Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 1 - Evidence, October 7, 2004
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 7, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to rule 88 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Ms. Line Gravel, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, the first item on your agenda is the election of a chair. Pursuant to rule 88, I will preside over the election of the chair. I am here to take any motion that you may have.
Senator Carstairs: I move that Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk be made the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights.
Senator LaPierre: I second that motion.
The Chairman: Is there any other motion?
Senator LaPierre: I move that it be closed.
Ms. Gravel: Thank you. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Carstairs that the Honourable Senator Andreychuk take the chair of this committee. Those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Gravel: Are there any against, or abstentions?
I invite Senator Andreychuk to take the chair, please.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Thank you. I will not say any more than that for fear it might unravel.
Shall we turn to the election of the deputy chairman?
Senator LeBreton: I move that Senator Pearson be the deputy chairman.
Senator LaPierre: I would also second that motion.
The Chairman: Will you close the nominations?
Senator LaPierre: Yes.
The Chairman: All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Congratulations, Senator Pearson.
We will now go through the usual formalities of restructuring the committee.
Senator LaPierre: I do not know whether I should participate in any of this at all because, as you know, I will be leaving next month.
Senator Carstairs: You will be a member until then.
The Chairman: You have full rights and you may express your opinions, too.
Senator LaPierre: I like that. When dealing with human rights, it is the contrary to the Charter that, in the highest House of Parliament discrimination of the basis of age is practiced. I mentioned that to the Chief Justice that and she informed me that the same situation applied to her job. I said: ``Madam, you can do something about it. I cannot.'' This is discriminatory. I am good for the next three years, at least.
The Chairman: Yes, at least three.
Senator Carstairs: Madam Chair, I move that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair, the deputy chair and one other member of the committee, to be designated after the usual consultation; and that the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses and to schedule hearings.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: We will now move to Item No. 4, the printing of proceedings.
Senator Carstairs: I move that the committee print its proceedings and that the chair be authorized to set the number to meet demand.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Next is Item No. 5: Authorization to hold meetings and to print evidence when a quorum is not present.
Senator Carstairs: I move that, pursuant to rule 89, the chair be authorized to hold meetings, and to receive and authorize the printing of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that a member of the committee from both the government and the opposition is present.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Next is Item No. 6, dealing with the financial report, which has been circulated to you. This is where we report on what we have spent to date. This is self-explanatory.
Senator Carstairs: I so move Item No. 6.
Senator LaPierre: Have we already spent some money?
Senator Carstairs: No. This applies to the previous session.
Senator LeBreton: These are very expensive items.
The Chairman: Are we in agreement, then, with the financial report?
Senator Carstairs: So moved.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you. Carried.
The next item relates to research staff.
Senator Pearson: I move that the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign research analysts to the committee. Do you want me to read the motion in its entirety?
The Chairman: No. We can dispense with the reading of all of it. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: I do not know if the situation has changed but I was most impressed with the fact that the Library of Parliament had more expertise in human rights than we could find elsewhere. It is not an easy task to hire knowledgeable people. If they do not specialize in human rights in their academic training, they acquire their knowledge of the subject because they like what they are doing and become committed to human rights. This message should be conveyed in some way to the head of the library.
Item No. 8 deals with the authority to commit funds and to certify accounts.
Senator Carstairs: So moved.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The next item deals with travel.
Senator LaPierre: I will move that.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Item No. 10 is the designation of members travelling on committee business.
Senator LeBreton: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Item No. 11 deals with the travelling and living expenses of witnesses.
Senator LeBreton: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Item No. 12 a motion regarding electronic media coverage of public meetings.
Senator Carstairs: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: I believe that is all that we have to approve.
The time slot for our regular meetings is Mondays at 5 p.m. I should say, since I was not anticipating being the chair, I had committed myself on Monday, the 18th, that is, when we will return. With the concurrence of the committee, we will not meet that week and ask the steering committee try to set our agenda before that.
Senator Carstairs: Could I also raise the possibility of polling the members to find out if an earlier time than 5 p.m. would be acceptable? I know that you and I, Madam Chair, come from the West but I usually arrive here earlier than that on Mondays, so I would be pleased to sit earlier. I do not know about Senator Oliver. I am not suggesting that we make a decision now. However, I would suggest that you poll us to find out if it would be acceptable to start at 4 p.m. If we do that, we would be able to conclude the meeting earlier in the evening.
Senator LeBreton: That would suit me.
The Chairman: Senator Oliver, do you share our problem with flight times?
Senator Oliver: No, the flight schedule from Nova Scotia would allow me to be here. I concur.
The Chairman: My flight from Regina leaves at 6 a.m. I must check whether that time will change. There are no direct flights. I usually arrive in Ottawa at 2:19 p.m., so I could be here by 3 p.m. or 4 p.m. However, I will canvass the other members.
Senator Carstairs: Madam Chair, I circulated this proposal to all of the members. You have a motion in front of you. Please ignore the part where I state that I will give notice on Thursday, October 14. The motion that I would like to put before this committee at our first meeting is as follows:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights be authorized to examine and report upon Canada's international obligations in regards to the rights and freedoms of children.
In particular, the committee shall be authorized to examine:
Our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; and
Whether Canada's legislation as it applies to children meets our obligations under this Convention.
That the committee present its final report to the Senate no later than March 22, 2005.
I have been concerned about this issue for a number of years, and I know Senator Pearson has been as well. The issue is broader than dealing only with children's issues. Quite frankly, we discovered in a number of areas that the bureaucracy does not necessarily believe that our international obligations are something to which they must adhere. We could focus on children's issues, but we could certainly make some strong recommendations that, once we sign an international treaty, we have obligations and we must fulfil those obligations.
Senator Pearson: I was delighted to discover this morning that Senator Carstairs was bringing this forward. I have just finished a process of assisting the development of Canada's report to the committee on the rights of the child, so I have a lot of up-to-date experience on this.
I am also preparing a national plan of action for children based the frustrations I have experienced with some of the bureaucracy with respect to understanding that when we sign a treaty, it has implications for our domestic departments as well as for our international departments. Since this will be my last year — I have one year more than Senator LaPierre — it would be wonderful to deal with this subject. The timing would be perfect because I will be here until November, 2005.
The Chairman: I am sure that Senator Pearson remembers when we were struggling with this question when we were dealing with youth justice. At that time a strict legal approach taken. Of course we now have the Supreme Court decision.
Senator Pearson: That is in relation to section 43.
The Chairman: In that decision Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dubé said we must take into account our moral obligations as well as our legal obligations.
Senator Pearson: This would be a good opportunity to deal with this.
The Chairman: Yes. It would be a good case study, as you say, but it would also benefit the children.
The issue I was going to raise — and it goes along with this — is the issue of human trafficking. So much of what we do nationally has implications internationally, and vice versa. The government has been taking the lead on certain human trafficking issues.
Senator Oliver: It was referred to in the Speech from the Throne specifically.
The Chairman: Yes, but what happens is that it has been, again, compartmentalized instead of tied in with all of the other issues. As well, there have been unintended consequences on some of our laws. For example, we have been stringent in allowing young women into our country who qualify because we say they may be the subject of sex trafficking. It is unintended reverse discrimination in that they are precluded under our immigration laws. I will raise that issue with the steering committee and then we can fully address it.
We also have some matters outstanding from the last session. I believe the steering committee will go through those. I personally have to go and catch up on my reading of all of the minutes, et cetera. I know, for example, that our study on Aboriginal women was an interim study. I am being told by our clerk that there is no appetite on the part of the minister to continue that study. We must decide what we will do to complete that study and we should at least call the minister to get his views on it. That is one issue.
Senator Grafstein approached me yesterday and indicated that he wants to continue the OSCE resolution on anti- Semitism that was before this committee. We will have to deal with that.
Some time ago we undertook a study — which I discussed with Senator Maheu but which was left it in abeyance for some time — on the work that Professor Laviolette did on outstanding treaties that are either signed but not ratified or ratified but not implemented. Some are outdated, and the government should simply indicate that it does not intend to be bound by them. We were to be given an update on where they are on all of the outstanding treaties, but that has not been completed. Therefore, we have a number of loose ends to tie up, which I do not think will take much time of the committee, but we should seek authorization to go ahead with this.
Senator Oliver: I agree strongly with the proposal of Senator Carstairs. Canada could take a major lead if it were to do something about its financial obligations to children. If that were to happen, that would make me feel very proud.
Madam Chair, although I have not prepared a formal motion, there is one item of human rights that I would ask the committee to consider. Each day I receive a number of e-mails, letters and brown envelopes in my office from people in the Public Service of Canada across Canada who ask me, as a champion of visible minorities, to do something to help them. They tell me that their human rights have been violated in the Public Service of Canada and they give me the details. I have a number of those cases in my office. Would this committee consider looking at them?
As you know, there was the classic case in the Department of Health. There are several other cases like that that are, in fact, direct violations of human rights, and all I would like to do is to lay before the committee a proposal that, somehow, this situation be considered. I do not know if you would want a subcommittee look at it or, instead of having this committee do it, hold a special inquiry where people can be asked to give the details about their cases. I have been bombarded with these cases. A number of these human rights violations occur in our own public service. I would seek the advice of this committee on how to deal with these matters.
The Chairman: We can certainly put it on the list. We may want to look at why existing legislation does not meet the demands. Alternatively, is it meeting the demands? In certain cases that I have been called upon for advice, some people do not know where they can go for assistance. They know of the human rights commissions and that is all. We should track some of these cases. We might be able to do that. I think we could consider Senator Oliver's concerns.
Senator Carstairs: I agree completely. We do not have to proceed by way of a formal study. We could call representatives of the Public Service Commission to appear before us to find out just what are their policies and provisions. After we have done that, we may then be able to more clearly identify what paths we should pursue in order to ensure that the public service has appropriate access. We cannot do anything unless we are mandated by the Senate to do it. However, I would ask our clerk to consider whether we could ask the Public Service Commission representatives to appear before us without us having a mandate to do that. Can we do that? We would not know the breadth of our study until we had held that preliminary meeting. Obviously, we cannot go outside of the Rules of the Senate. Perhaps the clerk could look into whether we could hold a preliminary meeting. I would support us doing that in the near future.
The Chairman: As Chairman of our Foreign Affairs Committee, Senator Stewart started the practice of asking the Senate for a reference to do what you have just described, that is, call in the minister, et cetera. We could ask the Senate for permission to do what you suggest, but the concern usually centres on whether the committee can handle it and whether the expenditure of money is involved. There would be no money involved and I am sure we can handle it.
Senator LaPierre: The discussion of children's rights and how they are treated would involve a look at certain communities. There has been some criticism of the treatment of women, for instance, on reserves. I suspect that the treatment of women affects children's rights one way or another. It would not be too complicated to do that. It is just a matter of good common sense.
Another matter concerns the pursuit of the Muslim community to have their law enshrined as an acceptable resolution or instrument for conflict in the home, conflict with wives and spouses. I need not tell you that that also is not at times as we would like it to be, or possibly in keeping with the traditions of the Canadian people. There has been controversy in the media about this and about whether the government should allow that to take place. It is argued that, given the inferiority position of women in those traditional kinds of societies, they will not participate. We touched on that somewhat last year in dealing with another reference.
One difficulty I foresee is that the minister may be concerned that we might open a whole argument. I understand that it is possible that a woman can be thrown out of her house on a reserve without batting an eye, and there is no appeal to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because the provisions of the Charter are not within the knowledge of these people who are unaccustomed to dealing with these matters.
We better be well-informed by experts before we go into the relationship of parenting and the child's rights. I need not tell experts like all of you about this. We may come across impediments if we do not proceed properly in our efforts to arrive at a better understanding of the treatment of children.
Senator Pearson: To pick up on that, one of the questions we should consider is how the writ of the international obligation applies in certain communities. Once we have that definition, we can then look at individual cases.
The Chairman: We should also look at the report of the Human Rights Commission on Aboriginal People, and whether it dealt with children or not. I am not familiar with the last version of that.
In light of the fact that we are not meeting at our scheduled time, some of our members could not be here, so I propose to ask for their input on what they may want to study in addition to this so that when the steering committee meets we will have a complete list. They should feel free to add to the list. We will then know what our workload will be.
The committee adjourned.