Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on May 27th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Order. We are in public.

Mr. Dorion, you have to move one motion, obviously. We can't discuss multiple motions at the same time. Just indicate which one you want to move.

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

So, the first motion is related to the closing of offices of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Here is the motion.

That the Subcommittee on International Human Rights denounces the decision to close three of the five regional offices of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, that it recommends to the government to make sure that immigrant complainants will not be penalized, and that it reports this motion to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development for it to report to the House.

I believe the motion is clear enough and that its international dimension is obvious since there are immigration claimants who use the services of the Commission, especially refugee claimants, and so on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, I had spoken to Mr. Dorion about this earlier, but I just need some clarification.

Usually our motions go to the parent committee, which is the foreign affairs committee. However, does this motion fall within the scope of the work of that committee, or is it more appropriate that this would fall within the scope of the immigration committee, for example?

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

That's not really a question for Monsieur Dorion; it's a question for me.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I didn't mean it for Mr. Dorion; I meant it for you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

We've dealt with the Human Rights Commission in the past. The basis on which we went forward with that was that the Human Rights Commission does deal, to some degree, with international affairs, and in particular with the universal periodic review process.

So on the basis that there's some relevance to that, if I were asked to make a ruling, I would rule that it's in order, that there is an international human rights component to this based on our previous allowance of such a thing.

Mr. Marston.

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

I just want to say that I support the motion. Once this is turned over to our main committee, they'll make the decision on the approach they use to deliver it to the House.

These particular offices would be under the jurisdiction of the justice committee. They report there. So perhaps the main committee would decide to refer it on to them. But again, being the sub-body to the main committee, our recommendations would go to the committee anyway, and as I say, I certainly support that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I'll just alert members that there is no requirement that motions, as opposed to reports, be submitted to the main committee. They can simply be published by us. There's no requirement that they not be written this way. This is in order as it's written, but I'd just alert you that either way is permissible.

Shall we continue debate?

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

Chair, I have a real issue about us, from news of an administrative move of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, simply endorsing a motion without hearing any witnesses about the nature of it, what the concerns were, or anything. In my opinion, if there's going to be support sought from myself—and I believe my colleague—we'd like to have witnesses from the Canadian Human Rights Commission come in and explain what the circumstance is, rather than just make a blanket motion condemning it. There could very well be clear administrative or management reasons behind it. We don't know that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Are you saying we're not sure a decision has been made, or—

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

I'm saying I can't support it unless we hear some witnesses who would explain why the decision was made. Just to outright condemn the fact that offices were closed, without hearing exactly what the other commensurate actions were to compensate for the closures, what the reasons for the closures were, etc., I don't think would be prudent on our part.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Is there any further debate?

Mr. Marston.

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

Without getting too far down the road, if the mover of the motion is in agreement with having a day set aside for that.... I don't know what his response would be. But why don't we try to work on consensus to see if there is a way we can deal with this situation? That would be my preference.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I should alert the....

Mr. Dorion.

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

The government has provided explanations for those closures and there is no need to go back to that issue. The point is whether we are satisfied with those explanations.

In order to make the motion more acceptable around this table, I am willing to replace the word “denounces” by the word “deplores”. With this motion, the committee will recommend to the government that it make sure that immigrant complainants are not penalized. I believe this change of wording would soften the motion somewhat, which would make it more acceptable for everyone.

In summary, we would replace the word “denounces” by the word “deplores”, which would avoid any debate on the explanations provided and any disagreements we might have about those explanations. What is essential is to make sure that immigrant complainants are not penalized.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I'm just looking at a procedural consideration right now. We're just trying to figure out whether you need to have unanimous consent to make an amendment to your own motion without debate. We do have the option of having a debate over this, but I'm just going to find that out first. I apologize for the fact that I don't know that off the top of my head.

Let's find out. First of all, is there unanimous consent to allow Mr. Dorion to make the amendment he's proposing to his motion? If there is, we don't have to find the answer to that question. Is it agreed? Are you comfortable with that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

All right. We have unanimous consent. We'll keep looking that up out of curiosity and for our own benefit, but we are now debating the amended version of the motion.

All right. Let's carry on with that. Are there any further comments on this?

Mr. Silva and then Mr. Hiebert.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Dorion today to make him aware of my concerns with those different motions.

I might probably support the first one but I have some difficulty with the second and third ones. That being said, I indicated that I would listen to the comments of the members of this committee before finalizing my decision.

However, I have a major concern. During the four years that I have been a member of this committee, we have always tried to find a consensus. Some of the issues dealt with in those motions--I speak on my behalf, not on behalf of my party--are a little outside our jurisdiction. The main mandate of our committee is to look at international issues and to express our concerns relating to human rights issues.

In a way, this motion destroys the consensus existing within the committee. We are not like the other committees which always try attacking the government. We try to work together. I believe that Mr. Sweet also had a proposal suggesting that we set up a meeting with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in order to know why it decided to close three different offices.

We could still keep the motion. We would finalize our decision for or against the motion after hearing the Commission. If it had no reasons, if we still had some concerns and still deplored their decision, we would still be able to vote for your motion, myself included.

However, there was a possibility to reach a consensus. I mean that a suggestion had been made that would perhaps allow us to come to a consensus. Why not accept that suggestion? I find it quite reasonable. At the end of the day, we could all reach the objective of your motion. There was a suggestion, and I believe you did not clearly indicate if you approved it or not. I know that you were suggesting to replace the word “denounces” by the word “deplores”, which is good, but have you thought about moving your motion later, after having heard the Commission? That is the answer we need.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

We'll have Mr. Hiebert and Mr. Marston, and then we can go back to Mr. Dorion.

Mr. Marston.

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

There was a direct question asked to the member as to whether he would support that. It would help our discussions if we knew the answer to that question or intervention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Fair enough. If everybody's cool with that, we'll go to Mr. Dorion directly then.

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

On the matter of consensus, it will all depend on what is proposed to the committee. For the time being, as far as the motion we are debating is concerned, we have made a good step forward since there was unanimous consent for me to change the wording. So, there is a spirit of consensus on this. About the other motions, time will tell.

I just want to state that I do not believe we always have to work by consensus. Of course, reaching a consensus is always ideal but it is not always possible since it would mean that all our decisions would only be based on the lowest common denominator. This is a very serious issue, this matter of human rights, and there will be cases when we have disagreements, which would be quite understandable.

As far as this motion is concerned, I believe we are on the right track. So, for the time being, I will limit my comments to this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

We'll carry on with Mr. Hiebert.