire country, as we know our borders to currently exist, should be reverted back to traditional ownership.

[Alex Neve]

I've never heard any leaders or organizations assert that interpretation or suggest in any way that's the intention of how the declaration be interpreted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you, Mr. Neve.

We've gone a tiny bit over the allotted time, but members are very good about being timely in their remarks. I suggest we suspend for a few minutes while the next witnesses approach and take their seats.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Order. We've reconvened.

We have witnesses from two departments before us. I've already done the introductions, at the beginning of our meeting. The witnesses are from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and from Canadian Heritage.

I have in my hand a written text for a presentation by Madame Dion from DFAIT. Was it your intention to have separate presentations, or to do one presentation for both departments?

[Diane Fulford, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Our intention, if it's the will of the committee, was that Adèle Dion was going to give a little bit of the context behind UPR, and a brief presentation on that. I was going to run through a little bit of a presentation with the committee on the process that the Department of Canadian Heritage, along with all of the partners on the UPR process, has undertaken up to this point, and what we intend to do in terms of submitting the report.

I think we distributed a handout. I'm not sure that everybody got it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Yes. That's your handout, then, for your department?