Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 2 - Evidence, February 11, 2008
OTTAWA, Monday, February 11, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 5:05 p.m. to monitor issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are empanelled today to monitor the issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of the government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations.
We have been particularly centred on the Human Rights Council, the new development from the Human Rights Commission. We are concerned about the practices and the procedures. We follow them, as we believe that the Human Rights Council can be an influential mechanism in furthering human rights internationally and, consequently, in Canada.
I am mindful that we have two panels today, and that we want to adjourn promptly so that some of you can get to an important caucus meeting at seven o'clock.
Senator Munson: We have a caucus meeting?
The Chair: That is what I heard. I thought I would remind you and assure you that I will get you out of here on time, with your cooperation.
On our first panel, from Foreign Affairs and International Trade, we have Adèle Dion, Director General, Human Security and Human Rights Bureau; and Robert Sinclair, Deputy Director, Human Rights Section, Human Rights, Gender Equality, Health and Population Division.
Welcome. Neither of you is certainly not a stranger to this committee, since you have testified previously. We have asked you to come back since we are making all efforts to get the Human Rights Council functioning appropriately, and we are concerned that Canada is doing its part in that way. We also want an update on its progress.
Today, you could pick up from your last brief where you outlined how the council started. Since then, we have filed a report with some recommendations. We would be very interested in getting an update on the practices put into place in June, and how the council has functioned in the opinion of the department.
Adèle Dion, Director General, Human Security and Human Rights Bureau, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: I am very pleased to be able to update the committee on developments at the UN Human Rights Council. I would first take the opportunity to thank the committee for its ongoing work and dedication to the important issues before it.
The committee has copies of my full written statement. In my oral remarks, I will first highlight some aspects of the government's response to the committee's interim report and then, as you have requested, update you on events not covered by the government's response.
The committee's report recommended that Canada focus on institution-building issues at the council. Canada was a leading proponent of the system of the Universal Periodic Review, or UPR, and worked intensively to establish its modalities. The UPR is now scheduled to begin in April of 2008.
Canada also worked to protect the independence and credibility of the special procedures, advocating a more transparent selection and appointment process for the mandate holders. Of particular importance were the retention of the ability to scrutinize country situations and increased participation of civil society and national human rights institutions at the council.
Since the government tabled its response to the committee's interim report, there have also been a number of developments at the Human Rights Council.
The council had its sixth regular session from September 10 to 28 and resumed from December 10 to 14. In September, the council addressed the human rights situation in Darfur, Sudan, with a full debate on the interim report of the group of experts on Darfur.
The council also established the order of review of all countries to undergo the first cycle of the UPR and adopted guidelines for input to the review. Canada will undergo its review in April 2009.
Following its September meeting, the council held a timely and useful special session on Burma on October 2, in response to the crackdown on the peaceful, monk-led demonstrations. The council requested the special rapporteur, Sérgio Pinheiro, to seek an urgent visit to the country and report back in December. Council pressure led to the regime allowing the special rapporteur to visit the country, his first visit in six years.
At the resumed session in December, the special rapporteur did report on his November 11 to 15 visit to Burma. At that session, a resolution adopted by consensus urged the government to follow up and implement the special rapporteur's recommendations and requested him to conduct a follow-up mission and report again to the council at its upcoming March session.
On November 16, the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly adopted the institution-building package of the Human Rights Council. The inclusion in the institution-building package of a separate agenda item, ``Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories,'' does not respect the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non- selectivity upon which the council is founded. The council also failed to renew the country mandates for Cuba and Belarus. Canada therefore voted against adoption of the institution-building package, consistent with the position taken at the Human Rights Council in June of 2007.
Also at its December session, the council reviewed and renewed the mandates of seven additional special rapporteurs. In all, 12 mandates have now been renewed. A new expert mechanism on the rights of indigenous peoples was created to replace the former sub-commission working group on Indigenous Populations. The council also adopted, by consensus, a resolution which welcomed the final report of the Darfur Group of Experts. The mandate of the Darfur Group of Experts was transferred to the special rapporteur on Sudan.
The Human Rights Council also acts as the preparatory committee for follow-up to the World Conference Against Racism, or the Durban Conference. On January 23, Minister Bernier and Secretary of State Kenney announced that Canada will not participate in the 2009 Durban Review Conference. In your travels to Geneva, this issue may well be raised at your meetings. This decision was taken because Canada has significant concerns that the process leading to the 2009 follow-up to the Durban Conference has been divisive, and sets a troublesome tone for the conference itself.
Looking ahead, the seventh session of the council will take place from March 3 to 28. Canada's priorities at the session will be the renewal of mandates of the special rapporteurs on freedom of expression and of violence against women. The committee's active support for renewal of these mandates during your visit to Geneva would be most appreciated.
Approximately 10 other mandates will also be considered for renewal at this session. In addition, the council will elect 18 individuals to its advisory committee, which replaces the Sub-commission on Human Rights, and the president will appoint 16 special procedure mandate-holders to fill vacancies.
The council, as mentioned earlier, will also be presented with the final report of the special rapporteur on the situation on human rights in Myanmar, and Canada will seek to ensure that any follow-up decision taken maintains the pressure on the Burmese regime regarding the human rights situation there.
Canada is also an active supporter of the work of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Her emphasis on improving the office's management capacity and on promoting the implementation of human rights in the field, which Canada has supported, has made a real difference around the world from Angola to Nepal and, we believe, will constitute a lasting legacy. Canada has worked to ensure that the council is able to respond to urgent human rights situations and that it focuses on the implementation of human rights.
Many serious challenges remain to be overcome before the council fulfills its promise, not least of which is the repeated and unbalanced singling out of Israel, which Canada has, and will continue to speak out against. However, we are encouraged to see that the council is increasingly shifting its focus from institutional questions to addressing human rights issues and situations where it matters most, namely, on the ground.
Senator Munson: What has changed from the previous makeup with the human rights commission? I will leave it as simple as that. It seems that it is still a very biased organization.
Ms. Dion: There is no question that the standing up of the council is still a work-in-progress. I may have mentioned when I was here last time that with a fewer number of seats on the council and the continuation of block voting by the representatives of some regional groups, it means that Canada and its like-minded delegates can be outvoted on some issues.
What has changed, however, is that we have seen a certain maturing in the work of the council. As I mentioned towards the end of my comments, there were some significant achievements that did take place in September and December with the adoption of a first group of mandates and the setting of the scene for further adoption and renewal of mandates in March.
While we remain vigilant, we are hopeful that things will improve.
Senator Munson: Can you tell us about the voting patterns in the last year?
Ms. Dion: Perhaps I will turn to my more technical colleague, who is closer to the voting action.
Senator Munson: Can you also tell us about the ideological clashes that may be hampering the functioning of the council?
Robert Sinclair, Deputy Director, Human Rights Section, Human Rights, Gender Equality, Health and Population Division, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: I am afraid I cannot give you exact statistics on the number of consensus versus voted resolutions, but I can say with confidence that the vast majority of resolutions adopted at the council are consensus or adopted without a vote.
Where you run into difficulty is with, as you suggested, the more sensitive issues. Certainly, the Middle East is always an area that is quite divisive. As well, the discussions around the Durban review conference have also been divisive, with the EU and Canada, in particular, having reservations that have become increasingly profound as that process has gone forward.
There have been other initiatives where the final resolution has been consensus but where we have had reservations that we have tried to work out behind the scenes. One example would be an initiative to establish voluntary goals for the implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is linked to the 60th anniversary of the declaration.
Canada's position on this initiative was that working to establish voluntary goals for what we view as largely customary norms risks setting us back. We and others tried to work out those differences, with Brazil in particular, but we were unable to do so. In the end, it was a consensus text. We felt we could live with it and work within the boundaries of the resolution to minimize the impact.
All of that to say that the Middle East and Durban are the two flash points. You do see, for instance, the OIC, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, has a significant number of members represented in the council as part of the council membership. That is highlighted in your reports and is an issue we continue to have to deal with as well.
Senator Munson: We will get an opinion from other human rights people as well as yourselves. Ms. Dion, you mentioned that you were encouraged to see that the council was shifting its focus from institutional questions to addressing other human rights issues and situations. Can you be more specific on what you are encouraged about?
Ms. Dion: Now that the institution-building package is in place, we considered that the special session on Burma, which was held in October, was a very good sign and a signal that the council was indeed prepared to look at and seriously debate serious human rights situations other than those in the Middle East. As well, the fact that the special session of the council was instrumental in putting sufficient pressure on the regime to allow for the visit of the special rapporteur, his first in over six years, was a very welcome sign.
Equally, the council was good in pursuing a follow-up to Darfur. When the group of experts came back and reported, the council took some fairly strong stands on the situation and ensured that, in addition to considering it at its sessions in December, it positioned itself so that it could continue scrutinizing the situation by handing the mandate from the group of experts, whose mandate was effectively over, to the special rapporteur so that there will be continued scrutiny, engagement and dialogue at the council.
Perhaps moving away from country situations for a moment, we were also quite encouraged with the tenor of the discussion and the manner in which the new mechanism to look at the rights of indigenous peoples was created to replace the working group of the former sub-commission on human rights. The dialogue was intense but, on the whole, it was very consensual. We were quite pleased that we were able to play a constructive role and emerge with a new instrument that we believe will assist in ensuring that the rights of indigenous peoples continue to be considered by the council. It is still uneven, but we do believe that the overall trend is positive. Equally, the beginning of the UPR review in April will again be a very positive outcome.
Senator Munson: In your statement, you said that Canada will seek to ensure that any follow-up decision taken regarding Burma maintains the pressure regarding the human rights situation there. What kind of pressure?
Ms. Dion: As my colleague Mr. Mank testified before the standing committee of the House a few weeks ago, it is difficult to exert pressure on Burma/Myanmar because it is such a closed regime. However, Myanmar sits at the UN as a member. This gives us an important lever to ensure that they are aware of other member states' discomfort and grave concern at the situation in that country. The fact that they are at the UN and that we can engage in some frank and forceful dialogue with them; that we now have the mechanism of the special rapporteur, who has now visited and has serious concerns and will continue to pursue those concerns, both in his own right and the council on his behalf, does give us some leverage.
Mr. Sinclair: If I may add to Ms. Dion's comments, over the course of the council's session, there is not just an outcome decision which could result in pressure on Burma. There are a number of opportunities for states to make comments in interactive dialogues with any special rapporteur who happens to be presenting reports. That is a mechanism through which we raise both thematic as well as country situations. That has a cumulative effect. Where other nations raise the same sorts of concerns in dialogue and formal session, it does keep the pressure on situations such as we see in Burma.
Senator Oliver: I have two questions for Ms. Dion. The first relates to the Durban conference against racism, and the second deals with the Canada review in 2009. You told us that Minister Bernier and Secretary of State Kenney announced that Canada will not participate in the 2009 Durban review conference. You used the word ``divisive.'' You said this decision was taken because Canada has significant concerns that the process leading up to the 2009 follow-up Durban conference has been divisive and sets a troublesome tone for the conference itself. What does Canada think it will gain by withdrawing? How do they think that will help? Would it not be better to have stayed and to have fought to change things from the inside? What other countries have withdrawn their support? Mr. Sinclair hinted that the EU and Canada have reservations, but are there others?
Ms. Dion: The 2001 world conference against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in Durban was, in Canada's view, marred by some serious shortcomings. Canada has significant concerns that what we have witnessed of the process to date leading to the 2009 conference is essentially going along the same path as what we saw at the 2001 conference. Canada, therefore, decided to take a position of principle now and no longer participate in the process.
Senator Oliver: How will that help, by withdrawing instead of running away from it?
Ms. Dion: I think that is a question more for Minister Bernier and Secretary of State Kenney than for us. We certainly attach very high priority to combating and eradicating racism, both domestically and internationally.
Given that the 2001 conference ended in controversy and disappointment, the view was that we could make it a statement of principle by withdrawing now and looking for other ways in which to attain our objectives.
On the question of whether or not others have withdrawn, we are the first to withdraw.
Senator Oliver: What about the EU? You said that the EU had expressed reservations. Are they thinking of withdrawing?
Mr. Sinclair: I cannot speak for the EU in regard to their position as to their participation or not in the review conference. However, they have voted against all of the four most recent resolutions related to Durban. In seven out of the last eight, they voted the same as Canada on Durban follow-up resolutions.
The one where we differed was back in the General Assembly, not even the council, where we abstained and the EU voted in favour of a resolution.
Senator Oliver: Is Canada being proactive? Is it saying to other members: We have withdrawn; why have you not?
Mr. Sinclair: In that regard, we have made our assessment and we stand by it. Other countries will be making their own assessment and will be looking at what Canada has done.
We do not at this point have a proactive lobby in place to go out and convince other countries. We stand by our assessment.
Senator Oliver: My other question relates to Canada's review in 2009, likely in April.
It seems to me that the last time Canada obtained its report card, there were some severe criticisms of Canada in relation to children and Aboriginals. You said in your paper today that Heritage Canada will be handling the review process for Canada, and that Foreign Affairs will be having a few conferences itself to update people.
First, I was wondering, is there anything this committee could do? Second, is there anything that this committee could be doing in relation to children and Aboriginals in terms of calling them before the committee and asking questions, even before the assessment?
Ms. Dion: To be completely frank, we are not exactly sure at this point how the process will work or how the review will unfold. We know that we will know much more after the review sessions in April and May of this year.
Switzerland, for example, is one of the first of our like-minded partners who will be reviewed. We will be watching the review process closely. We will be trying to intervene constructively. We are, ourselves, thinking about how we could prepare, perhaps, a short list of questions surrounding some concerns that we have about the human rights performance of the countries that are being reviewed. We would expect that when our turn comes, other discussants in the council will be doing the same for us.
We should perhaps return to this subject in June or September, once we have more information on which to base a considered response.
Of course, as indicated in the text, the reason that we do want to have meetings with our civil society partners and others in late spring and early fall is to enable us to develop a kind of working strategy that we will use.
We note your questions about what the committee could do. Certainly, perhaps calling witnesses on issues and areas that are of concern to you would be useful input into the work of Canada in preparing for committee appearance.
I should mention that with respect to children, Canada will also be appearing in, I think it is, early 2009 before the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. I think we will be appearing in January. We will have presented a fairly full report on issues under the convention and will also be responding to the recommendations of the last report just prior to our UPR appearance in April. Therefore, I think it is to be expected that children's issues will definitely be raised.
Senator Oliver: What about Aboriginal issues?
Ms. Dion: There again, given the important attention that has been dedicated by the Government of Canada and many others to the situation of Aboriginal Peoples, we could expect that it will certainly also be a topic.
Senator Oliver: One final question: Is there any other group that you think might be the subject of concern in Canada's 2009 review, apart from children and Aboriginals?
Ms. Dion: Of course, there is violence against women, partly because we take a high profile on the issue at the UN and in other multilateral organizations. I am reluctant to speculate at this point because it is so early. We may even have a better sense after the Human Rights Council session in March, as well as the Swiss and other appearances before the UPR in April and May.
The Chair: Before I turn to Senator Dallaire, perhaps a clarification. We were made aware of the indigenous peoples declaration and Canada's stance, and that was covered previously. You indicated «indigenous peoples instrument» today. What do you mean by that? Maybe I did not hear you correctly. I want to be sure that I know exactly what the steps were after the declaration was passed and moved on to the General Assembly. It has come back to the council. What form is it in? What are the next steps?
Ms. Dion: Once the declaration was adopted by the Human Rights Council, it was forwarded to the UN General Assembly. In the fall, it was again voted at the UN General Assembly and again passed. In essence, it is now officially a UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.
Canada, of course, also made a statement of explanation at the General Assembly, explaining why we could not support the declaration and could not be bound by its provisions. It now has the status of a UN declaration.
The Chair: If Senator Dallaire will be a bit more patient, I have a follow-up question to that.
Certainly, in some of my discussions about human rights issues, not many countries believe that the declaration will have an impact on them. They see Canada and our indigenous peoples, and they see Australia, New Zealand and some Latin American countries. However, in many discussions where I have tried to ascertain a government point of view or an NGO point of view around the world, they say ``That does not apply to us; that applies to you.''
Is there a feeling that that declaration will have an impact? Do the council members, for example, understand that it is a universal declaration, and «indigenous peoples» is a broad definition that may have an impact in everyone's country, and needs to be assessed in that way for the protection of indigenous peoples?
Ms. Dion: Again, it is difficult to speak for all members of the council. The awareness among council members varies a great deal. For example, our Latin American partners who do have significant indigenous populations are, of course, very aware of the declaration. Indeed, as you may know, there is an effort under way within the OAS to develop a similar declaration.
However, many other countries, particularly in Africa and Asia, do not consider themselves to have indigenous populations, so they did not really follow the negotiating process very closely, and they do not consider it to be a priority. It is difficult to say how much, if any, note they take of the final adoption of the declaration or whether they are aware of the universality of it.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: Ms. Dion, it is a pleasure to see you again. I would like to situate you. In the Foreign Affairs organization chart, where is your division?
Ms. Dion: May I reply in English?
Senator Dallaire: Yes.
[English]
Ms. Dion: I report to the Assistant Deputy Minister for Global Issues, and I am the Director General for Human Security and Human Rights. I have four divisions reporting to me, one of which is the Human Rights Division.
Senator Dallaire: Are they divisions or sections?
Ms. Dion: They are divisions.
Senator Dallaire: There are directors in each one?
Ms. Dion: Yes.
Senator Dallaire: Is the human security side a stand-alone effort? Is there a specific reason that human security and human rights were both given to you? Is it purely an HR decision or was there a basis for that?
Ms. Dion: Canada's positions on what we would call the suite of human security issues — prevention of genocide, children in armed conflict and all of those kinds of issues — are very much informed by our concerns and interests in the area of human rights, humanitarian assistance and international humanitarian law. Therefore, when the bureau and branch was being formed, it seemed appropriate to our senior managers that the division be co-located in the same group so that the work of our Human Security Division, for example, could be informed by the work of our Human Rights Division, and equally the division responsible for development of our humanitarian assistance and policy.
Senator Dallaire: The human rights side of the house has been articulated by different prime ministers as being a fundamental component of our foreign policy. In your functions and duties, what arena of priority do you feel you are situated in within the context of our foreign policy?
Ms. Dion: The Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have clearly said on a number of occasions that freedom, democracy, human rights and rule of law are very much at the centre of Canada's foreign policy.
Those working on human rights issues, issues surrounding children in armed conflict and genocide prevention indeed believe that these issues are of priority and interest, and we do receive support for the initiatives we undertake.
Senator Dallaire: So you feel that that your mainstream effort within Foreign Affairs is the human rights side of the house?
Let us go to the council. As the council has evolved so far, do you see it being an instrument of reacting to situations that are evolving around the world, through the reporting system, et cetera, or have you seen it evolving with a proactive responsibility? Have we articulated that sort of interpretation of the council's mandate in open forum?
Ms. Dion: That is a very good question. In the course of the Human Rights Council being stood up, developing its institutions, there can be no question that it was perhaps a bit more reactive in terms of addressing human rights situations and issues. We very much want to see it be both reactive and proactive.
I mentioned very briefly the support that Canada has given to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Over the last year or so, while the council has been standing itself up and has been quite preoccupied with building its own institutions, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has played an important role in becoming a little more proactive in that it has continued to expand its number of field offices, its ability to offer capacity building assistance to countries that need it, and in general to organize itself both internally and externally to play that more proactive role.
It is our hope that when the council has finalized its institutions and mechanisms, it will become more proactive in its work. It has a good opportunity to do this through the Universal Periodic Review, for example. Through the reconfiguration of some of its other institutions it is moving, for example, from the Sub-commission on Human Rights towards something called the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, which should be a much more flexible instrument and more geared to giving the council the specific advice and information that it needs to do its work.
Senator Dallaire: Where is that located?
Ms. Dion: Again, it is a new body that will replace the Sub-commission on Human Rights, which was a subsidiary body of the old commission. It is currently being stood up.
Senator Dallaire: The exercise of the Durban catastrophe — fiasco, whatever terminology we want to use, and the decision we have of withdrawing from the front lines of that, and in connection with the point that Senator Oliver was raising, leads me to query when that decision was taken, seeing as it was evolving into something that was, again, being skewed, perhaps, if I could use that term in regard particularly to Middle East scenarios, and so on, and the different voting blocs. What, in essence, do you have as a responsibility — you with the ambassadors out there and so on — in regard to going and finding the alternative to that, of building the bridges, of influencing these voting blocs, of maybe convincing them to break up the voting blocs? Do you have a dynamic responsibility in regard to the council, or are you sort of reacting to the sequence of events that they articulate? Are we in the back rooms, pounding and beating doors down and doing things that we overtly do not seem to want to do within the process?
Ms. Dion: Yes, senator.
Senator Dallaire: You realize the next question is that I want some proof. I am querying you because of that. I want some proof that, in fact, human rights is a dominant thematic of our foreign policy, with teeth and dynamics and resources, and not simply a component.
Ms. Dion: Perhaps I could address the first part of your question concerning responsibility to find alternative ways to address these very serious problems of racism and related issues that we had hoped the Durban review conference would address.
There are a number of mechanisms, most important at the UN and the Human Rights Council, special rapporteurs who have the mandate to deal with various aspects of the issue. We are working hard to ensure that as the mandates come up for renewal, including the mandate of what I would call our own Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, which is a Canadian-led mechanism, that the mandates are as strong and comprehensive as they can be and are not restricted in any way that would prevent them from being able to monitor and report on issues around racism, xenophobia and the other issues to be addressed by the conference that might fall within their mandates.
In terms of building bridges and reaching out to other countries so that they do not vote as a bloc, yes, absolutely we are doing that. In Geneva, Canada is making concerted efforts to do this on an issue-by-issue basis so that where we do have commonalities of views with members of other regional groups, we make a deliberate effort to reach out to them on those views and at the same time say: ``We are very like-minded on these issues.'' It is regrettable that we cannot be more like-minded on aspects of other issues, such as those surrounding racism and discrimination.
We have not stopped trying to build bridges, to reach out to other regional groups and also to break down that instinct to vote as a bloc. We have had some successes. For example, in the consideration of the situation in Darfur, Mr. Sinclair can give us more precise details about how, in the end, some of the more moderate African countries did break ranks and vote in favour of continuing scrutiny of the situation in Darfur. It is very much an ongoing process.
The other way that we engage, and have been for some time, but particularly in the last year or so when the Human Rights Council was being built, is bilaterally in capitals through our ambassadors and high commissioners, who have an ongoing dialogue with the people in the foreign ministries, and ministers and parliamentarians, on issues around human rights situations, not only in their own country but in other countries and areas of concern, and also concerning voting records at the UN.
It is very difficult, in the world of diplomacy, to be able to say: ``Here we have a specific outcome,'' because usually it is ongoing, day-to-day work.
Mr. Sinclair: I would highlight another way in which we are endeavouring to build bridges. For example, on the renewal of our own mandates on which we lead freedom of expression and violence against women, we are taking a very conscious approach this time around to reach out to representatives of each of the other regional groups to share the burden, but also to get them invested in the mandate and ensure a strong, cross-regional approach to these mandates.
Senator Dallaire: I intended to ask more questions on the links with the NGO world, and so on. However, very rapidly, who has responsibility for the R2P doctrine? Is it in your division?
Ms. Dion: Yes, it is. It is part of the work of the human security division.
The Chair: Can you tell me whether you have assessed, or whether it is too early to do so, the move from New York of CEDAW, the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women? Has that started? Is that process completed? Are we supporting that move? That would be one question you can think about.
You pointed out that the Human Rights Commissioner, in her work, has spoken out, and she certainly has spoken out on human rights issues — the office has, and she has, too, on certain issues. However, she is also the neutral repository of all the committees, the practices and the procedures, which we hope will maintain certain neutrality in that process. It has been raised by some that this is an inconsistent role that she plays, and that countries should be paying attention. There should be some dialogue between how the Human Rights Council and all of that machinery has a direct link to her office, and that she should be neutral in applying the conventions and their implementations.
On the other hand, she is making personal statements or on behalf of her shop, and she has that capacity, but are they inconsistent? Would you care to comment on that?
Ms. Dion: Perhaps I will deal with the easy one first.
Regarding the CEDAW committee, my understanding is that the secretariat has now completed its move to Geneva and has become integrated into the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the secretariat cluster that supports the other treaty bodies. We believe that this is a good thing. We have felt for many years that having one committee isolated in New York was the exact opposite of integrating gender perspectives across the UN system. Therefore, we are hoping that, with a greater interaction among the members of all of the treaty committee secretariat, there will be more coherence and more integration of equality and equity concerns into the work of all committees.
Of course, Canada did support this move for many years. It took some time to accomplish for a number of reasons, but we are quite happy that that has happened.
Insofar as the High Commissioner for human rights is concerned, her role demands of her a very important balancing act. On the one hand, it is the secretariat staffing unit in her office that is responsible for supporting the work of the Human Rights Council. Another unit in her office provides the technical support for committees. At the same time, certainly, her mandate as it was negotiated at the world conference on human rights gave a great deal of weight and importance to her role as the overall UN spokesperson for human rights. Her mandate very clearly has a strong element of the requirement to speak out and to identify what, in her opinion, are important or serious or emerging human rights concerns. It is a delicate situation because, of course, she is open to charges of partiality or undue influence on her own internal system. However, that is part of the importance of having people in that office of the highest integrity.
Senator Munson: I was looking at the Amnesty International report on the rights of indigenous people. As senior officials in foreign affairs, the dance that you have to do, when for 20 years we are building to something and all of a sudden we are not there and change our minds, from a bureaucratic perspective you must find that difficult, to be moving in one direction for 20 years and then, boom, it ends, and you have to answer in another way.
More on the Human Rights Council itself, I asked this question at the beginning: Could you give me a grading of A, B, C or D in its first year and a half, or on a scale of 1 to 10, on how this council has done?
Ms. Dion: I am reluctant to get into grading at this point, in part because, in fairness to the council, it is not finished yet. It is still a work in progress. I certainly know that when I was in school doing term papers and other papers, I would have been horrified if I had been graded on a less than finished product. The finished product wa quite often enough of a cause for concern. My personal assessment, and I believe that of my colleagues at foreign affairs, is that it remains a work in progress. As I said earlier, we have seen some encouraging signs, especially in the last six months. We most definitely want to stay the course. Canada, as a member of the council for another year or18 months, feels that we have an important responsibility to represent those of our like-minded colleagues who are not on the council. We take that responsibility seriously. Therefore, we are committed to being there and to doing the best we can to make it the most effective body possible.
Senator Oliver: I liked Senator Munson's first question, and the question he just put again about the council. He told us that on November 16, 2007, the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly adopted the institution-building package. You also said that they added to it a clause in relation to Palestine and Israel. You went on to tell us that there was major concern because you felt that that added package did not respect the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity, and so on. As a result of that, Canada voted against the adoption of the institution-building package. You said one of the reasons for doing that was the procedural irregularities used to prevent Canada from calling a vote.
I am wondering where the other council members were when Canada was being confronted by these procedural irregularities, and what were these irregularities? Why was the support not there? That goes along with Senator Munson's first question about the functioning of the council.
Ms. Dion: Canada found itself in a very uncomfortable position. The session was in its dying hours, and there was enormous pressure in the room to conclude the session with a package. There was perhaps a natural inclination for many countries that were able to support the compromise to gavel it through.
However, Canada felt it could not support the compromise because of the selective manner in which one country or group of countries was singled out for an agenda item. We were also very unhappy with the compromise that dropped Cuba and Belarus from the agenda for consideration. Therefore, we attempted to make our unhappiness known, but we were not allowed to do so by the chair.
My colleague, Mr. Sinclair, was in the room. He could give you the longer history. That, in essence, was the situation.
Mr. Sinclair: One point of clarification: for any references you might see to a 46 to 1 vote that occurred at the council on the institution-building package, that was on our challenge to the chair's ruling that we could not call a vote. It was not a vote on the package itself.
With regard to the agenda items themselves, I would also note that in the council's agenda — we were clear on this at the time and afterwards — there is a general item, item 4, ``human rights situations that require the council's attention.'' It was our position that it was not necessary to have another item, item 7, ``human rights situations in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.'' The one item is sufficient to deal with all of them.
In terms of the dynamic in the room, as Ms. Dion has said, there was a very last-ditch effort, if you will; the pressure of negotiations coming up against deadlines. A number of other states were reluctant to allow Canada to call a vote, or to come out in favour of a vote on the package. They told us this privately and confidentially, because if it had gone to a vote they would have been forced not to support the institution-building package on its merits.
Therefore, I think that says something for the political leadership, but that is probably not a point I should go any further in making, as a bureaucrat.
The Chair: We will stop at that point, then, so we do not delve any further. I want to thank Ms. Dion and Mr. Sinclair for appearing and providing us with information that they have. Our job here is to ensure that, from a political perspective, we are doing everything we can to ensure that the council functions as it was intended, and not for political purposes.
We thank you for your efforts from the department in furthering the cause of human rights and the good functioning of the council. I assure you that we will call on you again. This will not be the last of our dialogue. We hope to, as I say, take a firsthand look at the council one year later and, if we are able to do so, continue the dialogue from our perspective and yours and see whether or not we match.
We are convened to monitor issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations. We are presently looking into the Human Rights Council. We have put one report forward and this is our follow-up to continue to monitor the international machinery that has replaced the traditional Human Rights Commission.
Before us on this panel is Mr. Alex Neve, Secretary General from Amnesty International Canada. From Rights and Democracy we have Mr. Jean-Paul Hubert, Interim President, and Mr. Lloyd Lipsett, Senior Assistant to the President. Welcome to you all.
As I have indicated, we had representations from both organizations previously. We would appreciate, one year later, particularly after the institution-building package has been put in place, any further perspectives and opinions you may have that would be helpful in our assessment of the Human Rights Council, and any recommendations we may be making in the future for the Canadian government in the assistance of human rights.
Alex Neve, Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada: Honourable senators, it is a pleasure to be here. I actually appeared in front of you — I think almost to the week — one year ago, as you were engaged in your previous study, and shared Amnesty International's hopes, concerns and recommendations with respect to the new UN Human Rights Council which, of course, at that time was only about eight months old.
A year ago, I focused in particular on some of the important innovations, the election process used to choose council members, the elevation of the council within the UN hierarchy to a higher level, a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, the decision to make the council a standing body meeting more frequently.
I also flagged some concerns. At this time last year we were concerned that the crown jewel of the UN human rights system, the special procedures system, appeared to be at risk of being undermined by politically motivated actions by a number of governments. Already, by February 2007, and certainly still today, in February 2008, there is much criticism that, in some ways, the new council appeared to be new in name only and has not been able to shake the politics that had plagued the commission. For instance, four of the six special sessions that council members have agreed to convene between July of 2006 and January of 2008 have been related to the human rights situation in Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The other two were Darfur and Burma.
Is that a true, impartial reflection of the state of human rights in the world over those 18 months, that two thirds of the council's special attention should have gone to Israel, one third to Darfur and Burma, and that no other crisis merited that kind of attention? Clearly not. What of the Democratic Republic of Congo, what of Pakistan last fall, what of Kenya more recently? What of Darfur, still?
Add to this the decision taken in June of 2007 to single out Israel as the only country in the world warranting permanent attention as a standing item on the agenda of the council. It is abundantly clear that poisonous Middle East politics continue to plague the body.
Does this mean that the council is beyond salvation, as some public commentators and media from time to time suggest? Absolutely not, in our view. In fact, I think you are embarking on your second study at a time when the council stands poised to begin what might be some of its most exciting and important work; the universal, periodic review process.
I would like to focus my remarks this evening on three areas: First, the Universal Periodic Review; second, coming back to concerns about the special procedures system; third, some remarks about our concern about Canada's current role and leadership at the international level.
I will begin with UPR. One of the most frequent criticisms of the commission was its selectivity and double standards in how it handled concerns about human rights violations in particular countries. Some countries were often and easily singled out and criticized. Others, with equal or graver human rights concerns, escaped scrutiny. The key all too frequently was not the severity of the human rights situation but the political adeptness and connections of the country in question.
UPR aims to change that. Now all countries are to come up for review on a regular rotating basis. If this is done well, it could, in an unparalleled manner, mean that the council would actually have the means to promote human rights in all countries consistently, objectively, transparently and constructively, something that eluded the commission for more than six decades.
A number of things need to be attended to in order to ensure that that happens. There is great theory, possibility, potential and aspiration here. There are many ways in which the council could end up not living up to that standard. Let me stress four key points here that I think Canada should be attentive to.
First, we know that what has come to be known as the troika process, the appointment of three Council members who will be responsible for steering and overseeing the review of each country as their turn comes up, will be key. That process must be strong, and Canada will not be on all troikas, and maybe only one or two in the first year. We have an opportunity to set some best practice on how we go about doing that work and modeling it for others.
A proposal made by a Canadian civil society counterpart of ours, Action Canada for Population Development, is one in which we are very interested, and that is the idea that Canada should consider in its troika work appointing some recognized, strong Canadian human rights expert to be the one who would lead the charge for Canada, get it out of the political system and bring in someone with well-established, demonstrated human rights expertise to be the one who would steer that initiative. That is an interesting model that we think should be considered.
A second area is that we are concerned and watching carefully as to how the Universal Periodic Review process will interact with the many other review processes that exist within the human rights system, particularly the treaty body process. This is one we think Canada needs to be carefully attentive to itself. We want to ensure that nothing that happens in the UPR process undermines or conflicts with what is happening through treaty body reviews, and vice versa. There is great potential for problems on that front and it needs a lot of attention.
Third, follow-up and follow-through will be absolutely vital. We can have great reports and a wonderful exchange when a country comes up for its turn, but if we do not see a real commitment to ensuring that there is solid follow-up and follow-through, we will have considerable problems.
Last, with respect to UPR, Canada's attention to UPR should not only be directed at the international stage. Canada itself, of course, will have its record reviewed under the UPR in about 15 months time, in April of 2009. Canada has a long history of participating actively in UN-level review of its human rights record through the treaty body process and takes these reviews seriously. However, it has become clear that there is a significant and troubling implementation gap, one that your committee has highlighted in numerous reports eloquently, such that compliance with the recommendations that emerge from UN-level reviews is often lacking.
A significant part of the problem there is that we continue to lack any meaningful coordinating process or mechanism that cuts across departments at the federal level as well as between the federal, provincial and territorial governments to oversee implementation. That is not a model that Canada can afford to demonstrate as the new UPR process gets up and running. A key piece of making UPR work will be for Canada to finally deal with the long- neglected domestic problems in our own ability to implement and comply with UN-level human rights recommendations. We cannot risk having Canada come before UPR a second time around and shrug shoulders and cry about federalism as the reason we have not been able to take action on the recommendations that came forward.
I will turn to special procedures. Over many years, an impressive and growing array of experts, including individually appointed special rapporteurs and special representatives, as well as working groups of several experts, had developed within the commission, largely viewed by all, I think even by most governments, to have been the most successful part of the commission's work. They are not perfect by any means, and with unevenness in the degree to which those experts were received by governments, the quality of their work did vary considerably.
Many governments felt threatened by the work of these experts and have consistently sought to weaken and undermine their effectiveness. Other governments, including Canada, have been strong champions of the special procedures. We remain concerned.
The special procedures have come through some of the first rounds of institution-building, not as diminished as we had feared but I do not think we can by any means assume that that struggle is over.
There is a process under way now which has come to be known, with acronyms abounding in the Human Rights Council these days, as the RRI process, review, rationalization and improvement. Let me stress that we very much hope that Canada will participate in the RRI exchanges in a way that will absolutely safeguard the independence of the special procedures, will endeavour to ensure that gaps in the coverage of human rights issues by various special procedure mechanisms are filled and, perhaps most important, will do everything possible to ensure that we secure a greater level of cooperation consistently from governments around the world. Of course, it would not be either a surprise or news to members of this committee to know that many governments refuse any cooperation with the special procedures, and we need to continue to find ways to turn that situation around.
The special procedures system is obviously only as good as those holding these important posts. That is where our recent focus has been. At the upcoming session of the council, 16 new experts will be appointed to posts following a new process which has had a remarkably refreshing degree of public transparency to it. We have had concerns about that, however, particularly with respect to the low number of women put forward as nominees. I do not remember the exact proportion but it is around a third, or less than that, of the nominees who have been women.
Canada has decided to take a neutral position with respect to the special procedure candidates. It will not make its views known to the president of the Human Rights Council as to who Canada feels are the strongest candidates, who Canada feels should be appointed to particular posts, and that includes with respect to Canadians who are in the running for some of the positions. However, we would urge Canada to actively engage with the process. There are criteria that the Human Rights Council itself established as to what makes a good mandate holder. Those are the criteria that Canada should be using to objectively assess and come to determinations of who we feel would be strong candidates, who we feel may be problematic candidates, and let the president of the council know that. There have been concerns in the past about mandate holders who have not been up to the task, and now is an opportunity for us to do everything we can to ensure that we get the best possible people.
Lastly, a word about Canada's role: A year ago, you had this very important recommendation to make to Canada: The committee recommends that the Government of Canada work to enhance its effectiveness and leadership on the UN Human Rights Council by increasing its role as a bridge builder and moving beyond its traditional allies to foster alliances with countries around the world.
There was a strong basis for that recommendation, as Canada had been, beyond any measure, a vitally important leader in the effort to create the council throughout the difficult negotiations leading up to the General Assembly resolution that established the council in March of 2006, and also at many vitally important stages throughout the institution-building phase and had actively built bridges along the way.
I will highlight that we still see and applaud hard work, clear and principled dedication to those very ideals of leadership and human rights ideals by Canadian officials and diplomats, but we are terribly worried that leadership has begun to slip, and slip seriously, not at the level of our officials but at the political level. We are concerned that a number of high profile decisions or actions taken by Canada within the UN Human Rights system over the past year and a half have notably eroded Canada's reputation and position of leadership, and have significantly begun to impair our ability to play that bridge-building role as a result. The declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples has already been highlighted. Canada's relentless and last-minute opposition to that long overdue, sorely needed UN human rights instrument, both within the council and then at the General Assembly, was disturbing and disappointing to many observers, governments and NGOs alike. I would be hard pressed to imagine anything even remotely close to this sorry episode, from a Canadian perspective, of Canada so actively working to undermine such an important UN-level human rights initiative, and the legacy of that remains.
There has been follow-up, too. In September of last year, Canada worked to insert language with respect to the jurisdiction of the special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people now to consider the declaration in his monitoring work, implicitly seeking to exclude from the monitoring any application of the declaration to countries that voted against it. That is also very troubling. It is a worrying promotion of an idea that international laws should somehow now have some sort of selective application, depending on how a country did or did not vote.
There are concerns, of course, that you see in our report about Canada's role with respect to the death penalty, and I have to highlight that there are concerns that Canada has started to take a much more polarizing position with respect to those always difficult issues around Israel and Palestine, all of which has led to actual and/or perceived views that Canada is much more actively politicized now in the positions it is taking there.
All of that interferes in what needs to be the hallmark of strategy, as you rightly stressed a year ago. That is leadership and it is bridge building, and it is becoming more and more difficult for Canada because of those political decisions.
I will end my remarks there and hope that we will have an opportunity to explore that situation more in questions.
The Chair: Thank you. We are under time constraints, so we have run a little over on your presentation, but I trust that we can stay within the limits and give Mr. Hubert the same consideration.
[Translation]
Jean-Paul Hubert, Interim President, Rights and Democracy: Madam Chair, I would like to begin by thanking you for your invitation. Please note that I have neither the experience of Mr. Neve nor the money and clout of Amnesty International Canada. I have only been in my position for two months, and I am going to try to forget that I was an ambassador for 17 years, defending Canada. I must remind myself, for the next five minutes, that I am representing Rights and Democracy, a rather special agency, created by Parliament. I do not know whether you know Ambassador Grinius, in Geneva. He says that we are suspected of perhaps being a GONGO, a Government Non-Government Organization, since our entire budget comes from the government.
I should be briefer in view of the limited time we have available.
[English]
That will allow me to be perhaps refreshing without being too much of an innocent. We are optimistic about this new institution. It is too early to say if it is good or not, but it cannot be worse than what we had before. We have to give it a chance. People before us have said that it is a work in progress. We have to give it a chance. We have to watch it go for a while. Leopards do not change their spots. We know that, and the foreign policies of countries do not move easily. There will be difficulties. There are difficulties, but let us try to be a little optimistic.
I will briefly focus on what we at Rights and Democracy see as our new priorities because there is now that council, and maybe this will exemplify what I consider to be doors or avenues that this new outfit opens. Will we all go through them? Will we travel these roads with good effect? It is too early to say, but it is opening roads and avenues. We have, at Rights and Democracy, elaborated our priorities on that basis.
One is that we would like to ensure that this new council contributes to the effective implementation of human rights at the national level, and by ``national,'' I mean not Canada's national level but the national level with respect to UN member states. The council is not a panacea for human rights, but it can be a catalyst for positive changes, we believe, to the extent that it can enable organizations like ours with their little means to develop linkages between Geneva and the national levels, in the plural, strengthening the linkages between states, national human rights institutions and civil society organizations. That is what we will try to do as an organization, thanks to this new avenue.
As you know, we do work in a finite number of countries, what we call ``priority'' or ``focus'' countries, and we will certainly take this opportunity that the UPR will present to support local partners in making use of these new avenues so that the gap can be closed between what countries subscribe to when they sign agreements and what they do in practice. We will try to use that door to reduce that gap.
A second priority that we will have is to make sure that thematic human rights issues do not disappear with the UPR. We will review the human rights situation as a whole in all the countries of the UN, but we have to remember that there are still specific issues, for example, violence against women, Aboriginal issues and so forth. Those must not disappear, and we certainly intend to continue focusing with local partners in our priority countries, enabling them to ensure that in their countries these subjects do not disappear and are considered when that particular country's turn comes for the UPR review.
[Translation]
We think that the new process called EPU in French (UPR in English) is very important. This process opens up new spaces for non-governmental organizations that are not all as big and strong as Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International. For small organizations in many countries, this opens up some opportunities to have a presence and to have some influence. Still, they do not have much money and we have to help them.
One of our intentions, with this tiny office in Geneva, which has been opened on a trial basis for two years, is to enable these small organizations to occupy the space that this new process opens up for them.
[English]
They have to be timely. They have to act in time. They have to be at the right place at the right time. They have to know how to do it, and we believe we have the expertise to enable them to make the best possible use of that avenue that the new process opens.
Maybe Mr. Lipsett, who has been the executive assistant for five years — again, I have two months — might want to take two or three minutes to add the important things I have left out.
Lloyd Lipsett, Senior Assistant to the President, Rights and Democracy: Yes, I will defer to the questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubert. As usual, you came in and said with great humility that you did not know the topic, but having known you and your reputation previously, I knew you had much more expertise, and you put it on the table adequately. I compliment you on that.
Senator Dallaire: Mr. Neve, it is a pleasure seeing you. Thank you for your support of the work I was doing with my book, Shake Hands with the Devil and so on.
Specifically, have you seen or discerned that there has been a reduction in the resources and the priority of effort in the Department of Foreign Affairs in regards to human rights? Has a tangible action been seen in what you are doing and the resources that they have to pursue in that element?
[Translation]
I am assuming, Mr. Hubert, that you replaced Mr. Roy?
M. Hubert: Yes.
Senator Dallaire: In this context, do you have an auditing role from Canada in your mandate to promote human rights, in its international policies and its activism?
[English]
Mr. Neve: That is a hard question to answer. In terms of budgetary figures, I am not in a position to know whether there has been a reduction or not.
I sense at least some inquisitiveness in your question as to whether there actually has been a reduction, and we do share some concern that that may be the case. This is at the political level more than at the level of officials that we have this concern. I would not suggest that we are not hearing anything about human rights. We have heard some strong things with respect to human rights in some situations. With respect to China, for example, we have seen a new policy starting to open up there. We think it still needs a lot of refinement and work, but that is encouraging.
However, we are not seeing that consistently. There are areas — Africa comes to mind most poignantly, for me and my organization — where we feel that there has been a real slippage in any sort of notable high-profile effort to address human rights concerns.
I cannot really offer an answer to you in terms of how that all plays out in resources, but we do share the concern.
[Translation]
Mr. Hubert: I would like to give Mr. Lipsett the floor. But first I can tell you that our little budget has doubled in the past five years.
Senator Dallaire: And Mr. Roy was proud of that.
Mr. Hubert: But I do not know whether Peter was robbed to pay Paul.
[English]
Mr. Lipsett: In terms of our mandate, it is primarily in terms of international cooperation to work on human rights issues in developing countries. Here in Canada, it is not really a watchdog function but more of an education, outreach and simulation of public discourse.
Senator Dallaire: You have that responsibility?
Mr. Lipsett: We are certainly out to raise issues here in Canada, but I would not consider it a watchdog function.
Senator Dallaire: Do you see the role of the current Human Rights Commissioner evolving to a more international responsibility in regard to a bit of what you are doing and more responsibility in government, or should it remain in its current limited mandate?
Mr. Hubert: As this new council evolves, there can only be a bit more of the second. Obviously, there will always remain the national part of the mandate.
I would just like to quote from our law, the law that created us, to complete what Mr. Lipsett has been saying.
[Translation]
The centre's mission, under section 4.1 of the act, is to initiate, encourage and support cooperation between Canada and other countries. As you can see, our mandate is first focused outward.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: My first question is to Mr. Neve. You were saying that Canada has taken certain positions so that we may seem to be more polarized. I want to talk from the point of view of the council. Do you think that leads us to play less of a leadership role with some of the positions we have taken?
Mr. Neve: Absolutely. Canada finds itself more and more as a minority. None of this is easy. We do not disagree, for instance, on the issues around the Middle East and Israel. We do not necessarily disagree with the concerns that lie behind Canada's positions, for instance, with respect to the controversy about the institution-building package last June, and Israel having been once again singled out as a permanent agenda item. We, too, did not feel that that was appropriate, and we expressed that concern.
We were concerned, however, that it appeared that Canada was going to the wall on that without a strategy in place as to how to rebuild the pieces if everything had collapsed, as some people were afraid it might. If it had unravelled, the whole institution-building package would not have been adopted, the council would have found itself without the framework, the rules, the regulations and the institutions to do its work, and then what? It was of concern to us, and I think to others, that there was not that kind of a strategy in place.
Senator Jaffer: I agree with what you have said, that we do not disagree with some of the stands that our government has taken. That is not the issue. It is then that our role becomes affected. One thing we may do is make recommendations. Therefore, can you suggest what we could recommend and how we could regain our leadership role? What could we do to change things?
Mr. Neve: It is a more careful tactical consideration of, when it comes to Israel, how to find the balance between expressing strong views but still moving forward in a way that we can forge the kinds of alliances and build the bridges that are necessary here. I do not have the formula for that. I think it depends on each particular resolution and issue as it comes up.
With respect to issues like the indigenous rights declaration or some of the brewing controversy now as to the stand Canada is taking on the likelihood of a new individual complaints mechanism under the economic, social and cultural rights covenant, again we are starting to see some hard-line positions from Canada on that front.
It is the need to get back to basics and reaffirm that Canada's commitment on the world stage is absolutely to the human rights principles that are at stake and making sure that necessary human rights gaps are addressed and that we need to start demonstrating how important it is to keep politics out of that which, in our view, is what really came in with respect to the indigenous rights piece and, in large respect, to the EFC rights piece as well.
Senator Jaffer: We hope to see you frequently in the future, Mr. Hubert. You said that the leopard does not change its spots, but maybe this is a new beginning. I liked your optimism. You are like a breath of fresh air with some of the optimism in the new council. Can you share with us what your optimisms are about?
Mr. Hubert: I must say that I am optimistic by nature.
Senator Jaffer: That is good.
Mr. Hubert: I do not know how long you will see me because once they appoint a real president, I will just go back to my eastern township retreat near my favourite golf course.
I would like to mention one thing as a follow-up to what you just stated, we are the Boy Scouts of the world. We belong to the Commonwealth, to the OAS, to La Francophonie and to APEC. Our political masters take part in those four organizations where they interrelate, if they so wish, easily with 100 countries. I did not add them up, but it is certainly more than half of the United Nations membership. All of these organizations, some more than others, deal in human rights.
It looks bad if we are the only country voting one way, even though we may be convinced as Canadian citizens that we are right. It does look bad. It does make people fear we are losing friends, which we need. To please one, you displease 20. That is not the way to do it.
To me, Canada voting alone is not necessarily bad for Canada. We are not hypocrites. We stand our ground. I am almost speaking as an ambassador here. We have to make use of these brotherhoods and sisterhoods — I have to be careful and gender neutral here, being from Rights and Democracy.
Senator Jaffer: Just as you mentioned ``Boy Scouts.''
Mr. Hubert: We have to make more use of these regional organizations that we belong to. We have to be leaders in them. We must convince people whom we sit next to in those clubs of our points of view, seeking their support and bringing them to vote, think and act like we do. Again, I am an optimist.
Mr. Lipsett: I guess the other thing that has been pointed out on many occasions is the UPR mechanism and how that can change dynamics, both in terms of stimulating national-level debates as the Universal Periodic Review is prepared, as well as in the follow-up, where we have a calendar and some clear objectives for international cooperation efforts, et cetera. Then we can get beyond just these snapshots in time in a multilateral body. There are real dynamic processes in-country that we hope will lead to creating a human rights culture and better programming.
Senator Munson: Senator Dallaire and I are going off to save the nation.
The Chair: I want to balance that politically, but I think I will leave it alone in the interests of human rights.
Senator Munson: We are not shy about standing up for human rights in China or standing up for Israel. We have all mentioned bridge building in our report, and you both have talked about bridge building, and we talked about trying to talk with our neighbours, and so on. I know the background of the conference in Durban; I understand that.
How do we bridge-build when we walk away from a conference? I know there were preconceived points of view at that conference, but we use the words «bridge building» yet we just withdraw and say, ``Sorry, we cannot go there because you people have a bias.'' Why can we not walk into these places and say ``We are here because that has been Canada's historic role as a bridge builder''? To walk away, to me, is to our detriment. I know what all of those other arguments are from the previous Liberal government and the present Conservative government.
Mr. Neve: There is no question that Durban is a difficult, contentious, ugly process at the UN level. We shared concerns about Durban phase I, and we do very much appreciate and understand all of the problems brewing in the lead-up to the follow-up exercise.
Last time around, in 2001, of course there was intense pressure on Canada right up to the very end of the Durban conference to pull out because of what unfolded there. We commended Canada for staying in, for rolling up their shirt sleeves and trying, right up to the dying moments, to salvage something, to build the bridges, to improve. They made it very clear in the statements they made at the end of the conference what the problems were and disassociated themselves with aspects of the closing declaration, et cetera. We feel that was the route to go.
We have not roundly criticized the decision to pull out at this stage, but we have expressed some disappointment and we think it is regrettable, especially at this early stage, that it has happened.
Mr. Hubert: I do not think I would offer much of a comment on that. To me, it remains a very political decision. Personally, I have feelings on this matter, but as Rights and Democracy and the type of organization we are, we are not to denounce. I certainly sympathize with your point of view. However, being there and defending your point of view may be considered to be better than not being there.
Obviously, our political masters have determined that in this case, this time around, they chose another way of expressing themselves. We may agree or disagree, but as Rights and Democracy, I do not think we have a position on this one.
Senator Munson: As a committee member, I sometimes do not know who we are talking to. I know we are talking with you and people are listening to our reports. We recommended that there should be a Canadian ambassador for human rights in our last report.
When we deliver our reports, either from this government or others, there has been sort of the status quo response. Whether it comes with the committee I sat on dealing with media or another committee such as social affairs, it is: Very good points of view, thank you very much, and here is a shelf and here goes your report.
On this issue of a Canadian ambassador, you obviously both endorse that idea. Do you think we should continue to push that so that a government will listen and bridge build?
Mr. Neve: I think it is a very intriguing and exciting idea. A position of that sort could make a huge difference in a number of ways within government — on the international stage — in really boosting the profile and effectiveness of Canada's human rights efforts. I absolutely encourage you to continue to press it.
Mr. Hubert: Can I be frank with you on this one as on anything else? Again, I am biased. I think it might diminish the role of our ambassador in Geneva. He is there and sees all the actors year round. He is with the UN Commission. I am not sure that having a man or a woman who would do just that — would you also post him or her in Geneva?
Senator Munson: No, I think the person should be on the road, like any other person should be doing, from my perspective.
Mr. Hubert: We had an ambassador for the environment who roamed around, so I am not saying it is a bad idea. I saw the government's response to it. It is another point of view. It has been done. There are precedents which you can cite, certainly.
The Chair: A very short question, Senator Oliver. We are out of time.
Senator Oliver: I will not even bother asking it. You said that the last time.
We are out of time, so that is fine.
The Chair: We have time for a quick question. Please.
Senator Oliver: I was happy that Senator Munson, in the preamble to his last question, did say that Canada's new government has done such things as take a strong stand on human rights with China and with others. It is very clear that the government has done a lot in terms of promoting the rule of law with countries with which it wants to do business. The government is very concerned with equality of rights.
A suggestion that this government is not concerned about, or seems to be withdrawing from principles and action on human rights is a bit misleading. I wanted an opportunity to put that on the record.
Mr. Neve, you had said that you would like to see this UPR process remain objective. I was wondering if you can tell me what rules and regulations are now in place to give it the kind of objectivity and barred from politics that you would like to see. That is, the review process.
Mr. Neve: There is every risk that it could not be objective. Certainly, the guiding principles are supposed to be international human rights standards. If governments go about their work in a genuine, good-faith manner and apply the criteria they are supposed to apply, then objectivity is there.
We know, though, that despite having decades of human rights standards to guide its work, the UN Commission on Human Rights always found a way to let politics trump the human rights. It will be a question of political will. It will come back to the importance of things like bridge building, leadership and small steps forward.
I am sure by the time we reach the end of this year and we have been through the first three rounds of UPR, there will have been successes and failures. Some of that will depend upon what three countries were the troika for particular reviews, how seriously they took their work, and many other factors that we probably cannot even predict right now.
Mr. Hubert: When the troika is chosen, the country being reviewed has one right of refusal. Let us say countries A, B and C come out of the hat. On being reviewed, I could say I do not want B. Or A, B or C may say ``I will not review X.'' Will that help or not? I do not know.
The Chair: A bit of a jury system. I want to thank you, Mr. Neve, Mr. Hubert and Mr. Lipsett, for coming. I hope, as I have indicated before, that we continue this dialogue. We thank you for your organizations' attention to human rights, but also your personal commitments to it.
I should say that, historically, when the Human Rights Commission started, Canada stood alone on many issues and slowly built coalitions. I think what we are looking for — and we would ask you to reflect — as we try to build coalitions on the issues of human rights to which we subscribe, that we learn new ways to build coalitions. That is what I think is the promise in the Human Rights Council, that perhaps through this committee and your efforts, you can give us new ways in which to work to build the consensus towards human rights.
We should not be judging from past history. We should be learning from it but finding new ways. I think you are well placed to give us that information and advice on an ongoing basis. We thank you for coming tonight.
The committee adjourned.