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

[Graham Shantz]

Again, I think the government's view is to be clearly in front and leading in terms of what we view the North Korean regime should do to protect the interests of its own people.

You raised the issue of height. I am told from reliable sources that the difference is four inches in height between North Koreans and South Koreans. A senior South Korean official says no, that it's actually five or six now, so who knows?

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

It struck you as if you had a 14-year-old child across from you. That's what it felt like when they came close.

On the six-party talks, is Canada one of the contributors?

[Graham Shantz]

No, we're not. We're not a participant in the six-party talks.

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

It seems to me, from what I've heard of the talks, that they're more of a pre-emptive to try to control the nuclear situation as opposed to anything beyond that. Is that your sense of the talks?

[Graham Shantz]

I'm really not qualified for the context. It clearly, however, is an issue of importance for international peace and security in north Asia, so that the parties involved in the six-party talks oftentimes have difficulty agreeing on the agenda, agreeing on a meeting, or agreeing on a location for a meeting. So I think it's a fluid agenda. What I would say is that it's clearly targeting the nuclearization issue and it's also clearly targeting peace and security in north Asia.

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

How's my time, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

You have one minute and 15 seconds.

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

Well, that's not so bad.

I want to come back to the commission of inquiry. If we have a commission, if that's created by the United Nations under a resolution in the United Nations.... My understanding—and I may be mistaken on this—is that the talk of a commission came out from the secretary-general, but not from the United Nations itself. It was just a commentary, as opposed to a resolution.

If it were proposed as a resolution, do you think it would have a chance of getting past China?

[Rebecca Netley]

Thank you for the question.

In terms of where the talk first came from for a commission of inquiry, I can't be specific. I know that one source for sure was the International Coalition to Stop Crimes Against Humanity in North Korea, that NGO network. I'm not familiar with any reference that the secretary-general himself may have made to a commission of inquiry.

In terms of whether or not China would veto a commission of inquiry, I think that seems likely. Of course, that is an issue in the Security Council only where China exercises a veto as a permanent member, but as I alluded to in my opening statement, there would certainly be other challenges related not only to China but with respect to other countries. There could potentially be other challenges even if it were raised not in the Security Council but in another venue.

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

Well, I'm not surprised in the context of China's record on human rights. It's not that much more glowing than what it is in North Korea.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Unfortunately, that minute and 15 seconds has disappeared on us.

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

I thought it might.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Albrecht, please.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start with just a little bit of a disclaimer. This is my first opportunity to be part of this group, and I'm certainly very much looking forward to it.

I enjoyed reading through the background material, and I enjoyed your opening comments. I enjoyed them in the sense that it was informative, but I was disturbed by them in terms of the severity of the situation. Obviously this committee was seized with that last year when they made a recommendation to the foreign affairs committee that these two recommendations be adopted. The second one now comes back to us to reconsider the idea of a commission.

You pointed out clearly in your opening statement, Ms. Netley, the reasons for the hesitance of having a commission—the questions of what additional information might we find in addition to what the special rapporteur has found, North Korea not giving access, and wondering whether or not the request would actually be granted by the body considering the request.

I'm wondering if there's a fourth consideration we need to be aware of. I don't know the answer to this. I really do need your perspective. What are the implications of us asking for that with our neighbours, whether it's the U.S. or Japan or other international players? Are there also considerations that we should be aware of before we would make a move such as requesting a special commission of inquiry?

[Rebecca Netley]

Thank you, Mr. Albrecht.

Certainly a first step in any multilateral initiative is to consult one's like-minded cohorts and to ensure that there is support amongst the like-minded before proceeding.

So that would certainly be a first step of any country that wanted to pursue a COI initiative on North Korea, to talk to the like-minded. In this case, that would certainly include the United States, South Korea, and Japan.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Just to follow up on that, do we have some proactive insight into how they may or may not respond to our request, should that come? Or is that an unfair question?

[Rebecca Netley]

Sorry, I didn't hear the question.

[Graham Shantz]

It's okay. Maybe what I'll do is talk a little bit about what we're doing with our allies, including the United States.

I think that may get, with your permission, to a bit of the kernel of the question, which is a very important question in terms of any contemplation of international action or joint action.

We are constantly in dialogue with key allies, including the United States and South Korea, regarding the human rights situation and the security situation in North Korea. Officials from this department were invited by U.S. Ambassador Robert King, who is the U.S. special envoy for human rights in North Korea, to join 16 other participants, including the European Union, into a strategy session to discuss options for advancing human rights in North Korea. These discussions are still exploratory, but they represent a positive step in a coordinated approach.

Now, I raise it in the context of your question, because others clearly also want to act to address the deplorable situation of human rights in North Korea. We're working with them in trying to find the method, the mechanism, the tool that is best able not only to express our concerns but hopefully try to see real change for North Koreans.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you.

I think that brings me to my final question. I probably won't use all my time.

Obviously all of us around this table are concerned about what's happening. We all want to express our displeasure in the strongest terms. But at the end of the discussion, hopefully there will be more than just discussion, and there will be action.

If you were to give recommendations to Canada at this point, if you're suggesting the special commission is not the way to go, what is the best way forward in terms of Canada not just expressing its displeasure but having a pretty good hope that there will actually be action at the end of the discussion?

[Graham Shantz]

Sir, again I would go back to the triumph of hope over experience. I mean, I think we have to be consistent in our views. We have to be persistent and to clearly have our objective in mind, which is ultimately better treatment of North Koreans. We need key allies to consult with and to share with on the design of how we can best achieve those results.

I wish I had an easier answer.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I didn't think there would be one.

[Graham Shantz]

I wish I had a way that you could say it would happen tomorrow.

I think it certainly is the government's view to be a consistent voice in advocating for the human rights situation of North Korea across the full range of rights. We will need to work with others. South Korea clearly has a huge stake in this, as do other of our allies, including the United States. So we will continue to work with them and to consult with them to try to figure out a way that we can try to get real change on the ground.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you very much, Mr. Albrecht.

Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask the witnesses and anyone who can answer this question whether we are in a situation of the “responsibility to protect doctrine” framework. In other words, if the responsibility to protect is that wherever you have a situation of war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, or, God forbid, genocide, and the state in question is unable or unwilling to do anything about it, or in fact is the author of that criminality, then this invokes the responsibility to protect doctrine. Would you believe we are in a situation of that with regard to North Korea?

[Rebecca Netley]

Unfortunately, I'm not able to comment on that particular question today. I apologize.