Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Nov. 5th, 2024

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Five minutes is very little time. I'm going to ask Professor Neve a question right away.

Professor Neve, you are known as someone who said that, in your opinion, Canadian federalism “presents the most significant barrier to the effective implementation of [Canada's] international human rights obligations”.

How credible can Canada be if the majority of territorial governments, which manage health, education, housing and certain provincial corrections matters, are not accountable when it comes to human rights?

[Alex Neve]

Thank you for your question.

Highlighting that question of credibility is absolutely vital here, because when we highlight the failure, whether it's a failure due to the complexities—which are not insurmountable but are complexities posed by federalism—or whether it's more widely the fact that, unfortunately, governments across the country, especially when it comes to economic, social and cultural rights, still have a reticence to truly recognize and embrace them as legally enforceable rights, the credibility concern is that we're seeing, therefore, a failure to address vitally important human rights issues at ground level across Canada.

However, we're also seeing a weakening of Canada's voice on the world stage because our diplomats and our civil society representatives want to be pressing other governments to do much more to live up to their international human rights obligations, often in countries obviously with much more serious and pressing human rights concerns, but if we're not taking those obligations seriously and if we're not putting mechanisms in place to make sure that we get the work done, then what right do we have to be pointing the finger and offering advice to those other countries?

Yes, there is a credibility gap.

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

It's very interesting to talk about Canada's credibility, and I apologize to the other witnesses, but I only have five minutes, so I'm going to focus on that.

Professor Neve, this isn't the first time we've talked about this credibility issue. In 2010, this same subcommittee examined the issue and came to the conclusion that a mechanism had to be put in place to remedy the problem.

In 2017, the well-known committee of senior federal, provincial and territorial officials met, but the results were rather unsatisfactory, in my opinion.

Here we are in 2024, soon to be 2025, and we're still talking about this issue. Even though a mechanism was put in place in 2017, today we're still wondering why it isn't working.

What do you think the solution would be?

[Alex Neve]

It absolutely needs to be backed up with something that gives the force of law to these committees and these promises and aspirations to better coordinate.

You're quite right. This subcommittee highlighted this concern in 2010. It would be a long list to highlight all of the UN bodies that have stressed how much of a concern that is. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights has also highlighted this, as have, of course, civil society groups and indigenous peoples' organizations.

That's why you've heard the unified recommendation from all of us for the federal government to work with provincial and territorial governments, indigenous peoples' organizations and civil society groups to develop that national framework for international human rights implementation, backed up by law and well resourced and grounded in strong consultation and engagement processes. That's the way forward.

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

Thank you, Professor Neve.

I'll now turn to you, Ms. Malischewski.

It was said in some opening remarks that Quebec could serve as an example to the other provinces and territories. If they followed Quebec's lead, we would ensure better human rights outcomes.

Do you agree with that statement?

[Charlotte-Anne Malischewski]

Thank you for your question.

I think it's certainly very important to recognize the problem at the provincial level. It's a lesson and a model for the rest of the country.

I think one of the challenges at the federal level is the difference between provinces and territories. As Professor Neve mentioned, there are a lot of discussions, but they don't always lead to feasible or effective solutions. At the end of the day, we don't always come up with measures to make the progress we want. The solutions proposed are not always supported by the force of law.

You've heard today from other members of civil society about the importance of having a national mechanism for treaties and studies of all kinds that are done at the international level. We really need that in this country as well.

There are definitely lessons to be learned from Quebec's experience. I hope we can continue this discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe.

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

I'd like to say one last thing. In fact, if Quebec were a country, we wouldn't be talking about it today. We would already be ahead of Canada. I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

I invite Mr. Johns to take the floor for five minutes, please.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I'll start with Mr. Neve.

Mr. Neve, you talked about a national framework for international human rights implementation. Can you talk about or elaborate on what that would entail and what components would be necessary to make such a framework successful?

[Alex Neve]

Thank you.

I very much appreciate the question, given that it's something I think we have all endorsed and see as the way forward. Certainly, it needs to be developed jointly with the federal, provincial and territorial governments, but also with significant engagement with civil society groups, indigenous peoples' organizations and human rights commissions across the country.

First and foremost, we need to hear from all governments. Alexi White highlighted how we don't hear from the provincial and territorial governments clear recognition of and a commitment to their international human rights obligations.

Secondly, there are a number of existing bodies, strategies and policies that can be improved and strengthened. Some work needs to be done in that area.

Thirdly, we need law. This is clear after 20-plus years of working in this space. It's evident to many of us, and certainly to me, that simply relying on aspirations, promises and the development of committees will not take us where we need to be. At all levels of government, we need what you might call a human rights implementation act.

We need much improved consultation processes. We need recognition of the role that both municipal and indigenous governments can and should be playing in this space.

Lastly, we need much improved resourcing, including resourcing that will support the important work of civil society in this space.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

You also talked about our failure to live up to our obligations and fulfill the UN recommendations, which undermines our credibility in pushing other governments to do the same. Do you believe there are foreign policy implications arising from Canada's ineffective domestic approach to international human rights implementation?

[Alex Neve]

Absolutely, and I think that's why it's so important that this committee, in particular, is taking up this issue. Of course, this is a committee that's concerned about the state of international human rights around the world, which I think we would all agree is dismal and, in many respects, has been deteriorating and is in crisis in many corners of our world.

The UN struggles to play the role it is entrusted with of safeguarding and promoting human rights. It faces contempt and disregard from numerous governments all the time. Canada needs to be a champion in that space, pressing those governments to live up to their obligations and comply with the recommendations coming out of the UPR and other international reviews.

If we don't even have a decent process in place ourselves to do so, what is the force and what is the credibility of our voice in pressing those other governments to do so?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Thank you for that.

Ms. Doherty, you mentioned that you've been involved in the universal periodic review process in 50 countries. I think that's what you said. Can you provide any examples of countries that are effectively engaging with civil society in this process? What are they doing right that Canada could implement?

Lastly, maybe you can identify some countries that have dedicated human rights ministers.

[Meghan Doherty]

Thank you very much for the question.

I just want to address very briefly Canada's foreign policy. Canada is running for a seat at the UN Human Rights Council in 2028. Canada's record in this area will come under intense scrutiny—just to put that on the table—and that is part of the reason why we feel there's such urgency to address these issues.

In terms of civil society participation in other countries, I can say from my experience.... My first UPR was in Ireland, where I was fortunate enough to work with a broad coalition of organizations for Ireland's first UPR. That process involved multiple engagements with the government over the whole cycle of the UPR. Well before the national report was written, there was clustered engagement around thematic issues. There was resourcing for civil society. There was not only a report back on what we heard, but actual engagement, dialogue and discussion about what the challenges were that the government was facing in implementation, and what the lived experience was of the people subject to human rights violations.

For some of the other examples from other countries, in Paraguay, they have this publicly available database of all the recommendations Paraguay has received, not only from the UPR but from different treaty bodies. There's a publicly available database in which you can see where different recommendations have been implemented, and civil society can also contribute to that.

In terms of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Can you wrap it up, please? The time is up.

[Meghan Doherty]

In terms of ministers for human rights, we see that in the U.K. there's the minister of state for human rights. In Brazil, there is a minister of human rights, and in Pakistan there is a Ministry of Human Rights. It's not an unusual facet of government to have a minister for human rights, and it's usually attached to a high level—either at the prime ministerial level or at a higher level attached to cabinet-level officials.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you very much.

I would like to thank all the witnesses for your presence here today. It is an important role that you enlighten this committee. Your testimony and your participation in this debate are extremely important. I'm sorry about the time. Time is running out. We would like to continue and to have more time with you, but unfortunately we can't.

I will suspend for a couple of seconds, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

We are resuming the meeting. Please take your seats.

No, we are not in camera.

Okay. We'll start our meeting.

Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, you have the floor.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. I think that we generally don't do committee business in public. I think you'll find that there is a consensus in the room.

I would suggest that everybody, with a nod of heads, consent, and then we can adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Okay. That is carried.

Thank you.

I'd like to thank everyone, as well as the interpreters and all staff.

The meeting is adjourned.