Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs
Issue 14 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 25, 1998
[English]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre-- Rosedale, Lib.)): Members, I would like to call to order this joint meeting of the Senate and House of Commons Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committees.
On your behalf, I would like to welcome Her Excellency Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland. She is a great friend of Canada, and now, I think it is safe to say, one of the leading advocates and proponents of human rights in the world.
Those of us who have had the opportunity to know Mrs. Robinson, or to hear her speak, know she is a legal scholar of great renown. This will appeal to some of the lawyers here, Mrs. Robinson, and perhaps will not appeal to some of the other members of the committee, who find the lawyers perhaps a bit tiresome from time to time.
But I think all of us will agree that Mrs. Robinson's type of legal knowledge has been one to advance human rights around the world. We are very lucky to have her as the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and we are very privileged to have her here in Ottawa.
I understand, High Commissioner, we are trying to keep this to 30 minutes instead of 45. We have had you on a very gruelling schedule, and you have to leave at 4.45 p.m. I understand, therefore, your introductory remarks will be fairly brief and then the members will be open for questions.
Senator Stewart will co-chair and wrap up the session at 4.45 p.m.
Thank you very much, and again, welcome to the committee.
Ms Mary Robinson, High Commissioner, United Nations Commission on Human Rights: Thank you very much, Mr. Graham and Senator Stewart.
I am very pleased to have this opportunity. I think the way to make it a fruitful opportunity is to have a dialogue with you and respond to your questions, but I think I should say a few words about my own role as high commissioner, and in particular how I want to, in a strategic way, develop that role and be more effective, in partnership with others, in the protection and promotion of human rights.
It is good to think about this at the end of a year marking the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration and the five-year review of the Vienna commitments made at the world conference.
I see the role of high commissioner, in exercising a broad mandate, as really being a catalyst, as being strategic, and working in strategic alliances with government, with other organs of the UN, with NGOs, and with the business sector. I am very interested in convincing the business sector that human rights are very much a concern for business reasons. That is a debate we have very much opened up.
It is also part of my responsibility, under the leadership of the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, to have human rights as a core value in the UN system as a whole. I do that through participating in the executive committees on peace and security, on development, on humanitarian issues, ECHA, and on economic and social issues.
I am also on the weekly senior management group, chaired by the Secretary-General. We have field operations that we are looking at, and very much implementing measures to make them more effective. We also have technical cooperation projects.
Basically, though, I think it is more a catalytic role. It is not a major doing role. It is a small office, and it is going to stay small. Being Irish, I have that sense of not wanting to build an empire. I just want to be more professional about what I am doing. It is very helpful during this visit to be able to link with you here, representing both Houses, and to answer any queries you might have and hear your comments on issues of human rights.
Canada has a very important role, as is very evident, and human rights are very vibrant issues here. You have a very informed civil society. That is something I have been very conscious of since coming here. That is a great strength of your system. It will give you a harder time before the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights during this week than would otherwise be the case, because you have an informed NGO community that has been providing details, and scrutinizing, monitoring.
So Canada gets quite a rough ride because of that, but that is a strength. That means the system is working well. It means the international standards are having more effect.
I think it is worth reflecting on the way in which a strong civil society here in Canada is making more effective the working of an international committee and its responsibilities in Geneva and also in such other areas as the convention on land mines and the International Criminal Court.
Today's decision in the House of Lords by a majority of 3 to 2 has been very symbolic, in a principled way, on the issue of impunity, but it is also a very strong reinforcement of the argument for moving ahead with the ratifications on the International Criminal Court. I am glad Canada is taking a very positive leadership role in that.
So with those opening remarks, I would respond to any questions, Mr. Chairmen, that you may wish to elicit.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Graham): I have Mr. Turp and Mr. Cannis on the list, and Mr. Assadourian and Senator Kinsella. We will go back and forth. We are going to try to be fair on both sides.
There is a sort of human rights turf war between the Senate and the House of Commons, but we'll work this out.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois--Salaberry, BQ): High Commissioner, I had the opportunity this afternoon to point out in the House how honoured we were by your visit and how this Parliament and other Parliaments around the world must constantly be concerned about human rights.
We wish you every success in the role you took on a few months ago, nearly a year now, because that role is a fundamentally important one. The United Nations acted wisely in establishing an institution like the one that you are now responsible for.
I have two questions. I am very interested in this area, being a professor of international law, particularly international human rights law, at my university in Montreal.
With respect to impunity, I took note, as others did, of your comments on the Pinochet ruling when you were speaking with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I would like to know what your views are on impunity and to what extent we need to be rigid about impunity.
This afternoon, I was asked in the House whether trying to put Mr. Pinochet on trial was not going a bit too far, given that there are so many other dictators that should be pursued and whose extradition should be requested.
My second question deals with the topic you raised earlier, that is, the link between human rights and trade. Do you believe that the major international trade agreements, which are being negotiated in the WTO or the Free Trade Area of the Americas, or anywhere else in the world, should from now on contain clauses on human rights?
Ms Robinson: Thank you for your two questions. If I may, I will answer in English because it is easier for me.
[English]
First of all, on the issue of impunity, I mark and note the importance of the decision of the House of Lords by a 3 to 2 majority on a principled approach to the issue of impunity. That is the important issue of the day, if I could put it that way. It is a huge reaffirmation to human rights defenders all over the world. It is an important issue where you cannot assert immunity that will override allegations of serious violations of human rights.
I personally believe this is not the best way to address these issues, to have a judge of one country seek extradition from another country of somebody who lived in -- and against whom the allegations are mainly in their own country, though they were citizens of the country that requested the extradition.
It is in that context that I believe a very strong argument and case is being reinforced for the bringing into operation of the statute of the International Criminal Court, and that this is the way to address the issues of violations of human rights, and that our generation can add to the effective framework at the international level by bringing into effect the International Criminal Court. I welcome Canada's role and commitment in that regard.
You have referred to the links of human rights and the business community, and whether there are ways in which these can be made more effective in the context of trade negotiations and the other issues.
I believe it is absolutely vital, because in fact the impact of trading agreements can be very far-reaching on human rights, for good or for ill. More and more, we are going to have to link issues of human rights and trade -- link them in the international institutions, in the Bretton Woods, in the WTO, and also link them in having an awareness by leaders of business, or the business community of transnational corporations, that they are being looked at and scrutinized for their human rights record and they can potentially have great damage to their brand image or to their trading potential if there is a perception that they have violated human rights in the context of what they're doing.
So it is a matter of using the information potential now to develop informed consumers, informed shareholders and workers, and have a strong business imperative to address human rights issues, and also the importance of rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, to doing business. So there are many aspects to the business concern.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Stewart): I should explain that the foreign affairs committee of the Senate has been studying Canada in Asia-Pacific. We have looked quite deeply at the economic problems of that area as they affect Canada and the rest of the world. We have looked also at the human rights problem of that part of the world. It is against that background that some of the members of the Senate committee wish to put their questions.
I am first recognizing Senator Andreychuk.
Senator Andreychuk: I also welcome you to the Senate and the House of Commons, as you are addressing both of us. I congratulate you on the imprint you have already put on your office through your enthusiasm and dedication to human rights.
I would like to put two questions to you. I am very pleased that you have said there must be some linkage between trade and human rights. Having you make that statement will make a great deal of difference around the world. So I commend you for that.
In that context, how are you going to be able to penetrate what appears to have been, in our committee, a discussion about values being different in certain parts of the world? Have you been able to develop an approach that can penetrate countries to see their need to address human rights within their country in a universal way?
The second question comes from my years at the human rights commission. In this fiftieth year, it seems to me the Cold War necessitated the structures within the human rights commission. At this time, would it be advantageous to re-look at the human rights commission in a more developed, more sophisticated way, with perhaps some implementation mechanisms continuing but perhaps a whole new thrust for the human rights commission?
Ms Robinson: Thank you, senator, for your supportive comments and also for your two questions.
I would begin by saying that I am very interested that the Senate committee has been studying the situation in the Asia-Pacific region. I think it might be very helpful to my office and to my colleagues if we can also benefit in due course from that study, because we are increasing our own commitment. We have signed an MOU recently with Indonesia. I was on an official visit to China, which we are following up on. I think it would be very helpful.
On the first question, about the different values, I think you have probably, in the course of your study, assessed the implications of the financial crisis. I am certainly getting more interest in the importance of the rule of law, the importance of the independence of the judiciary, issues of good governance, and relatively quickly, issues of human rights.
In the visit to China, I found an openness to addressing and I am interested to see how we can follow through on identification of problems of human rights.
The fact that we are discussing these issues, such as the lack of enough lawyers, and the need for legal aid I know Canada has taken a strong role in providing support for legal aid in China, is I think very important.
I took one initiative during this year in relation to values and helped organize, at the request of the foreign minister of Iran, a seminar from an Islamic perspective on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We brought together 20 experts recently in Geneva. The title was, "Enriching the Universality of Human Rights: Islamic Perspectives." We will publish the discussions.
That was a debate between experts, and there were significant differences of interpretation on key issues, which I think is helpful to rapporteurs and others following up.
On the second point you made, on the need for a new look at the Human Rights Commission, I was very pleased that during the last Human Rights Commission, under the chairmanship of Ambassador Jacob Selebi, a review was initiated. That review is almost completed.
Indeed, on December 1, the bureau of the commission will meet with some of my colleagues in Geneva to discuss the details of completing that review. I think it will be very significant to see how they want to, as you say, reshape the working of the Commission on Human Rights. I have established an in-house task force to be supportive of that review and also advise me in relation to our work in that regard.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): I also would like to take the opportunity, Ms Robinson, to welcome you to this joint session. It is so appropriate as we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the declaration.
I would like to open up by just reading article 2, if I may, for the record. It states:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
The question I have is that most recently, and I am sure you have followed this, the Theological College of Halki is today experiencing some great difficulties in terms of its closure. That institute for well over a thousand years has been providing religious studies to the Orthodox faithful. Unfortunately, the Turkish government today, one of their many problems, has literally closed it down.
I am concerned in many ways, because there have been treaties as you, I am sure, are well aware of, over the years the Treaty of Lausanne, the 1968 Protocol, the Helsinki Final Act, 1975, and the Charter of Paris that go on and on and that, without any ambiguity, state their position very clearly.
Most recently, Mr. Solana, the director general for NATO, stated on October 15 on the Kosovo issue, and I quote, "The solution to the problem is not in signing papers; it is in compliance."
You indicated in your opening statement that we want to develop methods and ways to address these unfortunate situations that exist out there. My question then is, once these means and ways are developed, how do you implement what you put forth? How do you enforce them? How do you ask for compliance?
I close by saying that often in conversations we have out there with our constituents -- and we have seen so many unfortunate incidents that have unfolded in the last several years -- the question put to me is, well, the UN comes forth with this resolution; the EU comes forth with this resolution; and countries such as the U.S., Canada, et cetera; please, solidify -- I am weakened here.
How does your organization, the UN, all these world- recognized organizations, secure the strength? Because I believe they have been weakened when they are bringing forth a position and it is not enforceable. There is no compliance. For whichever country it may be, whether it be the Kosovo situation, Rwanda, Turkey, et cetera, how do we ask for compliance? How do we put our agenda forward? How do we rid ourselves of these horrible situations unfolding in the world today?
Ms Robinson: I certainly think you have "challenged," in the right sense, me and all of us as to how we take our responsibility, just as fifty years ago the drafters of the universal declaration did.
They had courage and imagination, and I do not think they would have realized how far the universal declaration would have been integrated into national constitutions, or would give rise to the two covenants and the various conventions and treaty- monitoring bodies.
So that happened, and now we have to be more effective in implementation. I think we have to do it in a modern context, which is why I want the kind of alliances that Canada gave leadership that led to the land mines treaty. That is a good example of innovative strategizing on an issue. We need to be innovative and strategize on various issues, governments that are prepared to take stands on them and the international UN as a very strong partner in this, and NGOs.
I come back again to the importance of the business community. The debate about the impact of business and their relationship and the trading impact of agreements entered into is very much part of this situation. They must be factored in as part of the strategic approach.
Compliance is important. So is more effective shaming and blaming, which has always been the way. In a way, that means a more alert and informed human rights community worldwide.
You mentioned article 2. I was recently in Oslo on a plan of action on article 18, on the freedom of religion or belief, with churches and humanist groups and NGOs recognizing that to be effective, it is better to try to work together. The Government of Norway was very strongly supporting that. It is these kinds of imaginative strategies.
What my office can do is be a catalyst and to have, to some extent, a leadership role, because it is the Office of the High Commissioner. We are a small office in ourselves, though, and it needs a lot of commitment on all sides. We are all custodians of human rights.
But I do agree with you. That is our challenge. Forget the rhetoric; let us have some real implementation. That is what I am about.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Stewart): I am going to call now on Senator Whelan, former Minister of Agriculture and former member of the House of Commons.
I am watching the clock.
Voices: Oh, oh.
Senator Whelan: Madam High Commissioner, I welcome you here. I guess I have a record of being not very brief.
I see they refer to you as a "smoked salmon." In Canada, we think that is a delicacy, so I am not that unhappy to see that.
I was a member of the World Food Council for ten years, and president for about two years. We hear so much today about surplus of food, et cetera, that we do not know what to do with it.
One of the most basic things in human rights, I think, is the right to food. I would like your comments on whether you think we are doing enough, or what you think we should be doing, however you want to answer.
Ms Robinson: Interestingly, when I was in St. John's and met the NGOs for a round table discussion, the issue of the right to food in Newfoundland came up. The NGO community and representatives were saying there has been a deterioration in the situation, and some children are suffering from malnutrition.
I was interested, as High Commissioner, because I, like you, place great emphasis on the right to food. I was concerned. And it was in the context of discussion on economic and social rights. I would bring that discussion much more seriously in a worldwide context, of the number who wake up hungry and go to sleep hungry and die hungry in our world of plenty. It is a very big issue of human rights, and very high on my agenda as High Commissioner.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Graham): Mr. Pickard.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham--Kent Essex, Lib.): I have to congratulate the Senate chair. That was the shortest question I have heard Eugene Whelan ask in twenty years.
Voices: Oh, oh.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Graham): You were on the Agriculture Committee too.
Mr. Pickard: There are many people who are looking at Canada's approach to aggressive countries, countries with poor records in human rights. Canada has in many cases dealt with those countries with poor records in the hope that our communication with them will enlighten them and bring a positive working relationship with them to improve that. Many have said we should cut off our working relationships with them to try to resolve these problems.
Where do you see Canada's role in dealing with those countries that have very poor track records on human rights, and what can Canada best do to help bring human rights forward in those areas?
Ms Robinson: Well, obviously it is important that there would be a commitment to seeking to progress human rights in that kind of context. I am aware that Canada has a very strong record, and I want to encourage the importance of it. I think it was reflected in the visit of Prime Minister Chrétien to China recently. We have just been discussing the context of that visit.
It is very important that issues of human rights are addressed and that judgments are made. They have to be made by individual countries on the basis of trying to promote and protect human rights, as well as the wider diplomatic and trading agenda between two countries.
But it is not always easy to make the right judgment call. I have the same problem. I have countries that want technical cooperation projects with us where the Commission on Human Rights says there is a need for monitoring, or clearly there are very serious violations of human rights, and there has to be a weighing up of whether to go ahead with a technical cooperation project, or how to also address the issue of violations. So I am in a somewhat similar position, with a pure human rights agenda, as countries can find themselves in.
I think the most important thing is to have, high on the agenda, how to progress. Sometimes it is by engaging with, and supporting, and having trade or aid links. It is a carrot and stick sometimes. The fact that there is an agenda to the carrot and stick to further human rights is what I believe is important.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Stewart): I am going to call now on Senator Kinsella. Senator Kinsella is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and he's very interested in the whole question of human rights.
Senator Kinsella: To the chairs of both committees, congratulations on having this meeting.
And congratulations to you, Your Excellency, for being here, it being the fiftieth anniversary. We recognize the work of Professor John Humphrey, whom Mr. Turp and I had the honour and privilege to have as a mentor.
Would you make a comment, Your Excellency, on the importance of the regional human rights systems, for us in Canada, the OAS, and also the importance of the covenants that grew out of the Universal Declaration?
I happen to have had the experience of successfully bringing the Lovelace case, under the civil and political rights covenant, against Canada, but at the end of the day, it was to the benefit of Canada. This week in Geneva our third report to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is being examined.
So it is the two covenant systems and the implementation of them, the resources that must be required by the human rights systems in the United Nations, which leads me to my other point. From a budget standpoint, what are your expectations as to the budget your office will have next year? Or is the percentage of the UN budget for human rights activities at the level where you think it should be?
Ms Robinson: I appreciated meeting you earlier in the context of your pride, and appropriate pride, in the role of John Humphrey in terms of the Universal Declaration.
I will give short answers to the very significant questions you've asked.
First, about the importance of regional human rights systems, I am glad that is very high on the agenda of Secretary-General Kofi Annan. He had a meeting in June, the third meeting of the UN and regional organizations, so that we could work, in the area of early warning systems, very closely together and not reinvent wheels but link on early warnings.
I also believe that increasingly we need to build up these institutions, particularly build up those that have a human rights component, such as the African Commission on Human and People's Rights, the new African Court of Human Rights. I am aware that Canada plays a very significant role in the Council of Europe, which is a human rights body, and I am also aware of the issues in relation to your participation in the OAS.
You asked me about the two covenants. Yes, of course they are a very significant development. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which has the Canadian report before it this week, is fulfilling very important legal commitments, monitoring them and making the substantive issues matter when states have committed themselves.
There is a big resourcing problem. My colleague, Eric Tistounet, who is now in charge of external relations in our front office, was Secretary of the Human Rights Committee for a number of years. He told me that when he was secretary, and there were far fewer countries, there was more staff dedicated to supporting that committee.
Now, of course, not only are there more members of the committees but we are also engaged together in seeking universal ratification of the covenants and of the main conventions. Specifically, China is a country that has signed and is in the process of ratifying.
We are looking very closely at the difference that will make in real terms. And alas, the budgetary implications of that do not seem to be impressing themselves sufficiently on the member states in relation to the regular budget of the UN.
I think it is useful to indicate that there has been a very significant development in support for the work of my office from a larger number of member states. I put a lot of emphasis on this. I wanted the office to be supported from every region and from countries great and small and at various stages of development. The number increased significantly in the last year. So it is less the amount of money than countries' support, making them therefore part of a process of supporting human rights at the international level, supporting the values and then feeling a kind of ownership of the process and of the office.
But we have to look more and more for extra budgetary because it is very difficult to get progress on the regular budget. I would certainly welcome Canada's strong support for that, because we have had a lot of affirmation of the principles, a lot of what I call rhetoric, but it is more than that this year. We just need to be able to make it more effective to implement it at the international level.
Just for the record, we get 1.67 per cent of the regular budget, and the Commission on Human Rights has issued a statement supporting greater resources. ECOSOC at the special segment on human rights supported that, but I think the Fifth committee is not yet as receptive as their colleagues in the human rights context. So we have work to do.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Graham): If I may say, Your Excellency, certainly many of the witnesses before our committee, and particularly the committee chaired by my colleague, Ms Beaumier, who is the Chair of our Human Rights Subcommittee, have often argued that if human rights is to be the fourth pillar of the United Nations, we would better start measuring the budget closer to the proportion of the importance that plays in the UN system. I think you would find considerable resonance amongst our Canadian political colleagues for increasing that budgetary allocation. We will be there to support you, I am sure.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): I have many questions, but I will confine myself to one. If you applied the human rights definition as crimes against humanity, genocide, I think a third of the world leaders would be in jail. Let us start with Pinochet. Take Pinochet's decision, please, and apply it to the realities out there, all the human rights violations, genocide, torture, bribery. Bribery may not be a crime against humanity, but the other two or three points I mentioned are.
How would you address yourself when you meet, say, the leader of Rwanda, where there was genocide last year or two years ago of half a million people in two or three weeks' time? What would you tell him -- tear up your passport, do not travel across the countries, do not go somewhere else, do not come to Canada, do not go to the United States? How would you deal with this kind of situation?
As I said, if you applied the crimes against humanity definition, one third of world leaders would be in jail.
Ms Robinson: Well, I do think it is very important to address this issue -- that when there are gross violations of human rights, you can run but you cannot hide. We have a system of addressing this, and we do in relation to Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.
I am very pleased to be able to pay tribute here in Canada to the work of Justice Louise Arbour. She is doing a very good job. I am very impressed by the commitment she brings to it in relation to the international criminal tribunals. They give us a sense of where we need to be at a broader level, and it is not helping a situation, particularly in various countries in Africa, not to have a sense of addressing issues of impunity.
I think the problem of the secretary general's investigative team in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the lack of progress of that team, was a very unhappy example of not being able to address properly the issue of impunity when there was clear and significant evidence of gross violations.
So it is a very important issue of principle, and the International Criminal Court is a definite step forward. I would very much say it is helped by thinking about the decision in relation to General Pinochet of today. I was in Colombia on this day last month, and I am aware of the undermining when there is a high level of impunity from prosecution, particularly when the violations are carried out by military or police, and that this is an issue that really has to be addressed.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Graham): Senator Stewart reminds me that it is now 4.45 p.m.
Perhaps I can suggest, Your Excellency, to our colleagues that perhaps they will not be as aware as some of us are what an extraordinarily high-pressure schedule you have been on.
Since Her Excellency has been in Canada we have raced her from Newfoundland to here, although, as somebody who introduced her at a dinner in Toronto last night pointed out, if an Irish person is to come to Canada, best to come through the filter of Newfoundland on their way through to acclimatize themselves. She gave a wonderful speech last night in Toronto, and now she is going to Montreal, up to Edmonton, and then back.
I think we are all recognizing that you are under tremendous pressures of travel. We are very grateful that you were willing to come and spend the time with us this afternoon, Your Excellency.
Voices: Hear, hear!
Ms Robinson: I would like to thank both you, Mr. Graham, and Senator Stewart, for giving me this opportunity before a joint and standing committee. I think it really has been very supportive. The questions ranged over a number of issues of concern. They reinforced the point that I think we have addressed, that the focus is on implementation. I welcome that focus, and I welcome follow-up on that in partnership with Canada, which has a lead role to play.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Graham): We are adjourned.