Foreign Affairs committee  I'll take 30 seconds. I think the requirement that there be new Canadian standards that explicitly incorporate Canada's international human rights obligations is absolutely key. It's missing in the current strategy. Yes, of course Bill C-300 doesn't propose the creation of the ombudsman or the tripartite compliance committee, which the round table process had.

Foreign Affairs committee  I'll be honest with you. Amnesty International had not called on Talisman to leave Sudan. We didn't say that they should stay; we didn't call on them to leave. We certainly were pressing them to adopt stronger human rights policies in the way they were operating in Sudan and to use the opportunity of being in the country to better promote human rights reform within the Sudanese government.

Foreign Affairs committee  It's sad that the global tour, in answer to your question, is getting larger and larger. As the world becomes smaller, as we become more and more aware of these issues, as organizations like our two organizations and others start to look more closely at these cases, we are starting to see more and more instances where companies, domestic and foreign, large and small, are very much in the midst of situations in which armed conflict and human rights abuses are taking a heavy civilian toll.

Foreign Affairs committee  I don't remember all of the specifics. I am aware that some have. We could probably formulate some of that more specifically. Maybe my friend has some of that information. Mr. Worms.

Foreign Affairs committee  Thank you very much. Yes, it's been a happy morning, having my computer fail me, but I'm very pleased to be here with you. I welcome the opportunity to share Amnesty International's views and recommendations with respect to Bill C-300. Certainly for many decades the crucial global struggle to better safeguard and protect the human rights of women, men, and young people around the world has been very much focused on governments, both in the sense of governments being the ones who violate human rights and in the sense of governments being the ones who have to take action to protect human rights.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  If you could, please remind me of what it deals with.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  No. We believe that provision will reinforce the importance of those treaties being respected. I think that position has really been borne out--more important than my voice or Amnesty International's voice on this issue--by the voices of indigenous leaders and organizations across the country.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  I don't think the declaration in itself opens up anything that wasn't already there. If a case can be made that a particular treaty is flawed or not complete, or historical evidence can demonstrate that a treaty was negotiated on the basis of misunderstandings, or anything of that sort, those kinds of assertions and arguments can already be made in Canadian courts.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  I've never heard any leaders or organizations assert that interpretation or suggest in any way that's the intention of how the declaration be interpreted.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  We should have a clear and obvious answer to that question, but we don't. The fact that we don't have a clear and obvious answer is itself an indictment of our current approach to human rights implementation. The process within Canada to consider signing on to an important human rights treaty such as the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture is secretive.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  Well, let me begin with the question of which treaties. In the course of the UPR there were probably somewhere in the range of six to eight treaties that came up that governments called on Canada to ratify. We certainly wouldn't disagree with any of those recommendations. I think among all of those treaties there are two that perhaps should be at the top of the list simply because we know these are two that Canada has been actively looking at already, such that much of the work has been done, and in our view, therefore, now is the time to cross the finish line and ratify them.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  Thank you. Why don't I take them in reverse order? Clearly federalism is a challenge. In our view it's not a barrier, but unfortunately for far too long it has been accepted as a barrier. That's why we—not just Amnesty International, but organizations across the country—have been pressing for this moment, this important moment of Canada's engagement with the international human rights system, as an opportunity for us to signal determination and will to develop a better, more coordinated, more transparent, and more effective approach to implementing human rights obligations within a federal state.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can honestly say that I don't think I've ever had my birthday acknowledged in Parliament before, so it's kind of exciting. It's a pleasure to be with you all this afternoon on an issue that Amnesty International strongly believes is of very real and certainly quite timely and pressing importance.

Public Safety committee  Yes.

Public Safety committee  That's a good phrase, the human-rights-o-meter. We're not suggesting we're the worst of the worst. I don't think we can assume we're the best of the best. I think there are two things to keep in mind in response to that question. Number one, whenever abuses happen, whether they're isolated or whether they are symptomatic of something larger and more systemic, they must be addressed.