Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Sept. 27th, 2012

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Let me just put the question again. I understand that responsibility to protect has been a policy of not simply the Canadian government, but we signed on to it at the UN General Assembly and Security Council, so what is our position with respect to the responsibility to protect as a normative doctrine?

[Graham Shantz]

Well, I'll answer with respect to North Korea. The human rights violations are terrible. They're systemic. The regime is undertaking actions that are clearly detrimental to the health and well-being and the political liberties of its people.

From the government's perspective, the government will continue to be a powerful voice advocating for the North Korean government to fulfill its obligations and to treat its citizens better.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Let me, if I may, just put the question more directly, because I just had a sense that somehow there may be some equivocation on this. Does the Canadian government endorse the responsibility to protect doctrine?

[Graham Shantz]

Professor Cotler, it's beyond what we came here to talk about, which was the situation of human rights in North Korea and a commission of inquiry, which is what we were prepared to speak to.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Well, I think the question of the situation of North Korea is inextricably bound up with the responsibility to protect doctrine, so I'm proceeding from the basis of where do we stand with respect to this doctrine, generally speaking, and where do we stand with respect to the application of this doctrine to North Korea? I think my questions are fairly clear.

[Graham Shantz]

In terms of the government's position with respect to its relationship with North Korea, we have the controlled engagement policy, which limits us to the four areas I've mentioned in my earlier remarks, and that forms the foundation of the government's policy with respect to North Korea, in addition to our constant advocacy with respect to the deplorable human rights situation in North Korea.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Let me just rephrase it.

We had been one of those at the forefront of having the responsibility to protect doctrine invoked and then applied at the United Nations itself. Is there any change in our policy with respect to that position? I seem to sense in the responses that there may have been a change, which is fair, as governments are entitled to have changes.

But I sense in the fact that there's no direct response to the question as to whether we still support the responsibility to protect doctrine, and whether we would support it with respect to North Korea, that there appears to be an equivocation on this.

[Graham Shantz]

I'm not the expert in responsibility to protect. I am prepared to speak to Canada-North Korea relations, and we're prepared to speak to the commission of inquiry.

With respect to how one would want to see change in North Korea, the policy of the government is clear in the sense of our controlled engagement policy, our willingness to discuss with North Korean officials only in four areas, and the government's desire to continue to express Canada's strong views with respect to the deplorable human rights situation in North Korea.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Let me just ask you, then, if I may, another question in that regard within your framework as you put it before us.

Canada presumably supported—again, from my appreciation—a commission of inquiry with respect to Burma at the time in 2010 before the situation in Burma began to be improved. I think the campaign at the time for such an international commission of inquiry may have helped in having the situation in Burma improve.

Does the government support now the establishment of a commission of inquiry? I understand the hesitation with respect to having one emanating from the UN Human Rights Council. I understand the hesitations with regard to questions of concern re access, but what about one that would be established, if it could be, under the auspices of the UN Security Council, since the meeting of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights said that with respect to such commissions of inquiry, this was the preferred option to begin with?

[Rebecca Netley]

I think our view with respect to establishment of a commission of inquiry under the Security Council is that it would be unlikely to be successful because of the strong likelihood that one of the permanent five, obviously Russia or China, would veto that. I think that's our position with respect to a commission of inquiry established under that body.

I can't comment today; I don't think we have a strong position on.... As Mr. Shantz has pointed out, we consider the situation in North Korea to be deplorable, and we work, in all the ways that he has pointed out, to do action with respect to that. But I think we also have concerns that a commission of inquiry wouldn't necessarily allow additional information to surface, and, given the good work of the special rapporteur, we're unclear what more would be offered by a commission of inquiry that's not already offered by the work that the special rapporteur is doing.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I maybe have time for one last one.

Why would the situation in Burma have allowed for Canada supporting it at the time, Burma being what it was then, in 2010, and not feel the same way with regard to North Korea now? It would seem that the situation in both countries, including access, if it warranted a commission of inquiry in Burma in 2010, would certainly warrant such a commission of inquiry with regard to North Korea in 2012.

[Rebecca Netley]

Unfortunately, I'm not able to comment exactly. I'm not familiar with exactly what the situation was with respect to Burma at the time and what our positioning was. I'm just familiar with what we've talked about today with respect to North Korea.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

That was well timed. You've just run out of time.

Now we turn to Ms. Grewal, please.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, and thank you very much for appearing before our subcommittee.

The Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights finds that commissions established by the Security Council are proven more likely to gain access and state cooperation as compared with commissions established by the Human Rights Council. So it is deemed more effective to go through the Security Council than the Human Rights Council.

When we request the secretary-general to appoint a commission of inquiry, do we know which body of the UN this will ultimately be referred to, the Security Council or the Human Rights Council? And if it is the Human Rights Council, should Canada then in fact hold off and reconsider a means by which to refer our request directly to the Security Council to ensure that the commission of inquiry ultimately will have more teeth?

What do you say on that?

[Rebecca Netley]

Thank you, Ms. Grewal.

The way it actually would work is that a commission of inquiry could be established under one of four bodies. The secretary-general himself could, under his own auspices, appoint a commission of inquiry, but as we understand it, this has only happened when the state in question has been in agreement with the establishment of the commission of inquiry. The two examples of that were Timor-Leste, I believe, and Pakistan after the assassination of prime ministerial candidate Bhutto.

Another way in which a commission of inquiry could be established is, as you said, the Security Council, but I think I've already noted that there are some challenges with respect to the Security Council because of the possibility that one of the permanent members would veto.

A commission of inquiry can also be established under the Human Rights Council. That would be done by way of a resolution brought by a member state. Then it would likely be voted by the 47 members of the Human Rights Council. It's not the secretary-general who would choose the route by which a commission of inquiry would be established. It's really the member states that are bringing the initiative to one of those UN bodies.

The other way in which a commission of inquiry could possibly be established would be under the General Assembly itself, although we understand that this has rarely been used. It's mostly been under the Security Council or under the Human Rights Council, as you pointed out. Under the General Assembly, you still have the challenges with trying to obtain broad-based support. Again, under the General Assembly, it would be the same sort of mechanism as under the Security Council or the Human Rights Council, where a state would bring the initiative to the body in question.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Shantz, do you have any comments?

[Graham Shantz]

What I hear is the thrust of all questions, which is, how do you effect change in North Korea? I think in terms of your questions about the instrumentation—which instrument is going to be more effective, effectively more supported—again, the government's position is that we're going to work with our allies. South Korea clearly has a keen interest in this, and the U.S. does, and other nations, as well, have an interest in how we can effect change in North Korea.

I think it is very important that the government be seen to be vocal in terms of expressing its views in general, and in specific terms about specific cases in North Korea, and trying ultimately to effect change.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Could you please describe how Canada has participated in or contributed to the United Nations action that aims to halt crimes against humanity, or war crimes, genocide, or serious human rights violations in other countries?

[Graham Shantz]

I'm sorry, I'm not prepared to speak to that today, but if you wish we can get back to you on that.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Sure.

My other question is, in your view, how well documented are the allegations that North Korea is committing crimes against humanity and serious human rights violations?

[Graham Shantz]

In the first questions that were asked, I think the challenge is access. It's very difficult with a closed country to be able to provide first-hand accounts. We are limited, as my colleague described in the work of some of the United Nations special rapporteur, to accounts of people who have gotten out, or of their own experience—their own horrors, if you will—or their own accounts of others who have been persecuted in North Korea.

It is difficult work; it is not easy. The challenge that I think Canada faces in a lot of countries where there are gross and systemic human rights violations is one of documentation. Human rights workers will tell you as well that it's access and documentation to build the case. We think the case is pretty clear in the case of North Korea.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll stop my time and pass it on to Mr. Sweet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Do you have more questions, Mr. Sweet?

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

Sure, if there's a moment left.