Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on May 28th, 2009

[Lucie Lamarche]

There are permanent tools that can't be described if we are outside the system, including the famous federal/provincial/territorial committee. Really, at present, the permanence, or ongoing oversight of Canada's international obligations is handled by an institution made up of the human rights commissions, which serve as a relay to the respective provincial justice ministries. It is an extremely opaque mechanism, and is based on a particular understanding of human rights. That understanding is that governments are accountable only to their own legislatures and not to civil society. There is a basis for this opaqueness. The idea of the conference—and many of us share the idea that this kind of federal/provincial/territorial conference is needed—is to share a new leadership, but also a new hypothesis, that human rights in Canada are not the exclusive property of expert institutional agencies. Ultimately, they themselves are subject to the political judgment of parliaments and legislatures, because, and we are well aware of how this operates, the provincial portion of a Canadian report is always approved first by the minister responsible. The entire process is conducted—it is not quite accurate to say in the most complete secrecy, but certainly not in the most complete spirit of sharing—in that no information is conveyed to civil society.

The idea of the conference is to find a new commitment and a statement of a principle of openness, that is, that human rights are not entirely a matter of international relations like other subjects are. It is the central nervous system of the international community, and as a result, the leadership has to promote openness in the dialogue. These are not a few minor issues in international relations. Human rights belong to people. Parliamentarians, sovereign as they may be, are not the only ones who have human rights; people do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

Mr. Marston, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I start talking to our guests, the motion that I gave notice of I'll hold until the next meeting because of the changes we made for our Colombia guest.

Thank you for your testimony. I am very pleased to hear from the civil society.

One of the things that we've noted of this process is that it's very much parked in the bureaucracy of our government. In some fashion, it's almost like the process is walled in. As dutiful as our bureaucrats are, they still are accountable to their political masters, whoever they may be at any given point in time, and I see that as problematic.

Hearing your testimony, from both of you, it was very much in line with what Mr. Neve gave us the other day from Amnesty International.

The other thing that occurred in Tuesday's testimony, in fairness to the people from the bureaucracy who were here, they sounded very open to change in the process. They were--and you should hear this--apologetic for the fact that because, as they stated, of the limited timeframe, they didn't access civil society as they felt they should have. In fairness to them, I think it's important to say that.

Since this process is new, there is still room for change and tweaking. So one of the things that's been suggested is bringing together first ministers, territorial ministers, and so on. I understand we haven't really looked at human rights in Canada in that fashion since 1988, so that's a very good thought, and I appreciate it.

Do you feel the current process has been heavily politicized, or do you feel it's because it's new to the bureaucracy that it has that kind of walled-in feeling?

[Lucie Lamarche]

Thank you.

May I quote first a few lines from the report of the working group? This is from paragraph nine of the report:

Canada views the participation of civil society as an important aspect of the UPR process, and acknowledged the dissatisfaction expressed by civil-society representatives regarding the timing and nature of its UPR consultations. Canada is committed to engaging with civil society and intends to hold further consultations in follow-up to the UPR.

In your question, it seems to me there are two different aspects that have to be considered. The first one is what happened around the UPR process's first report? And then I can see where it's been a change for the bureaucracy. What I cannot see is what was the big surprise, because the way the report was built, most of the information was taken from previous assessments produced by the UN experts committee. So there were no absolutely new fields or understanding of human rights violations, or slow progress raised in that report.

The timeframe argument has to be handled carefully, I think. I'm saying that with respect, because it's true that it's not an easy job to do, to get everybody on board and produce a report for the UN. But what's really new in the process is the format, the forum, who's evaluating the report, but not the content. So I'm a bit skeptical about the timeframe argument.

Nevertheless, we have to look at the future. What I read here is that something wonderful will happen, there will be something new taken from the UPR experience. But before we go back to the UPR, we'll have to process other reports, based on the reporting timeline related to human rights treaties. The chances are that in six months we won't necessarily be looking at UPR any more; we'll be raising the same points about the classical treaty reporting system and again worrying about the fact that consultations are either late or meaningless.

Those are questions, but I don't think that the venue of the UPR explains everything, as far as accountability and consultation are concerned.

About the depoliticization of the UPR process, Canada was a strong and very useful promoter of the mechanism. One of the strong, basic arguments was that we will have a depoliticized process. We are not too sure at this point in time that the process is absolutely depoliticized or less politicized than the former Human Rights Commission. What we do know is that it seems most state members are on board, with more or less success, and I personally see that as good news.

Now, the fact that the Human Rights Council is using UPR to level the playing field is good news, but it doesn't mean that it puts us in a position to share a better understanding of what promoting human rights at home means, in the case of Canada.

Again, those are two different ways of approaching the experience of the UPR.

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

Mr. Chair, we're close on time. I'm going to pass on the next question, because we had agreed to move on by 1:30.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

We'll move, then, to the Conservatives. Mr. Sweet, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Lamarche, I want to clarify something. A little bit might have been because of the translation--not that the translation wasn't good, but because of the speed of your speech, etc., there were a couple of sentences I didn't quite get.

You mentioned that other levels of government constantly send you back to the federal government. Do you remember making that statement? Could you give me an idea about what you're implying there? Have you pressed provincial or territorial governments, or municipal even, and they've bumped you back to the federal?

By the way, your credentials here only say “full professor, common law section”. Could you give me the rest of the organization you represent?

[Lucie Lamarche]

Thank you.

I came to the University of Ottawa three years ago. Previously I was a professor at the University of Montreal. I've been involved with civil society organizations--sometimes I feel forever--over those UN participation and human rights issues.

With due respect, I'll take my example from Quebec. Quebec was the first Canadian province that decided to show up in Geneva and share the experience of constructive dialogue over the monitoring of human rights treaties. Quebec was first, but it's not the case any more. Other provinces have decided to go and be part of the federal delegation. The UPR experience speaks for itself. As a province concerned with many fields of jurisdiction related to human rights implementation, Quebec as a province did not consult with its own civil society before the UPR, which we can assume is less complex than consulting with representatives from all over Canada.

Civil society, starting with La ligue des droits et libertés du Québec, had to insist on having a meeting after February when the delegation was back from Geneva. Basically there's documentation to show that Quebec's position is that it's accountable only to the Assemblée nationale, and it's piggybacking on federal decisions over the follow-up to UPR. I think it speaks for itself. This is one province, but I know that other provinces would take the same position on that. It belongs to the federal government when it suits provinces and territories not to be on board on issues related to human rights. This is nothing new under the sky for those of us who have been involved in that kind of process for two decades now.

That's the ping-pong game that I think should stop. When they're in Geneva, the federal government makes the point--and rightly so--of saying it is a provincial field of jurisdiction. When they come back home, the provinces tell you it's the treaty-making power, and the federal government represents the state, so there's not much they can do at the provincial level. Theoretically it doesn't keep the road, and politically it's not exactly productive.

How can we change it? We have to start with leadership and a different level of jurisdiction, sharing a common understanding of what it means to be accountable and promote consultation on human rights. Otherwise, with the next report produced in Geneva we'll have another example of the classic back and forth, everybody's responsible, but nobody's responsible for children's rights, torture, or civil rights.

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

So you have pressed the provincial government before--not specifically for the UPR--and they've simply said they weren't going to consult because it wasn't their responsibility, it's the federal government's.

[Lucie Lamarche]

I would say they have the same understanding of their duty to consult as the federal government, which at the end of the day is close to meaningless consultation.

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

You said you reviewed Mr. Neve's testimony. Did you also review the testimony of the government representatives who were here? I questioned them specifically on a new process that was going to be developed. I asked them if there was going to be a new process. I asked them if it was going to be accountable and have specific benchmarks. Can you give me an idea of what you felt about that testimony? You've already commented a bit, but give me your full, unvarnished opinion.

[Lucie Lamarche]

I don't know what the federal road map will be. I'm puzzled a bit by the expression “road map”. We may have reason to believe there will be a legitimate temptation to go for benchmarking--where are we now, and where will we be in four years? Indicators have limits. We'll have to make sure those indicators are designed from the human rights perspective.

This is more than results-based management; this is about human rights. So a whole set of questions will probably open when we're given the opportunity to understand what the road-map approach is. But I'm afraid I can share no big secrets in that regard.

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

Madam Ahmed, you mentioned a child commissioner, I believe. Could you name a few countries that have a child commissioner? Do they act in a role similar to an ombudsperson in intervening in individual cases or even on a broad spectrum of policy?

[Samira Ahmed]

The idea is kind of a two-part role. They are to look at specific cases that serve as examples of.... Sorry; let me start over.

First I'll start by listing some countries. There are the U.K., Norway, and New Zealand. I'm blanking on some. There's a long list of countries. I think there are about 15 countries that have federal advocates who are child commissioners. Their role is to oversee and make sure children are taken into account in all decisions that affect them, in terms of the legislation aspect. Also, their role is to take on cases that serve as examples for major issues affecting children. An example of a current one is an aboriginal community that has no elementary school. That would be an example of a type of case that a child commissioner in Canada would take on to serve as the example for life differences available for different children of different backgrounds.

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

They would not just take on individual cases; they would also deal with policy.

Those countries you mentioned, do they have similar infrastructures at the municipal level, like the children's aid societies, etc.?

[Samira Ahmed]

I think so. Yes.

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

Is the commissioner at the bureaucratic level of the government? You're saying they would actually act even at the development stage of legislation to see if it took the perspectives of child rights and safety into account?

[Samira Ahmed]

Their idea is to act as a kind of independent body, to be somewhat separate from the government but to provide consultation in terms of advice for different decisions that are being made. One of the best things I could suggest is that I provide some documentation that outlines the specific duties a commissioner would have, that I provide that to you at a later date based on the commission, because that's not entirely my area of expertise.

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

That's great.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you, Mr. Sweet.

Thank you to both our witnesses.

With regard to any submissions, I encourage you to submit them to the clerk of the committee. The clerk will then ensure they are distributed to all members and can be of use to all members.

It being 1:30, we'll now dismiss these witnesses with our thanks and call upon our next witness.

Perhaps we'll suspend temporarily while we bring the next witness up.

Thank you.

All right, we're back in session.

We have with us, as we'd agreed earlier, Yessica Hoyes Morales, who is a lawyer and human rights defender from Colombia, who will address us on matters of concern to her country.

There are a couple of opening notes. My understanding is that Madam Hoyos Morales does not speak either of our official languages and will speak through a translator. We'll just have to move with the speed that allows. We only have half an hour. This creates a bit of a problem.

Although I'm sure Ms. Morales has some very important things to say to us, just keeping it to the clock would be helpful. For all members, when we get around to questioning, it will be five-minute rounds. This time, unlike my previous practice, I will be ruthless in enforcing five minutes. Be warned, and think of your questions now.

Without further ado, we welcome you, Ms. Morales.

Please begin.

[Yessika Hoyos Morales, Lawyer and Colombian Human Rights Activist, As an Individual]

Good afternoon. I would like to thank you for receiving me and listening to what I have to say. I'll try to be brief in spite of the fact that I have many things to say.

My name is Yessika Hoyos Morales, and I am the daughter of Jorge Darío Hoyos Franco, a trade unionist who was assassinated in the year 2001. My father was one of the 2,709 trade unionists who have been killed since 1986 up to this date. This year,16 trade unionists have already been killed.

The problem is not only the murders but the impunity around the murderers. According to the data provided by the prosecutor general's office, up to January this year they have only investigated 816 of these murders.

In Colombia, not only trade unionists are being assassinated. We also have many of our human rights defenders, journalists, and people who belong to social organizations being killed. From July 2002 up to 2007, 1,112 extrajudicial killings took place.

The Colombian government is seriously implicated in the activities of the paramilitaries. Jorge Noguera, the former director of the national security department in Colombia, the intelligence department of the country, is being investigated by the prosecutor's office because of his links with the paramilitary.

Mr. Jorge Visbal Martelo, former ambassador of Colombia to Canada up until two years ago, is being investigated today by the prosecutor's office for his links with the paramilitary.

There are other illegal activities on the part of the Colombian government--for example, the tapping of the telephone lines of human rights defenders, journalists, members of the opposition party, and even the magistrates of the Supreme Court of Justice, and of the three largest trade union organizations in the country.

I will close my remarks by stating that there are multiple violations of human rights in my country. I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity, because it is usually other voices that are heard at forums like this.

I am very thankful to you for listening to me, because in Colombia there are really serious violations of human rights.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

Let's turn to our first questioner. I'll remind questioners that both questions and answers have to be translated. I encourage you to keep them as short as you can.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Yessika Morales for her intervention and for being here before the committee.

I want to get her perspective in terms of speaking with not just civil society but the general population of Colombia. I realize there are still some serious issues of human rights violations going on, both with the paramilitaries and FARC, and also in the civil war and in the drug trade, which also plays a major role in the country's troubles. President Uribe obviously did not create these problems. They were there before he got elected.

In my discussions with many people on the ground in Colombia about this situation, they said that there are serious violations, but it has improved somewhat, not in all aspects of society, it's true, and there are many issues that are still very serious. Specifically, you mentioned the trade unions and the killing, which is quite sad and still terrible, but there has been a certain level of security brought about by certain parts of the community and society.

I just want to know what your assessment is. For example, in speaking with the youth of your country, do they feel the situation has actually gotten worse? Since your father was taken hostage in 2001, do you feel it's gotten worse? Or is it the same or better?

[Yessika Hoyos Morales]

The security situation has worsened in Colombia. It has not improved at all. The figures actually prove that.

Last year, that is, in 2008, there were 112 extrajudicial killings that are being called “false positives”. It is not the paramilitaries or the guerrillas but the army of Colombia that is killing our youth.

I don't know if you have heard about this, but recently it has been discovered and proven that youth are being called by the military themselves, offered jobs, and taken to other places in Colombia. Then they're asked to run, dressed in guerrilla outfits, and they're killed.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I was at the OAS meeting at Medellin last year. I remember that in Medellin ten years ago you couldn't walk on the street, because you were terrified for your life, especially with all the drug activity that was taking place with Pablo Escobar. You can walk today in Medellin's downtown, and it is full of people downtown, which wasn't the case ten years ago.

Now Uribe has 80% approval rating, and he was one of the first presidents I think in a long time who was elected in the first round. How is it possible that you can say that the situation's actually worse when his popularity's so high and when the people I spoke to on the ground said that they can actually feel some level of security walking down the street, which they didn't feel ten years ago?