Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on July 9th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I think we should look for flexibility so that you are able to set it up. We want to go that week.

We have Garnett, and then Heather, please.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

On the logistics, I happen to know that the public safety committee study on systemic racism is on Thursday and Friday. If we were to do intensive hearings Monday through Wednesday, or two of those days, then the clerk could look into availability. As far as I know, the public safety committee is meeting those days. I don't know of any other committees that are meeting, so we will probably find availability.

On the product, I think it would be worthwhile for us to try to do that intensive study and then be ready to have some product coming out very shortly afterwards, a report through the foreign affairs committee.

The other thing we can do—and I think this committee has done this in the past—is send a letter to the minister, reporting some of our findings to the minister directly. That does not require a delay, and it ensures that the minister, and through him the government, is absorbing the work that is done at the committee and hearing our recommendations, if we want to include some recommendations in that letter. That does show the benefit, I think, of that earlier timeline and being able to feed into the government's thinking on this as quickly as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I have a question for the clerk. Do all reports, then, go to the foreign affairs committee, the parent committee? Okay.

Heather.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I just wanted to clarify. Have we had a discussion that this is the best week to do it? It does seem that we can't have it tabled until September. From my own perspective, and it's selfish, I have to be here for House duty for the August 12 meeting. If it's something that's decided and everybody is happy with that week, that's fine, but it does mean another trip on an airplane, which of course is a little perilous at this time. I just didn't know if we'd had a fulsome discussion, or if there's a reason why we need to have it that week instead of two weeks later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes, if we were to put a report together, we would need some time for the translation and for getting everything set. If we come in August, that may not give us enough time. If we do it in the week of the 20th, I understand that's when all the resources are here on the Hill because that's one of the times when we're back.

We have Alexis up next.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

First, I want to congratulate you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I think that we should meet during the week of July 20, primarily because the situation is urgent. People are currently in re-education camps. I think that we must act as quickly as possible. I believe that together we can find witnesses. The clerk can help us organize this.

Also, as you were saying, in order for the report to be ready in September, we need to start as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

Yes, Iqra.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I take all the points. I agree with Alexis. I think there is a bit of an urgency to getting this done. I would propose that in the week we're discussing, the week of July 20, we do two meetings of three panels and get it out.

In terms of the final product, I know that in the past, especially with the Rohingya—and David will remember this—even though we did an initial fulsome report and study, we later revisited the issue and did statements from the committee itself as press releases, etc., which we sent to various organizations across the world.

I think that could be an avenue we can pursue this time around, instead of trying to nitpick a 50- or 60-page report. We know this is a legitimate issue; we know this has a time crunch on it. Instead of putting together a full report with the details that we've already explored in the past, we can condense it down to a one- or two-page statement that we make as a committee, and lead with that, building on the work we've done in the past.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

Garnett.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Sorry, I'm talking a lot here, but it's kind of normal for me.

To Heather's point, first of all, my understanding of the rules around video conferencing is that a committee is not able to meet exclusively by video conference without the express authorization of the House. However, there's nothing to prevent a committee from allowing members of that committee to pose questions by video conference. As long as there weren't motions moved or things like that, and as long as we met the quorum requirements, there would be no reason why a member couldn't participate in the hearing portion remotely. However, if we were having discussions on reports and statements, I think it would be necessary for members to be here, especially if we were doing that in camera.

That timeline might end up working very well for you if we do hearings the week you're not planning on being here and we're able to facilitate your joining virtually. If you're going to be here later on, during that sitting, that's when we would consider the report, statement, letter or whatever the case may be.

To Iqra's point, I think it's a great point about the value of having a letter or statement that's brief and to the point and that contains some things that are specific and concrete. I'm hopeful that we'll be able to find a consensus on some recommendations for Canadian action in response to this and identify the situation. As well, again hopefully working on a consensus basis, we can say what steps we should take. I don't think that precludes a more detailed report as well. We could start with a letter or a statement and then also have a report that does the detailed work. A report would not be able to proceed through the channels of being tabled and so forth until October, likely, but we could proceed with the statement as soon as possible.

In terms of scheduling, as we do this I think we should.... There are a lot of experts we could hear from. There's first-person testimony. We need to hear about action. I would favour us having six to eight two-hour meetings over the course of those two days to really hear from that range of experts. We're talking six hours of hearings a day for two days. That's very little compared with the amount of time the finance committee or other committees put in at certain points in time. I think having that length of time and that breadth of evidence would serve us well in terms of coming to some concrete, substantive conclusions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

My understanding from the clerk on participating through video is that it would not be part of quorum. It would first have to be approved by the whips' offices, and then you would not be able to vote in a situation like that, from afar. I guess that's what you would have to weigh there.

Sameer, welcome.

David, you're up next.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Chair, as always, I appreciate Iqra's line. I think Garnett said it best—that we have both.

I want to read out the United Nations definition of genocide:

a. Killing members of the group;

b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Literally all of these have been fulfilled in the case of the Muslim Uighurs.

I think we need a more detailed study. It doesn't have to be 60 pages. In fact, we could condense the first two or three pages and just highlight some of the things we've said before. It needs to be substantive, only because of the nature of the issue. I think we have to demonstrate that we did our job thoroughly. The gravity of this issue requires very succinct legal detail and very succinct recommendations in regard to this, which is a crime against humanity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thanks, David.

To the analyst, how much time would you need if you were looking at two days with a number of hours of witnesses?

[Brendan Naef, Committee Researcher]

The week of July 20 works well. If it's a matter of having several meetings together, we could possibly provide a larger background document and then smaller documents with just the bio and questions, perhaps, instead of a different briefing note, obviously, for each one.

It's tight, but for the beginning of the 20th, it's doable.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

I love doable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Is there any more discussion?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Maybe I would just make a concrete proposal, then, one that seems to accord with what everybody else is saying.

In order to have time in between for transition and that, let's say we schedule ourselves for hearings into two-hour blocks on the Tuesday and Wednesday, to give ourselves an extra day. We can aim for three two-hour blocks per day on the Tuesday and Wednesday.

We can have a subsequent discussion about witnesses, if there's agreement to proceed on that basis, but on the Tuesday and Wednesday we'd have three two-hour blocks each day and schedule different witnesses into each of those blocks.

That would seem to me to be in line with the discussion and it makes the most sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We have Heather, and then Iqra.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Would it make sense for us to have it on the Tuesday and Thursday? The only reason I say that is so that we could participate in the House sitting on Wednesday.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

If I could respond, I would suggest the Monday and Tuesday then, because the Thursday and Friday are the systemic racism hearings of public safety.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Oh, okay.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I just thought that in the event that there's a limited number of people, or parties want to have the same people at both hearings, or there's a limited supply of committee rooms, we would avoid the days on which those things were happening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Iqra.