Evidence of meeting #3 for Subcommittee on International Human Rights in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:05 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Erica Pereira
Honourable members of the committee, I see that we have a quorum.
I must inform members that the clerk of the committee can only receive motions for the election of chair. The clerk cannot receive other types of motions, cannot entertain points of order, nor participate in debate.
We can now proceed with the election of the chair.
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the chair must be a member of the government party.
I'm ready to receive motions for the position of chair.
Yes, Mrs. McCrimmon.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
3:05 p.m.
The Clerk
Okay. It has been moved by Mrs. McCrimmon that Mr. Fonseca be elected as chair of the committee.
Are there any further motions?
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
(Motion agreed to)
I declare the motion carried and Mr. Fonseca duly elected chair of the subcommittee.
3:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Hear, hear!
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you very much, everybody. It is an honour, and I thank you for your support to allow me to assume this position.
Being new to this committee but knowing much about the committee and having sat on the committee a number of times when being subbed in, in previous years, what I've seen is that this committee is special. I say that in a very heartfelt way, because the way this committee works through collaboration, through consensus is a culture that we would like to see in all committees. As I said, this one works in a very special way for the Hill. Taking on this role, I would like to continue in that vein and to really hear from all of you in terms of all the experience that you have. I know we're talking about very important subject matter in terms of world issues that are taking place, one that we want to get to right now and that's very urgent and important.
I can't thank you enough for your support, and I look to really hear from you in terms of how we move forward. I know you're going to have some amazing questions for all the witnesses we're going to have as we get into the different studies, and the study that we're looking to do at this time.
I'm going to ask committee members whether they would like me to address them by Mr. or Ms. and last name, or by first name. Let's see a show of hands for first name. Okay.
Garnett.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Peter, and congratulations.
My understanding is that there's been discussion among the parties and there's likely some consensus on moving forward with a study as soon as possible on the situation of Uighur Muslims in China. I suggest that maybe we just dive right into the discussion of programming that study, if there's consensus around proceeding.
My understanding from some of the discussions that took place was that there was a sense that not next week but the following week would be a good time to target for. It gives us enough time to make sure witnesses are scheduled and available. I might suggest we identify two or three days that week to have some pretty detailed and intensive hearings, if we want to proceed in that fashion.
We can have a little bit of a general discussion about witnesses here and then submit specific names to the clerk by a certain point, allowing for that scheduling to take place. Hopefully, there's interest in moving in that direction.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you, Chair.
First of all, congratulations. I think this is one of the most, as you said, special committees that I've ever been on. Just having the honour of working on these very important issues has meant a lot to me and to our communities here in Canada. I've had a wonderful conversation with David on this very specific issue, not just today but in the past as well. As you may know, Chair, we delved deep into this very dire issue, as it's being presented—I believe it was last year—and I really appreciate that David has raised this issue again. I know he has been raising it for the past number of years.
I would really be glad to have this study. I would only ask for a number of things, if that's okay.
We are a consensus-based committee, which means that a lot of the politics that go into our positions should be kept out of what we discuss. It really is a dire human rights issue, and we've had a wonderful way of working in the past number of years. I really hope that, with all of the new members here today, it continues that way. I think it's a wonderful way to really lead by example and say that human rights matter and that they are paramount to a lot of the other issues that we may or may not be concerned with.
Garnett mentioned witnesses. One thing that came up the last time we delved into this issue was the safety and security of witnesses. I would appreciate it if any discussions about witnesses happened in camera, as the safety and security of any of the witnesses whom we may or may not end up hearing from should be maintained.
Those are my thoughts as we go into this study.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON
That just means I have more responsibility.
Thank you, Chair, and congratulations. I'm very happy that you're our new chair. I have seen you work. You're a man of principle and character, and I appreciate that.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON
I'd also like to thank all of my colleagues. You all responded in the most positive way when Garnett and I approached you after the article in The Associated Press, which was very damning. We knew from previous studies, and we've had multiple.... In fact, one of the things that I'd ask, Chair, through you to our researchers, particularly for the newer members.... I believe we've done at least two other full studies and a number of statements over the past 10 years. Could we maybe have the links to those sent to all the members?
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON
We have two substantial opportunities here. The first, and by far the most important, is to do some good by raising this issue and having significant international pressure, now that we have this new evidence. We're really the only committee.... When we travelled to Washington, we found out that the Tom Lantos commission, which we thought was our senior, doesn't actually do studies. In fact, we had a kind of agreement—I think we have to go back and refresh that—that they would sometimes use us because they really just get evidence and make statements publicly.
We have an opportunity to do the unilateral work of a professional group to really make this issue known through the capability that we have of calling multiple witnesses. Obviously, there are lots of people who are experts and are speaking out individually, but our strength is having the capability to get a balance of witnesses from the Uighur community, from academia and former diplomats. I think if we round it out well like that, we'll be able to get a very accurate picture, not only of today's present circumstance but of how it's grown and the likelihood—and this is why I think it's very important for us to act for them right now—of it getting worse if we're not very substantive in our findings and our report.
Thank you for the opportunity, again. Thank you to all of my colleagues. I greatly appreciate all the co-operation that we've had.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you.
I just wonder, to David's point, given that so much has been done on this.... I know that in the last Parliament we had a very detailed, substantial report with some very heart-wrenching testimony. I'm wondering if we could perhaps include what we heard there and then build upon that as part of the study, instead of starting from scratch.
I wonder what the thoughts of my colleagues are on this.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
This is a suggestion. Why don't we go in camera so that we can have this discussion? Names may come up, people may come up, etc., as some of the witnesses. I don't know how others feel about this.
Garnett.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Not that we shouldn't ever do in camera, but the difficulty we have right now with in camera is that there are some specific limitations around staff being present in this room who are following online. If we go in camera, we're not supported in the same way that we normally are. I would say let's discuss as much as we can in public.
We don't have to get into witness names, but I do have many suggestions for witnesses who are already on the record by name and have given interviews. I'm happy to have some discussion in camera as well.
We should probably have a bit of a discussion about dates, times, number of hearings, some of the logistics around that, and maybe some process around witnesses. If we want to talk about some of the witnesses, we can reserve some time at the end for in camera.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I just want to heed the concerns of safety and security, and everything else, so that we can have an open discussion. But I agree that we can move on to some of the logistics.
I think we're talking about the week of the 20th.
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON
I'd like to mention one thing, Mr. Chair, if people are fine with that. Karen does not have that concern, but I know that most others do. Rather than come back week after week, where we normally have our one-hour meeting, which would be laborious, perhaps we could have several panels next week, maybe two days of three panels, or whatever number we can agree on, so that we can actually.... Of course, we would need some direction from the clerk on that. Obviously, the translators would need to sub in and out, so we'd have to have some spacing in that regard. If we were to do it that way, people wouldn't have to travel multiple times from their constituency. I know that Heather's and Garnett's are a little ways away.
We could accomplish something that's important enough. I mentioned this in my letter to you and all of my colleagues. The thing is to get this study actually done. Hopefully, when we get back in September, the foreign affairs committee can take it up and then make it an official study. We can't do anything on our own; they have to approve it.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you.
Just before Garnett, maybe the clerk could give us some insight into the logistics of the week of the 20th: resources, room availability, etc. What David was talking about was two days and a number of meetings. Is that possible?
3:15 p.m.
The Clerk
Sure. Currently, there are two rooms set up for in-person meetings, this room and room 415 in this building. It shouldn't be a problem to have longer meetings, but we will need to be cognizant of the interpreters. Usually, when they do their switch, it takes about half an hour to have the cleaning done properly for the next group of interpreters. But that's fine. I'm happy to arrange the panels in such a way as to have a natural pause in the meeting while the cleaning happens.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Does it matter if it's Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday? Is the whole week of the 20th open, or any of those days?
3:15 p.m.
The Clerk
I would have to double-check. I'm sure that if the subcommittee would like to make a decision on the days, we could work around that decision.
