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

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

Is there a facility of any kind at present to act like a traffic cop, so to speak, and to say that we've had these concerns raised, we're proceeding on this, this is how far we got, and did we or did we not meet our goals, and that kind of thing?

[Tom Scrimger]

I think when it comes to the actual government, to the progress, we would be the clearing house that would gather the information from federal departments about where they are vis-à-vis specific recommendations. We would integrate that for the consideration of our federal deputy ministers committee, which has a specific role horizontally across the government, and of course, for the consideration our own ministers, to brief them. And again, the possibility of including new roles is there.

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

In your view, is there a role for civil society someplace in that part of the process? I guess that would be the accountability side of the equation.

[Tom Scrimger]

I think we need to be transparent at a point where we can let all Canadians, including civil society, know what progress is being made against the recommendations and the engagements that have been made. That may lean toward having perhaps either a more formal or a stronger consultation process with civil society. Whether it's part of a continuing committee process or a separate one are two options.

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

That could be a consideration of your next recommendations to go to the government.

[Tom Scrimger]

It could well be. Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Unfortunately, that will have to conclude this line of questioning. We've gone about a minute and a half over.

Mr. Sweet, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't have a lot of questions, but I do want to make a comment. I just want to commend the public servants who are involved in this and thank the witnesses.

As Upper and Lower Canada and the eastern provinces marched toward Confederation, one of the main principles they were concerned with was keeping the nomenclature unique, the cultural and social ethos of the areas, which of course in that time was a human rights issue. The construction of a great federation like Canada accomplishes many positive things, but it also creates some challenges between the federal government and the 10 provincial governments, the three territorial governments, and a whole host of municipalities as well, and all of these kind of overlap each other. I just want to thank you for your Herculean efforts in coordinating all of this.

I did have one specific question regarding the 68 recommendations, and it's a bit akin to what Mr. Marston said. He was talking about a traffic cop. Is there a place where an individual can go to determine who is responsible for what recommendation? I understand that some of them may even be shared among departments or even between levels of government. Is there a database like that? Is this something that has been considered?

[Tom Scrimger]

The short answer--and I'm just confirming--is no. There is not a place where you will see on a departmental website right now the recommendations and the current status, I guess, of progress against the recommendations.

I think that has to be one of the mechanisms we would have to look at as part of our engagement to strengthen the reporting and the follow-up to the periodic review. Departments are required to provide progress reports on their service standards and other aspects. Looking at options for a mechanism that might accomplish this could be part of the work we're doing in the upcoming months.

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

Right, because ultimately, just from your comments, I think I've understood that the engagement with civil society happens at the area of the department that's responsible for the recommendation, that's going to move forward on that. That's where the public inquiry would happen. Is that correct?

[Tom Scrimger]

Well, I think it's happening both ways. As part of the Universal Periodic Review process, specific consultations were held with civil society and aboriginal groups. Then, I would suggest, any department that has leadership around a certain policy domain has its own processes about how it engages its stakeholders in those policy consultations and discussions. So yes, in many cases, I suspect, our colleagues in civil society have a number of doors right now that they have to knock on to present their views and make their recommendations around where the policy is going to go.

The role varies. As I said, it's very rare that Canadian Heritage is going to have a policy lead on the areas that are usually covered in the Universal Periodic Review. You will note that most of our leads are dealing with process, not content. There may be a way to enlarge the discussions through the consultation we want to have around the process. Without a change in mandate from ministers, the continuing committee is not a policy body and it won't be acting as one, that's for sure.

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

Thank you, Mr. Scrimger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you very much.

I thank both our witnesses. You do have the appreciation of the committee.

I'm going to have to suspend temporarily. We'll come back in a moment in camera. We'll just give our witnesses and anybody else who's not on the staff of one of the members a chance to leave.

Thank you.

[Tom Scrimger]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you, sir.

[Proceedings continue in camera]