Thank you very much for this opportunity to discuss with you what is an important subject.
Let me begin with appreciation for the motion that's under study. It's important. It's timely. Those who work on children's rights and other human rights are pleased that this committee is going to propose alternatives to the current system. We have talked about the problems many times. It is time to move to solutions.
We look forward to seeing your report. We're eager to work with you to see genuine change. That will be the productive result of Canada's first periodical review.
Changing the system in Canada is also essential for international leadership, which I know is one of the primary focuses for this committee. When 40 countries and over 50 non-governmental organizations agree that Canada needs to improve its system for implementing international human rights agreements, it's time for attention by our parliamentarians. We need to do better at home in order to regain international leadership in the field of human rights.
In this presentation, l would like to draw the committee's attention to four aspects of the current system that need major reform. They are based on my experience with children's rights, but they are shared with other groups who work on human rights issues. l will propose four alternatives for the committee's consideration.
The first is dealing with the general mechanisms of implementation, monitoring, and reporting. Monitoring and reporting progress in the implementation of human rights is a fundamental expectation. It goes with ratification of the international treaties. The experience of children's rights, I think, is instructive for this committee of the need for reform. Canada submitted its combined third and fourth reports on children's rights on November 20, nine months late, without any public consultation, contrary to the requirements under the convention itself and the norm in most developed countries. This was after Canada committed to improvement under the UPR.
While the government's report listed several initiatives for children, it contained very little data on the actual situation of children in Canada, or the outcomes of government programs. It is dubbed the “missing pieces report” within our community. Instead of a brag book, the need for information and analysis of the reality for children in Canada has been emphasized in the first and second review and by Canadian civil society in advance of the report. We also expressed a willingness to work with the interdepartmental committee for children's rights to provide a better report, but there was no engagement beyond a letter asking what topics the report should cover.
During the second review, in 2003, Canada received 45 recommendations relating to children's rights. Most of those recommendations, which address compliance issues, are not addressed in the new report, even though the need for follow-up to previous recommendations was a main theme of public discussion and a senate report entitled “Children: Silenced Citizens”, released in 2007.
Furthermore, the current report does not reference the specific provisions of the convention, making it impossible for you as MPs, or the Canadian public, to really know whether Canada is meeting its obligations or not. In short, if you want to know how well Canada's children are doing, the last place you will go to is this report. It should be the first place we go.
Our recommendation is this. We are suggesting that Parliament adopt legislation to clarify the place of the commitments Canada has made under international human rights agreements within Canadian law, including a clear mandate for implementation within Canada. After all, the rule of law is a basic Canadian value. The charter does not adequately address all areas, such as children's rights and socio-economic rights. Any system put in place must also include some mechanisms for consultation with civil society. That is in line with the UN agreements.
The second area I'd like to discuss with you is the place of human rights in the federal government's policy-making process. In theory, Canadian citizens have the rights in the treaties Canada has signed, and the government is committed to be accountable for progressive implementation of them.
One implementation measure is to assess proposed policies for their impact, whether they contribute to or detract from those commitments. That does not happen in the policy-making process in Canada. There is no reference to human rights obligations in the Federal Accountability Act or in any other high-level direction for government decision-making.
There are only two places where there's a reference to human rights treaties. Under existing Treasury Board guidelines for policy formation, the Guide to Making Federal Acts and Regulations requires departments to inform cabinet when international agreements have a bearing on proposed legislation. This does includes human rights treaties. But it's a negative screen.
The second document, the Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation, instructs departments to respect international human rights obligations. In practice, this means that before it goes to cabinet, an obscure official, buried in the justice department, checks off a box saying that the proposed policy does not violate any obligations. It's a narrow, legalistic view. It does not ask if the proposed policy helps fulfill Canada's commitments, and the assessment is done by persons without expertise in the subject matter of the relevant human rights agreements. No wonder the three-year Senate study on children's rights concluded that they are not taken seriously within the federal government policy process.
For children's rights, there is an interdepartmental committee. It was the only action taken in response to the major Senate study in 2007, which concluded that children's rights were ignored or violated. It may improve internal coordination, but a low-level committee of officials that meets sporadically, has ill-defined objectives, no authority, and restrictions on meeting with public groups that work on children's rights, has not substantively changed anything that is noticeable to those of us across the country who work with children's rights.
As MPs, I would submit, it is extremely difficult for you to know if the rights your constituents hold, including the children in your ridings, are being advanced, ignored, or violated by proposed policies. You should know that, just as much as you now know whether a proposed policy complies with standards for fiscal accountability. This is the very essence of good government, not an afterthought, as it is now treated.
Our recommendation is that the federal government establish a clear and high-level role in the federal policy formation process for assessments of how proposed policies either contribute to the fulfillment of human rights agreements or detract from them. It should be equivalent in weight to what is now given to the fiscal analysis.
I note that tools for those kinds of assessments are being developed rapidly at the international level, but almost none of them are being used in Canada.
The third area I'd like to highlight is federal-provincial relations.
Canada's report to the universal periodic review states that the principal intergovernmental forum for consultation on human rights is a body called the Continuing Committee of Officials on Human Rights. Most people inside and outside government don't know that such a body exists. This body meets twice yearly, behind closed doors, with no public reporting, to discuss what needs to be done to fulfill Canada's obligations.
When questioned before a Senate committee, after we raised some of our concerns, the chair indicated that they were only an information coordinating body. That means that there is really no centre of responsibility for how rights are protected in areas that cross federal-provincial jurisdiction.
I think, again, that our experience in children's rights may help you understand what needs changing. Five years after the second review of children's rights, we asked for information on what was being done to follow up on the recommendations Canada received in 2003. We addressed a letter to the chair of this committee. We offered to assist, because children's rights can only be fulfilled with cooperation among all the actors that affect children. We were assured that the continuing committee takes follow-up very seriously, but they could not meet with us, nor could they tell us what had been done or what would be done, nor could we see minutes of meetings. After repeated prodding, we received old agendas, which were nothing more than a list of the conventions being discussed.
I submit to you that this mechanism is woefully inadequate and out of date, particularly considering that federalism is a major factor in how Canada implements human rights.
Transparency is an essential ingredient, and we have the opposite. Major federal-provincial agreements accompanied by large transfers of money make no mention of relevant commitments that both federal and provincial governments have made. They have huge impacts on the realization of rights for citizens in all areas of human rights, and you as MPs have no assurance that the money you approve reaches the end for which you approved it.
I would submit to you that rights-based measures of accountability could and should tell you that. These include measures like more transparent budgeting, regular data collection, and outcome reporting.
Civil society groups have repeatedly provided evidence that children's issues are falling between the cracks of federal and provincial jurisdiction. The response has been an expansion in the number of federal-provincial task forces, but each one has a very narrow focus, such as the working group on cyber crime or the human trafficking committee, and they have no mandate beyond information-sharing.
A recent report on sexual exploitation of children mentioned eight relevant federal-provincial task forces, but the same report could not provide a consolidated analysis of what is actually being done across the country to prevent sexual exploitation and whether those investments were being effective. I would submit to you that spending resources on all these task forces is relatively ineffective. The resources could be better spent on an integrated, rights-based approach that treats children as whole persons.
We recommend that references to relevant human rights standards be included in federal-provincial agreements and that they include administrative avenues for ensuring equitable treatment of all Canadians in areas where federal funds are allocated. We think doing that would go a long way to addressing the federalism challenge we have in Canada. For MPs, rights-based measures could help ensure that the money for which you are responsible is serving the people and the ends for which you approve it.
The fourth area is avenues for investigation and redress. For children's rights, there is no suitable federal avenue for investigating claims of rights violations. The first experience of an appeal before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is instructive for your study. The appeal deals with inequitable child welfare services for aboriginal children. It uses evidence documented by the Auditor General, among others, but instead of addressing the substance of the matter, government lawyers are using every legal technicality to delay and avoid taking responsibility.
I sat in that hearing recently with some young people. I can tell you, no young person in that room would conclude that the federal government, as the duty bearer under the convention, is a protector of their rights. The extreme adversarial approach was uncalled for. It protects only the interests of officials within the Department of Indian Affairs, not aboriginal children. It is unproductive with regard to the objective of equitable treatment for all children, which is a reasonable goal and one that most Canadians support.
By contrast, on the provincial level, the results of rights-based reporting by some provincial children's advocates are beginning to show real benefits in improved outcomes. I think the federal government can learn from what is happening in some provinces. Key to that is a real paradigm shift. It is to see these rights-based tools as assets, useful tools within federalism, rather than seeing them as just an extra burden or a frivolous tangent in the business of governing Canada. They are tools that work from the perspective of citizens, whom you are here to serve.
Again, our recommendation in this area is the establishment of some effective administrative avenues for investigation and resolution of issues arising from Canada's international human rights obligations in a non-confrontational way. Through gathering and analysis of evidence, identification of practical solutions, and working with all the relevant factors, we can move forward on implementing human rights, but not the way we're doing it now.
For children's rights, many countries have a national children's commissioner. For other areas of rights, perhaps other avenues might be more appropriate. But what they all hold in common is the need for strong, clear mandates with appropriate accountabilities to Parliament.
In conclusion, I guess we would submit to you that it's time for a more mature approach to meeting Canada's human rights obligations at home. That is the best and only way for Canada to regain global leadership for human rights, which is essential for international peace and security, something we're all concerned about.
Making a paradigm shift to think about rights-based measures as positive and practical tools of good government in Canada is key to the kind of reform we need. As MPs, such reforms could make your job more effective and satisfying, because they link the real lives of the citizens you serve to the public policy choices you face.
Your committee report will be an important one. I hope it will stimulate the kind of change that can lead to a lasting improvement in Canada and for our role in the world.
Thank you.
