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

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

Thank you, first of all, for providing the flow charts that you have.

We hear from various organizations and folks about the process, and to be very frank with you, the process in some corners is suspect. I'm not suggesting that they have any justification. I'm just saying that because you have government departments over here doing probably 95% of the work, and then you have the political bodies over here, part of whose duty is to hold the government to account.... A couple of the questions that were just thrown your way were really political questions. Madam Thi Lac was speaking about the fact that Canada has signed on to the protocol for the rights of the child, and of course that's alluding, to some extent I suppose, to Omar Khadr and other things, which are at the political level.

I looked at the report. You have commentary from Italy and Cuba. I can see how Cuba in some minds politically over here might be seen as off, but then we have Norway talking about an improvement to our processes and the Netherlands talking again about OPCAT, and I've just highlighted a couple of them--the Czech Republic and others. I'm very pleased to hear you say that we're moving the line forward. Within the departmental efforts, that may well be true, but we do have some difficulties with some of the interpretations by the current government.

I looked at your flow chart. You talked about the inclusion of the civil society in the aboriginal peoples, and you alluded to the fact that there was a time constraint at the front end that caused you some real difficulty. Beyond June 9 and into the next four years, there are some things I think we can be doing that would improve the situation for you and just improve the situation. Evidence was given. I don't know whether you were here when Alex Neve was talking about the fact that the last first ministers conference was in 1988--twenty years ago. It seems to me that we have diligent work going on by the civil service, but less-than-diligent work going on from the political class. I'm not asking you to comment on that, because I know that would be out of line.

When it comes to process, there are some suggestions I've been given that might be helpful. One of them was to include committees, such as this particular committee and perhaps the foreign affairs committee or the heritage committee, in the process so that you'd bring into public view the fact that this work is being done, so people can see it to take away that mistrust that's there. I think that's very important. I'd like your comments on the possibility of such things.

[Diane Fulford]

We recognize and value the role of this committee, as well as the Senate committee--I had an opportunity to appear in front of the Senate committee--as a really key player in the broader process of examining the issues of importance to Canadians and as you hear from civil society and aboriginal organizations in your hearings.

If the committee wishes to make specific recommendations to the government about its role, they would, of course, be considered. I'm not in the position to speak on the government's behalf on this matter, but I can assure the committee that we're still looking at effective processes for the UPR. So there is an openness to look at mechanisms that in fact will be workable and effective.

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

In Canada recently, there have been controversies concerning human rights commissions. Are the human rights commissions of Canada taken into account or asked for advice or suggestions in this process anywhere?

[Adèle Dion]

The committees are consulted, and we do dialogue with them. In the lead-up to our UPR presentation, the Canadian Human Rights Commission actually formally submitted a paper with comments to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Our last questioner, then, is Mr. Sweet, please.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses.

I agree with Mr. Silva's observations earlier. There are a number of things I agree with, but certainly I have a problem with some of the offenders who are on that list scrutinizing. But then as well I understand if you want to be a leader it means you have to open yourself up to scrutiny, sometimes even by those who could not hold a candle to your record. The fact that what we're studying right now is an interruption of a study of human rights in Iran speaks to the point I'm making.

Mr. Neve was here earlier and mentioned some things. I will quote him. He said that human rights are the most politicized and polarizing issues in the UN, that this issue is complex and politically charged, and that he had some concerns around the process but he didn't really want to say what they are before there is a full cycle. That's fair; I understand that. But we were left with this feeling, and my colleague Mr. Marston just mentioned it again.... I don't like the perception that the committee that is dealing with the territories and provinces and federal government is some concoction of Dan Brown, because the meetings are in confidence.

Because we're short of time, I have one overarching question, and I've mentioned my concerns that underlie it. Mr. Marston has mentioned his concern, and I have the same concern about any jeopardy our reputation would come under as far as human rights are concerned. And I want to know how you feel, because I walked through the whole report and I think I counted 18 countries whose preambles were how much they appreciated the leadership of Canada in the dimension of human rights.

Do you have any concern that our reputation is at stake? I'm pretty confident with what you've just said: that there is a substantial follow-up process, that there is a seriousness around implementation, and that the benchmarking this time is going to be much different. Are you concerned regarding the reputation of Canada and our record and leadership on human rights?

[Adèle Dion]

Thank you.

I believe I mentioned earlier that we did make in this first round a really concerted attempt to ask each country questions when they came up for review.

I guess, sir, the short answer to your question is no, because we did ask questions of everyone and we tried to make recommendations that were going to be measurable four years from now. For example, we recommended that Yemen remove restrictions on the ability of journalists to report and criticize government policy. We also recommended that New Zealand establish targets for improving representation of women in senior management. So we try to be very even-handed, and I think that did go quite some way to maintaining our reputation.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Just for final confirmation on this very issue, this really is a first time—of course this periodic review is the first time—where we're now benchmarking and we will actually be able to measure progress in a reasonable time on particular issues of concern.

[Diane Fulford]

The answer to that is yes. You know, I think as in every new process, there's a period we need to go through in terms of lessons learned on all of this and what new mechanisms we need to put in place. We're noticing already that there is quite a difference in the fact that we've been dealing with human rights issues in what I call a more vertical sphere, where the subject matter expertise and provinces and territories and the federal government deal with it more like this. And it has been very interesting to see, when we put together this interdepartmental table, how much more enlightenment there actually was, when we start taking a look at the synergies between the various issues on human rights and the fact that they're not airtight compartments in many cases.

So I think we need to look at what the appropriate mechanisms really are, how to strengthen them, and how to strengthen the horizontality of what this UPR process is meant to be. And of course the other very important part of UPR is the very explicit engagement of civil society and aboriginal organizations in the process.

So those are the things we really have an eye on in terms of moving forward with this.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you, all of our witnesses

And it being 2 p.m., more or less, this committee is adjourned.