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

[Diane Fulford]

That was our handout. We thought it would be a helpful way of really describing the process and the rationale for that process as we went through.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

That sounds good.

In that case, Madame Dion, why don't you lead off? We'll listen with interest. Thank you.

[Adèle Dion, Director General, Human Rights and Democracy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We thank the committee for the opportunity for us to provide an update on developments at the UN Human Rights Council, and specifically, the universal periodic review.

The UPR and its recommendations for improving Canada's human rights record falls under the purview of the Department of Canadian Heritage, so, as mentioned, I'll simply deal with the framework.

Canada championed the establishment of the universal periodic review mechanism as a key element in the reform of the UN human rights architecture. The UPR is an initiative to undertake a peer review of the human rights record of every UN member state on a regular basis, in a fair and impartial manner. As a state-led process based on constructive dialogue and cooperation, the UPR is intended to promote domestic follow-up to international commitments, thereby helping to improve the human rights record on the ground.

The UPR began in April 2008, and so far 64 countries have been reviewed. By the end of 2011, all 192 UN member states will have undergone their first review.

February 3 of this year was Canada's first UPR experience. As with all member states, we'll be up for review again in four years. Each review lasts about three hours and is conducted as an interactive dialogue between UPR participants and the state being reviewed.

All states may intervene in the UPR working group, whether or not they are council members. Non-governmental organizations may observe the review but cannot make recommendations. NGOs may, however, submit a written report prior to the UPR working group.

As we are committed to the impartiality of the UPR, Canada has made a concerted effort to pose specific, credible, and measurable recommendations to each state under review. In addition to consolidating Canada's position as a lead advocate of the UPR, this practice, we believe, complements our own process of understanding the human rights situations in other countries via consultations with the Department of Foreign Affairs’ geographic leads and with officers at our missions abroad.

Canada was an early and committed proponent of the UPR as one of the most important innovations of the then new Human Rights Council. The universality of the mechanism is its defining feature and its greatest asset. It's open and transparent, enriched by contributions from civil society, the UN human rights treaty bodies and special procedures and by experts from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Its emphasis on frank and constructive dialogue to promote real progress also adds to its potential. We remain committed to working to strengthen this new mechanism as it evolves. However, these are early days for the UPR, and challenges do remain. A degree of politicization remains in both the council and the UPR process, as some countries attempt to register complaints at the expense of the effectiveness of the human rights architecture. While this is a risk that is frankly common to all intergovernmental bodies, the universality of the UPR is the means intended to address this.

In addition, the UPR process has experienced isolated incidents of abuse, whereby some states have orchestrated praise from friendly delegations by circulating questions to allies or attempting to stack the speakers list in order to crowd out more critical interventions.

On the positive side, the reviews have been taken seriously by most states. With few exceptions, states have prepared extensively for their reviews and sent to their appearances in Geneva very large, high-level delegations headed by ministers or deputy ministers.

Many have taken positive steps or made commitments in the lead-up to, or as a result of, the reviews. These include, for example, signing and ratifying human rights treaties, agreeing to visits by the special rapporteurs and special procedures, and establishing national human rights action plans.

While it is necessary to reserve final judgment on the efficacy of the UPR until the second cycle of state reviews in order to gauge how effectively states have implemented recommendations made to them by their peers, our view is that the initial prognosis is positive.

Canada approached its own review with the goal of providing a model for transparency and accountability in addressing national human rights issues. The UPR was an important opportunity for us to look at our own record and benefit from the views and perspectives of other states participating in the dialogue. Canada welcomed the constructive input of other states.

By approaching the UPR process seriously and with integrity, Canada successfully enhanced its international reputation as a champion of human rights and strengthened its credibility while engaging other countries on their own human rights records. Following the review, our open and constructive approach was praised as a model by several delegations as well as some NGOs who had observed the review process.

We recognize that no country, including Canada, has a perfect human rights record. That is why it is essential that every country open their human rights record to scrutiny, both domestically and internationally.

The UPR has already had a positive incremental impact on the enhancement of human rights in various countries around the world. Efforts to implement the commitments in Canada's UPR response will contribute to ongoing efforts to strengthen respect for human rights.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

Why don't we go directly to you, Ms. Fulford, so you can carry on with the initial presentation? When you're done, we'll go to the questions.

[Diane Fulford]

Thank you very much.

My comments will focus on the presentation Canada made in Geneva last February 3. Then I will talk about the process of follow-up to the presentation and the response to the recommendations Canada received.

In preparing for Canada's appearance on February 3 before the working group of the Human Rights Council, we realized the range and the complexity of the issues, frankly, that were before us. Indeed, many of these issues require multi-faceted responses. Therefore, the preparations for Canada's UPR involved a variety of federal departments and provincial and territorial governments.

Civil society also has an important role to play. Canadian Heritage organized engagement sessions with civil society and aboriginal organizations in January prior to Canada's review. In addition to a session held in the national capital, sessions were held in five regions, including a session organized by the Government of Quebec.

We know that some civil society groups were disappointed with the timing and nature of the engagement. They would have preferred to be consulted prior to the submission of Canada's report. That is what we had originally intended, but the realities of both the federal and the Quebec elections during the fall meant that the sessions had to be postponed. We remained committed to having these sessions and proceeded with them in January, albeit the report had been submitted.

We heard the views and concerns of a wide cross-section of stakeholders during these sessions. These views were shared across governments, informed our discussions and preparations for the UPR appearance in February, and also have been taken into account as we considered the recommendations.

The Deputy Minister of the Department of Justice, Mr. John Sims, made the presentation for Canada as head of the Canadian delegation at our first UPR. The delegation was made up of officials from various federal departments—Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Citizenship and Immigration, Foreign Affairs, International Trade, Justice, Human Resources and Skills Development, Canadian Heritage—as well as officials representing the provinces of Quebec and Saskatchewan. As several matters dealt with matters within provincial jurisdiction, it was important for provincial governments to be represented.

A number of key documents that were available on the UN website were made available for the review, including, of course, Canada's national report, a compilation of the information contained in the reports of treaty bodies and special procedures in other relevant UN documents, and a summary of information contained in the report submitted to the UN by 50 stakeholders.

On the morning of February 3, three hours were devoted to examining Canada's human rights record. Canada was allotted one hour in total out of the three available hours to both give an initial presentation and to respond to questions raised during the course of the interactive session.

Many of the issues raised by other countries were anticipated and pertain to the challenges that were acknowledged in our opening statement and during our responses to the questions. The 68 recommendations contained in the report of Canada's UPR touched, of course, on a number of themes, including, as you know, aboriginal issues, ratification of international treaties, reducing socio-economic disparities, violence against women, racism, discrimination, etc. The report was broadly distributed across the federal government and the provinces and territories.

So what did we do in terms of follow-up? We had two key objectives in the process that followed our February appearance. The first was to ensure that our response was both timely and considered. Meeting this objective has meant engaging federal government departments, provinces, and territories as well as civil society and aboriginal organizations in what amounts to being an extremely short period of time.

Our second objective has been to set the stage for implementation over the next four years, in the lead-up to the next review. Canada's UPR review has highlighted the importance of working horizontally across government and with the provinces, territories, and civil society. All of the interested players have factored into the follow-up process.

Let me refer you to the diagram we've put together; I think it might be helpful. As you can see from the grey strip down the left side of the page, the timeframe has been very tight to meet this deadline. I'd like to draw to your attention the 11 boxes that are on the top of the page. In order to facilitate our consideration of the 68 recommendations, we clustered the recommendations according to themes. Each cluster was attributed to a lead department, which in turn has worked with colleagues from other relevant federal departments in considering the recommendations and providing input into the official response. So you have the lead departments and you have a mapping, following this page, of the 68 recommendations and how they tie in to those departments.

I have to say that this is a new mechanism that we have put in place for the UPR, and we're monitoring it very carefully. We've been meeting about every two weeks. It's a case in point, in which the UPR has brought a very new horizontal approach to the issue of human rights.

As you can see, the box just below the clustering shows our interdepartmental committee. Canadian Heritage, Justice, and Foreign Affairs have the responsibility of integrating the information provided by the federal departments, civil society, and aboriginal organizations as well as the provinces and territories. It is all collated, and the three departments are working together to integrate all of these responses.

I'd like to highlight the boxes on the left. Canadian Heritage has the particular responsibility of ensuring that civil society and aboriginal organizations are engaged in the process. In order to inform Canada's response, we sought the views of civil society and aboriginal organizations on the UPR recommendations.

To maximize the process and hear from the widest possible number of stakeholders, we have conducted a web-based consultation. The report was posted on the Canadian Heritage site and a dedicated e-mail address was set up to receive input. We enhanced this process by adding a series of questions to stimulate the response.

In addition, two face-to-face sessions were held on April 21 and April 22 in Ottawa. One session was geared toward civil society, while the second was geared toward aboriginal organizations. These sessions, as well as the web-based consultation, focused on the recommendations and mirrored the thematic approach used in the government discussions.

We have heard many thoughtful and important views and suggestions in our meetings with NGOs and aboriginal organizations. A particularly important question that has been discussed is how Canada will address the recommendations concerning effective implementation and ongoing engagement over the course of the next four years.

We were pleased to hear their views on the issue, not only to inform Canada's immediate response to the council, but also to inform our discussions on how we move forward with engagement of civil society and aboriginal groups in the future.

Of course government departments and governments already consult with civil society and aboriginal organizations on a regular basis on the specific issues that are covered by international human rights treaties. It will be important for us not to duplicate or supplant these existing discussions, but rather to focus on where we have gaps, to address any additional need in terms of the horizontal nature of UPR.

Next I'd like to draw to your attention the red boxes on the right-hand side of the page and the essential participation of provinces and territories.

The Government of Canada has been consulting with provinces and territories through the Continuing Committee of Officials on Human Rights, a longstanding federal-provincial-territorial consultative mechanism that is chaired by Canadian Heritage. The committee plays a key role. Each of its members has the responsibility to obtain and integrate the views of all the ministries in that jurisdiction that are affected by the recommendations. Through the committee, the provinces and territories help to shape Canada's report and are now helping to shape Canada's response.

The information obtained as a result of all these federal government mechanisms, with the help of federal-provincial-territorial consultations and our consultations with civil society and Aboriginal organizations, was sent back to the key departments: Canadian heritage, justice and foreign affairs. They continue to work closely with the UPR follow-up framework in preparing Canada's response. The draft response will shortly be approved by the three ministers.

Once Canada's response has been finalized and approved, it will be submitted to the United Nations by Canada's mission in Geneva. Following submission, we will post the response on the Canadian Heritage website so that it will be publicly available.

The date for Canada's appearance at the Human Rights Council has been set for June 9. We are aiming to submit our response in the week prior to Canada's appearance, hopefully on June 2. That's our target date.

During the one-hour session on June 9, Canada will have 20 minutes to officially present its response. Civil society organizations and national human rights institutions will also have 20 minutes to make presentations at that session, and 20 minutes will be set aside for statements from member and observer states. So 20, 20, and 20 minutes will make up our hour.

At the June session, the outcome of Canada's universal periodic review will be adopted through a council decision. There are three documents here--the report of the working group, which contains the 68 recommendations; Canada's response; and, lastly, a summary of the June plenary discussion, that one-hour session. Those three things will in fact constitute the outcome of Canada's review. Once all of these documents are available, they will be tabled in Parliament by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

In conclusion, we've had a lot of work to do in the last couple of months. Officials at all levels have been working very diligently to ensure that the work is completed within this timeframe. It has been a challenge, given the number of jurisdictions involved, in preparing a response that, frankly, everybody can agree to. However, I'd like to stress that although our immediate focus is on the development of Canada's response, we certainly understand that this is not the end of the process. It is in fact the beginning of a four-year cycle until Canada's next UPR report. The role of the response is to set the stage, in fact, for the next four years.

At this point, having concluded the presentation, I'm certainly available to answer any questions; we all are.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

Speaking of challenges, it's less than 15 minutes before 2 o'clock. In order to do this mathematically, what I'm going to do is give four-minute question-and-answer rounds. I will just avoid seeing the clock as being past 2 o'clock until we've completed our questions.

That said, which Liberal MP would like to start?

Go ahead, Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you also for your report information.

There are some criticisms of the way the structure has been for the UPR. It's good that every country is going to in fact be analyzed, which I think is a very positive step from what it was like before in the commission. However, it is a little bit much to hear countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran being critical of Canada's human rights record. So I take note of that as well and I have some issues about that. However, this is the process.

I guess we will only know at the end of maybe 2011 whether this was really a worthwhile exercise, whether it's worked well. We'll see how those countries go about implementing some of the human rights. Maybe when we're up against other countries, we can sort of be more informed as to whether those countries have in fact also met their obligations.

I realize that some of our challenges have to do with our system of laws in Canada and our federation. This sometimes creates problems with us meeting some of our obligations. That's not an excuse. I personally feel we always have to do everything we can to in fact ratify those protocols and certainly endorse an important declaration, like the ones on the rights of indigenous people, which Canada was really working on for quite a long time.

I realize that some of the intricacies of our laws make it quite difficult. However, we do have a robust system of legal precedents in this country that does in fact address the needs of minorities and a lot of the concerns on human rights. But I am concerned about Canada's human rights records. I'm even more concerned about the appalling records of some of those countries that are criticizing Canada for our human rights records.

I want to know how you are going to prioritize some of these recommendations that were put forward. Is there a list that has been dealt with in the departments to say which things we are going to be able to tackle before the next review? Have there been ongoing discussions with the different ministries throughout Canada as well at the provincial level? What's going to be the prioritization?

The second thing is that one of the things they keep asking for.... I just had different protocols on the convention against torture, but also on the convention on the rights and duties of the Organization of American States, which we have yet to ratify. I'm not sure why we haven't signed on to it. When we joined in 1992 we never really ratified. I keep on asking the minister why we haven't ratified. Even our own minister did not ratify it at that time, the Liberal minister. So I'm asking if there's been any progress at all, now that we also have a minister of state for Latin America. Has there been any push for that?

Those are my two questions. It's a short time, sorry.

[Diane Fulford]

Thank you.

On the question about prioritization, if I can address that one, the work that we have been conducting is in fact to take a look at the 68 recommendations that have been provided. Maybe I can say that despite your reservation about some of the countries and perhaps the relevancy of some of the countries coming forward, I think that overall we were very encouraged by the calibre of the 68 recommendations that came forward from the states. Certainly they were very much worth considering.

Much of our work over the last months has been in fact to take a look at those 68 recommendations with a view that, really, the report that we want to make back to the United Nations is to frame those 68 recommendations in terms of their prioritization. That would be in terms of what the agenda will really look like for Canada, which of those recommendations are we not going to be adopting, which of the recommendations are we going to be striving for, and which ones do we intend on perhaps advancing with, but with some tweaking in terms of the way they were positioned with us.

The work that has been largely undertaken with federal government departments, with the provinces and territories, and indeed with civil society, has been to get the collective views about the importance and the relevancy of those 68 recommendations. We've asked where it would benefit Canada to actually focus its agenda, in terms of the next four-year cycle and the accountability that we will have, to report in four years on our UPR process. So that has very much been key to the work that we have undertaken.

On the second question, Adèle, do you want to address that?

[Adèle Dion]

Yes, thank you.

On the protocols for the convention against torture, essentially we are doing the work that needs to be done and the consultations with the provincial governments before we make a recommendation to ratify.

On the OAS convention, there again, that is under consideration. It's been a longstanding subject of discussion between the federal government, various departments, and the provinces and territories, but still more work needs to be done.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Do you mean work by the department on why Canada's not ratifying it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

We're out of time, Mr. Silva.

[Adèle Dion]

Sorry, I didn't quite catch the beginning.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Is there administrative and departmental hesitation with respect to signing on to the protocol?

[Adèle Dion]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

We're going to have to speed things up a bit. That took seven minutes.

We'll go to Madame Thi Lac.

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

Thank you for being with us today.

You talked about some recommendations that you want to implement, some that are less urgent and some that you are simply going to ignore. Which recommendations seem to be a priority at the moment? I imagine that you are some way into your report.

[Diane Fulford]

Thank you.

I can tell you that the report is fairly advanced but has not been completed. And there's an important final process the report has to go through, which is that it has to be signed off by the ministers. Until it is signed off by the ministers, as officials we cannot comment on the content of that report.

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

Okay.

Has our record on human rights got better or worse in the last 10 years?

[Diane Fulford]

Do you mean in terms of Canada's human rights record?

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

Yes.

[Diane Fulford]

I think there's no question that when you look at the considerable number of treaties Canada is a signatory to--and I also read with great interest the Senate committee's assessment of Canada's human rights record over the last 40 years--I have to say that the research they've done and the reports they've done are a really compelling testament to the fact that there's an awful lot of work being done in all sorts of areas on human rights in Canada. Arguably, we are going in the right direction. I think, definitely, that Canada, in the scheme of things, is proud of its record on human rights, and I think we have made considerable progress in many areas.

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

In the last year, especially, Canada has signed some treaties that it is not honouring. Take the example of Omar Khadr. Canada is a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child which deals with the involvement of children in armed conflict. So there is one of the treaties Canada is not honouring.

When I asked whether our record was getting worse or better, I was thinking of cases like that. Canada has signed treaties that it is not honouring, and a case is now before the courts. That has to be a first.

[Adèle Dion]

We are not really in a position to comment on specific cases, especially when they are before the courts or before a specific human rights committee.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Marston.