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

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you.

In response to Mr. Dorion's statement about what he just witnessed, I think that was a demonstration of the kind of consensus that we try to work with on an ongoing basis.

Mr. Silva very eloquently expressed my concerns and my thoughts on this particular motion. I think his suggestion was a good one. If we were to consider this at some future date, after having heard from witnesses--perhaps the Human Rights Commission itself, giving them an opportunity to provide an explanation, and then revisit this motion--I think that would be a fair and reasonable way of approaching the matter. It doesn't force us to take a position right now, but it does provide us an opportunity to investigate the issue. Perhaps after hearing testimony we can come to a consensus on the position.

If forced to make a decision right now, I would not support this motion, despite the fact that I supported amending it. There are very good reasons, and they've been expressed by others, why we would not want to address this issue at this present time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Marston.

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

In response to the comments about consensus, within this committee many times we have failed to reach consensus and have gone to a vote on given issues. So to be very clear on that, the committee has worked hard to sustain consensus.

The way I see it, we have a choice of two things. We could further amend the motion by perhaps saying the committee expresses very serious concerns with the closures. I don't know whether that would be in line with the objective the Bloc member has in moving the motion, but if the concern was around the immigrant complainants and that part remained in, that would be one way of considering dealing with it, or the witnesses....

It's very clear to me that this motion is not going to pass at this stage. I support the motion, so I would suggest that we give consideration to one of those two options.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I would just note that it's true we have not always reached consensus, but I always believe that the spirit of what we try to do is in consensus. That's one of the reasons I had....

When I spoke to Mr. Dorion today, I had some serious concerns that when the motions came forward it would be impossible to even have the spirit of consensus. It seems that everybody is starting off from a point such that I think it would be very difficult to reach consensus.

I think this committee--and I mentioned this as well to Mr. Dorion earlier--is a little bit different from other committees. There are a lot of things on which we can find consensus and a lot of issues internationally. I think where there is consensus to be reached on those issues, we should strive to deal with it. I don't think we're going to be able to find that on every issue, but I think we've made a good effort.

In the last four years that I've been here, very few motions of this nature have been brought forward. That's why I was trying to ask Mr. Dorion whether things have changed within his party, because generally speaking the motions that come forward are about a specific issue that we want to highlight in a specific country. We have concerns about it and want the government to actually take some action or to look at it.

This is very much a domestic attack on the government, and it seems to break—well, it really is breaking, in my opinion—the spirit of what we're trying to build here as a committee. If we want to be a committee like all of the other committees, then I don't think we'll ever be able to get the witnesses we want to have. Before, we allowed a lot of motions to go through, such as the one I asked for on Afghanistan and motions by other members as well, because we've allowed different members the ability to see what issues they wanted to bring forward.

I'm a little concerned that what we're trying to do here with these motions is to create a conflict where there was none before in our committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Sweet.

Sorry, I think Mr. Dorion was actually first. I apologize.

Mr. Dorion, then Mr. Sweet.

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

Mr. Chair, I think I really tried to find a consensus on this motion by replacing the word “denounces” which might have been thought too harsh by the government members. It seems to me that, if we have to wait for the testimony of public servants--if we can get them to come here, if they are willing to appear, since you know that we have problems having public servants appear before committees and subcommittees--it will delay our study of other very important issues such as Venezuela.

So, I repeat my proposal. I am pleased that everyone around me allowed me to change the wording unilaterally. I believe the committee showed a marvellous spirit of fair play in accepting the change I suggested to make it more acceptable, but I maintain my position.

Reaching a consensus cannot be the main and essential objective of our work since it would mean that any issue the least controversial would be set aside, which is certainly not the reason why this committee has been set up. That being said, I am aware that we share some common values and I am ready to cooperate in order not to complicate matters uselessly. By the way, I have just demonstrated my willingness to cooperate. So, I maintain my proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Sweet and then Mr. Silva.

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

First off, I appreciate the comments from Mr. Silva regarding the spirit of this committee. I came in during the 39th Parliament. The subcommittee was already running in the 38th. I was enlisted with the whole notion and told clearly that one of the main components of it was consensus. And I think the main thing is what Mr. Silva pointed out, the veritable volume of human rights issues that we can have common ground on and do something significant about.

There's also the fact that we made a decision a few months ago that we would not only focus on human rights infractions, but we would try to identify those places where we could make a significant difference rather than just do a study. I think the phrase was “do a press release”, but we would try to do studies in specific areas where the Government of Canada or the people of Canada had a good relationship--or had some kind of relational gravitas--so that our study would actually make a difference. That whole list consistently is held up when we go to several meetings where we've had motions like this introduced. We basically go through an entire meeting debating this kind of thing, which we don't have any evidence of here.

In fact, I have to say that I've asked a couple of staffers about this as well. Maybe Mr. Dorion knows something the government side doesn't know, but these are Canadian human rights offices. There is an inference here that immigrants are going to be...it's a clear inference that the government is hurting immigrants. I don't know if there are any CHRC offices that are exclusively in the domain of immigrants. I thought they were in the domain of all citizens of Canada and anyone who'd like to approach them. That I have difficulty with as well.

Obviously, Mr. Chair, we can't support this motion. If there is some substance to it, and, as I said earlier, if Mr. Dorion thinks it's important and the entire committee does, then we'll call witnesses and see if there is some substance to it, and we'll do a report and send a message to the government that they need to fix it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Silva indicated that he wanted to speak.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I just want to ask Mr. Sweet whether his suggestion was turned into a motion or if it is just a suggestion that we in fact have this motion deferred until after hearing witnesses from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Is that a motion, or is it--

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

If procedurally that's fine, I would put it out there as a motion.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

That way, I would probably support it, because it doesn't mean I'm not against the motion; it just means that I want to at least hear the Human Rights Commission at that time and after that meeting pronounce myself either in favour or against the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Sweet was proposing a motion. You can't procedurally make a motion right now. Is that what you were—

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

If I remember the procedure book, I can move to defer it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Are you moving to defer Mr. Dorion's motion?

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

That is correct. I think that's actually a dilatory motion.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I believe he's moving the deferral to “after hearing from”. In other words, deferral is dependent upon us also getting a hearing from witnesses from the Canadian Human Rights Commission for our committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Let's go to Mr. Marston.

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

Would it not be that you're tabling the motion until such time as we've heard witnesses? By tabling, you can raise it from the table at any time. So the motion would come back in its original form, subject to having seen the witness or heard from the witnesses first.

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

I'm going to rely on the clerk for the exact terminology in that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Let's do that. What would you suggest?

First, do we have unanimous consent to withdraw or suspend the motion until such time as we've had a witness or several witnesses? Is it a hearing, a meeting? I'm not sure of the exact thing you're looking for.

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

I think at least if we're going to impugn the CHRC, we should have the CHRC here so they can defend their decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Is it the CHRC's decision, or is it the government's decision to--

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

No, the CHRC.