Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on April 29th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

This is the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Today is April 29, 2010, and this is our 11th meeting.

We are currently pursuing a study of the Universal Periodic Review and have with us today two witnesses, who I'll introduce momentarily.

I want to remind all committee members, however, that today we're going to reserve the final 10 minutes of the meeting for committee business, as scheduled, unless there's objection to that. I'm drawing it to your attention because, of course, if you don't think it's appropriate, we can always adjust our schedule. The plan is to have the last 10 minutes of the meeting for committee business. What we're dealing with in terms of committee business are some issues relating to motions that have been put before us.

With that preamble, our witnesses today from the department are Tom Scrimger, assistant deputy minister, citizenship and heritage, and Liane Venasse, who is a manager of the human rights program at the citizenship and heritage sector.

I invite both of you to make your presentations, but I'll just ask you if you intend to present separately or will it be a single presentation?

[Tom Scrimger, Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship and Heritage, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Chair, it will simply be me speaking for a few moments and then answering your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

You will both be available to answer questions.

[Tom Scrimger]

Yes, we will.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Very good. Please begin.

[Tom Scrimger]

Thank you.

Merci, monsieur le président. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to you today about the follow-up to Canada's Universal Periodic Review. As you know, following Canada's appearance in February 2009 before the United Nations Human Rights Council Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, a report was issued by the United Nations that included 68 recommendations touching on a number of themes.

In our response to this working group report, which was submitted to the United Nations in June 2009, Canada indicated which of these 68 recommendations it accepted in full or in part.

Given the breadth of issues that were touched upon in the recommendations, the preparation of this response was a collaborative effort, involving many departments and provincial and territorial governments. It was also informed by what we heard through consultations with civil society and aboriginal organizations and from discussions with this committee as well as the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights.

The submission of Canada's response to the United Nations was, of course, not the end of the process. We are now moving forward with follow-ups to the recommendations that were accepted and the additional commitments that were included in Canada's response.

Throughout the UPR process, the role of Canadian Heritage remains principally one of coordination and facilitation.

The issues addressed by the recommendations and commitments are varied and cut not only across many federal departments, but across jurisdictions.

We continue to facilitate and chair the federal interdepartmental committee that is looking at implementation of the recommendations and commitments. This committee, which meets on a monthly basis, is a forum for federal officials to discuss and share information on the recommendations and commitments and, when appropriate, develop options for consideration of senior officials and ministers, for example with respect to enhancing existing federal mechanisms related to international human rights obligations.

We will be debriefing the federal Deputy Ministers Committee on Human Rights in the coming months on progress being made in this respect. We are also having similar discussions with our provincial and territorial colleagues through the Continuing Committee of Officials on Human Rights.

I will come back to the role of the continuing committee shortly, but would note that there are many other intergovernmental fora that deal with very specific issues that are addressed by the recommendations and commitments--for example, federal-provincial-territorial committees on justice, the status of women, and social benefits.

Engagement with civil society and aboriginal organizations is an important aspect of the Universal Periodic Review, including the follow-up consideration of the UPR commitments and accepted recommendations.

We are in the process of identifying options for ongoing engagement. Last Tuesday, April 20, officials of Canadian Heritage, Justice, Foreign Affairs and Indian and Northern Affairs held a meeting with a small number of NGO representatives to hear their views and practical suggestions on how this engagement might unfold.

We are also planning a meeting between federal departments and a wider number of civil society and aboriginal organizations this coming June to discuss implementation of the accepted recommendations and Canada's commitments.

In order to inform the decisions that are ultimately made on the issue of consultations, Canadian Heritage is also doing research on model practices, both domestically and internationally, on civil society consultations. While many may have hoped that we would have progressed further to this point, we are making progress on our other commitments as well.

Canada committed to looking at gaps in available data in order to better report on our international human rights obligations. Researchers in Canadian Heritage are now assessing the available data and will work closely with Statistics Canada, as well as other departments, over the next few months to identify specific treaty data requirements.

The Department of Canadian Heritage is working closely with officials in the Department of Justice on Canada's commitment to raise awareness within the federal public service of Canada's international human rights obligations. We are in the process of identifying the appropriate tools for this task and hope to have a strategy in place by September. We are similarly working closely at identifying the appropriate products and means of enhancing information sharing with Canadians concerning ratification of international human rights treaties.

Canadian Heritage is currently working on the commitment to table the outcome of Canada's Universal Periodic Review in Parliament. We anticipate that the relevant documents will be tabled before the end of the current parliamentary session.

In light of the importance placed on this issue in the Universal Periodic Review recommendations and views expressed by civil society, officials are giving particular attention to developing options for consideration by ministers that would enhance existing mechanisms and procedures related to the implementation of these obligations.

This commitment covers a wide spectrum of how we consult and collaborate within government and between governments and how we interact with civil society. There are many different players that must be involved in developing these options and many issues and mechanisms that must be considered.

Discussions are already underway with other federal departments as well as with representatives on the Continuing Committee of Officials on Human Rights. We are looking at how the different interdepartmental and intergovernmental mechanisms function, and whether they should and can be enhanced to ensure the appropriate links are being made across and between mechanisms.

The Continuing Committee of Officials on Human Rights is one of the principal federal-provincial-territorial mechanisms that specifically discuss and report to the UN on international human rights obligations. It is important to note what the committee does and does not do.

The continuing committee is a coordination mechanism through which the Government of Canada consults provincial and territorial governments on international human rights treaties. It is also a forum for governments to share information on measures being implemented in their jurisdictions that relate to Canada's international obligations.

The committee is not a decision-making body, nor can the committee direct any department or jurisdiction on measures it should adopt. Federal, provincial, and territorial representatives advise their respective colleagues and governments on the issues being discussed, and governments in turn make the decisions they deem appropriate and are accountable in this manner.

We believe that the Continuing Committee is effective at fulfilling its current mandate. The work of the committee has supported Canada in ratifying six international human rights treaties with provincial and territorial support. Governments have shared important information on implementation measures, which serves to keep attention on the treaty obligations and which can influence policy development across jurisdictions.

Canada has submitted comprehensive reports to the United Nations on measures being adopted by all governments.

What the committee is not presently mandated to do is consult with civil society or publicly report on its activities. We understand the desire on the part of civil society representatives and others to expand on the committee's present mandate or to create a new mechanism.

In follow-up to the Universal Periodic Review, the Continuing Committee is reviewing its role and operations. The views expressed in this regard by this committee and by civil society will inform the committee's discussions. Recommendations will be developed for considerations by federal, provincial and territorial ministers that are responsible for human rights.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, much work has been done in the past few months, much more remains to be done, and officials at all levels are working diligently on their responsibilities.

At this point, we would be very pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you very much.

We'll start with a question from Mr. Silva. We're only going to have time for one round of questions, but given the fact that you've wrapped things up very early, I think we can make them a bit longer. So you can take up to 10 minutes and divide your time, if you wish.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for being here. This has been an issue that has been on our minds for quite some time. Certainly, since the report of the Universal Periodic Review came out, some of us had issues of concern we wanted to raise. It was Mr. Marston, in fact, who brought a motion before this committee that we hear from the department.

On a side note, I've always found it odd--I don't necessarily need you to comment unless you want to--that it's Canadian Heritage that is mandated to look after the periodic review reporting as opposed to, let's say, the justice department or the Department of Foreign Affairs. I've never quite understood why that was the case, but that's of historical standing.

I guess what all of us want is to make sure there is a process in place that is both transparent and does involve civil society. We've been hearing from a lot of leaders in the community who have concerns about both the recommendation that came out and what steps are going to be followed by the government in terms of dealing with those issues.

I guess my question to you is this. Since the report, what has been the process in terms of what specifics the government has in fact taken action on, has implemented? What are they working on? What would you see coming out of this conference you spoke to, the June conference with civil society?

[Tom Scrimger]

Perhaps I'll try to answer the three parts of your question.

On the role of Canadian Heritage, one of the themes mentioned within its enabling legislation deals with human rights. I suspect that's one of the reasons that we have the coordinating role we do. I would point out that the role we do have is one of coordination and facilitation, and not necessarily, or very rarely, I would say, do we have the policy lead on the issues that are being dealt with in the 68 recommendations.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Right.

[Tom Scrimger]

As it comes to the Universal Periodic Review, much of the work is done between three departments, the Ministry of Justice, obviously, Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and ourselves, given the role we have in coordinating between the federal and provincial and territorial governments. Hopefully that gives you some of the history.

With respect to the progress on the individual 68 recommendations, I'm not really in a position to give you a sense of where the lead departments may be on the recommendations they are dealing with.

I'm certainly able to talk about the engagements that Canadian Heritage has made with respect to its role as the chair of the continuing committee and with respect to the promotion of human rights to the general public and working with the justice department on finding a mechanism to make the federal family more aware of the rights. We're looking at data requirements for treaties. Also, we have accepted the responsibility to ensure that the documents are tabled in the House and will be done through our minister.

But if there are specific follow-up items, I would not feel competent to deal with the domain of another department. I'd be happy to take the item that it is and communicate it to my colleagues, if you wish.

On the question about the civil society engagement, we very clearly hear the message that civil society wants to have, is looking for, a larger role. What we, I think, are doing in our work now is developing options for ministers to consider on how we enlarge or how we potentially have a larger role.

The current continuing committee's mandate is one specifically given to us by all ministers involved in the process. It is something that our minister would have to bring back to all of his colleagues, because it is a federal, provincial, and territorial mechanism.

The question becomes, are there other mechanisms that are out there? Do we create a separate mechanism? It's not so much whether we have a process to have a better collaboration and consultation with civil society; it's choosing the one that's going to be the most efficient for all parties.

As I've said, we met with a smaller group of civil society representatives last week. We're looking for a larger consultation in June. We're meeting with our federal, provincial, and territorial colleagues in May. After that, I think we'll be able to move relatively quickly with the options for the consideration of ministers.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

On the Continuing Committee of Officials on Human Rights, does it act as a coordinating body from both provincial and federal governments? Is it chaired by Canadian Heritage? Does Heritage take the lead role? How does that work?

[Tom Scrimger]

The continuing committee is chaired by an official within the Department of Canadian Heritage, but each provincial and territorial government also--

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Is there a name for that individual? Is it confidential or...?

[Tom Scrimger]

Yes. She's actually sitting right behind me. Her name is Martha LaBarge and she's the director general of strategic policy and management inside my organization. So the person who is chairing the committee is one of the individuals who reports to me and has a small team inside the organization to help in the role of chairing that committee.

But the committee is still largely--almost completely--focused on the question of facilitating consultation and coordination between the 14 governments involved when we're dealing with treaties that impact the jurisdictional responsibilities of provinces and territories. It is solely a mechanism of consultation and coordination for the work that it's dealing with. Each jurisdiction has its own processes that we must respect in approving any treaty where we're looking for the approval of all jurisdictions.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

A lot of the criticism that Canada always seems to get when we go on the international stage is, of course, about the way we treat our aboriginal people.

There was no treaty to sign, but the fact that we were not favourable to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was seen as very negative in that light. Have you heard from your officials whether the government will in fact be signing on to the declaration?

[Tom Scrimger]

It was my understanding, in the last Speech from the Throne, that the government indicated that it was going to reconsider or re-examine its position regarding that particular declaration. It's also my understanding that the lead for that is with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Our role, when we receive that direction, would be to coordinate and consult with provinces and territories about the adoption of the declaration regarding indigenous peoples. We're basically ready and waiting for that direction to come.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'll give the rest of my time to my colleague.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Yes, you still have a little bit of time.

You have three minutes, Ms. Neville.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I have a quick question.

You talked about your consultation with civil society. Are you, as part of this process, doing consultations with either first nations leadership, first nations organizations, or first nations or Métis aboriginal groups on the ground?

[Tom Scrimger]

I didn't mean to lead you astray. I guess the question is asked about...yes. The short answer is yes. As part of our consultations with civil society, we'll be including aboriginal groups as well.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

That's it? Okay.

Thank you.

Mr. Dorion, please.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Scrimger, thank you for testifying before us today.

I understand from your presentation that several parties have been called upon to examine and follow up on the Universal Periodic Review report. There is a federal interdepartmental committee, there is also the Continuing Committee of Officials on Human Rights and finally, there is the intergovernmental committee, which represents federal, provincial and territorial officials. Ultimately, who makes the decision to accept or reject the Universal Periodic Review recommendations in Canada?

[Tom Scrimger]

It is the government of the day that decides whether it will accept or reject the Universal Periodic Review recommendations. Our role in the department is to prepare—as for all similar decisions—studies and recommendations as part of the cabinet process.