Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 1 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, February23, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 6:05 p.m., pursuant to rule88 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[Français]
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair and I am prepared to receive nominations to that effect.
Senator Jaffer: I nominate Senator Andreychuk.
Mr.Thompson: Are there other nominations? Seeing none, it is moved by the Honourable Senator Jaffer that Senator Andreychuk do take the chair of this committee. Are honourable senators agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr.Thompson: I invite Senator Andreychuk to take the chair.
Senator Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: I thank honourable senators for their confidence in me to chair this committee. The topic of human rights is important and members of this committee have always acted in a non-partisan way. We have served the cause of human rights generally, both globally and in Canadian matters. I am pleased to see new members present today as well as former members. This committee is yours so after the organizational part of the meeting, I will provide a quick idea of what we have done and ask members to consider where to go from here.
With pleasure, I move that the Honourable Senator Mobina Jaffer be deputy chair of this committee. Are honourable senators agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Do you want to say a few words?
Senator Jaffer: No, thank you.
The Chair: Item 3 is:
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.
Senator Jaffer: I so move.
The Chair: Are honourable senators agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: To clarify this process for our new members, these items are procedural motions that the Senate suggests for all committees, in keeping with the Rules of the Senate. However, if you have any questions about the intent of these motions or about the consequences of passing them, I will try to respond. However, I am sure our clerk will do a better job than I can on answering those questions.
We now move to item 4:
That the committee print its proceedings; and
That the chair be authorized to set the number to meet demand.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item 5 is authorization to hold meetings and to print evidence when quorum is not present.
That, pursuant to rule89, the chair be authorized to hold meetings, 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 be present.
Senator Martin: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item 6 is the financial report.
That the committee adopt the draft first report, prepared in accordance with rule104.
I will turn to the clerk to speak to the budget that has been circulated.
Mr.Thompson: Honourable senators, you should have received a copy of this draft report. This report is required by the rules at the beginning of each session.
Senator Nancy Ruth: What does it look like?
The Chair: It is on your desk.
Mr.Thompson: The rulerequires that each committee at the beginning of each session report on the funds expended in the previous session. Because of the short session for the First Session of the Fortieth Parliament, we are now addressing the expenditures in the Second Session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament.
As you can see, the total expenditures with respect to our legislation were $8,638. Total expenditures with respect to the special study on employment equity in the federal public service were $5,134 and total expenditures with respect to the study on children were $96,228.
You will also note that general postal charges of $70 were incurred. For senators' information, while we report the expenditures for witness expenses and general postage in our rule104 report, they are not paid out of the committee's budget. These expenses come from a central budget administered by the committee's directorate. For accountability purposes, each committee reports them through this report.
The Chair: Do I have a mover?
Senator Brazeau: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We will move to item 7, research staff.
That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign analysts to the committee;
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee; and
That the chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries and draft reports.
MayI have a mover?
Senator Dallaire: I so move.
The Chair: Question?
Senator Nancy Ruth: Can we expand the motion beyond the direction of the chair, to include the steering committee. This is no particular reference to you, Madam Chair; it is only that there is too much power.
The Chair: I have never felt that power.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I understand that could be true, but I would like the motion expanded so the steering committee has a say in it.
The Chair: That is how we work and until we have a problem, I think we should follow the rules set down so there is continuity and consistency between committees.
I do not take the request for amendment as a personal affront; I think only that the motion is the routine of the group.
For your information, I have been part of many steering committees, and I think that these things are not the kinds of things that chairs would do on their own anyway — to engage staff, etcetera.
In my opinion, either contract people or staff members from the Library of Parliament have always been available for the whole committee, and certainly within the steering committee. I also think that going outside the contract involves the steering committee. Chairs cannot change contracts on their own.
The Clerk: That is right.
The Chair: On the financial end, if we go beyond the Library of Parliament, that contract involves the steering committee.
Senator Nancy Ruth: All right.
Senator Dallaire: On item 7 at the bottom, it says that the subcommittee ``retain the services of such experts that may be required'' to work on the committee. One is nearly complementary to the other.
We can participate in directing research and so on, I gather, under that rubric.
The Chair: Research staff prepare the report. Usually the chair goes through the report for the first look to say, ``Is that what we were thinking about?'' After it goes through that first look, it then goes to the steering committee. They make amendments and changes, and then it goes to the full committee. That has been the routine.
It is simpler for staff to deal with one person at the start. We often turn to them and say, ``We have sat for six months and we now need a report; go to it.'' It is easier to focus it with the chair, then focus it with the steering committee, and then focus it with the committee. It has worked in the past and I think that is why it is here.
Senator Nancy Ruth: The problem I am trying to solve is that some chairs consistently refuse to call witnesses I suggest. That is not my experience with you, chair, but it does happen.
The Chair: That is not part of this item.
Senator Nancy Ruth: If the chair has the right to direct the Library of Parliament and the kind of research that the Library of Parliament does, it has the same impact. The chair contains and frames the knowledge that is presented.
I believe the Library of Parliament has far more power over committees than we are even aware of simply because they play this value-neutral stuff but, in fact, it is loaded with values and it is often contrary to the desire of this senator.
The Chair: That may be some experience that I am not aware of.
However, if you look back at item 3, which is not the item that we are discussing now, that item involves inviting witnesses. We have already passed that item. The subcommittee sets that agenda.
Senator Nancy Ruth: However, it is all part of a package for me. It is all about how you frame knowledge that is presented to senators.
I have a thing in for the Library of Parliament so I like to take a run at it whenever I have a chance — with due respect. I will talk to you later; I will leave it alone. No other senator has supported the amendment so I am happy to withdraw it at this time.
The Chair: If, at any time, you think we are not working collegially in the spirit of what this committee's subject matter is, let me know quickly.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I certainly will.
The Chair: Do I have a mover then?
Mr.Thompson: Senator Dallaire moved the motion.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item 8 is the authority to commit funds and certify accounts:
That, pursuant to section7, chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority to commit funds be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair and the clerk of the committee;
That, pursuant to section8, chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee; and
That, notwithstanding the foregoing, in cases related to consultants and personnel services, the authority to commit funds and certify accounts be conferred jointly on the chair and deputy chair.
Is there a mover for that motion?
Senator Martin: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item 9 is travel:
That the committee empower the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to designate, as required, one or more members of the committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the committee.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Next is item 10, designation of members travelling on committee business:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to:
1) determine whether any member of the committee is on ``official business'' for the purposes of paragraph8(3)(a) of the Senators Attendance Policy, published in the Journals of the Senate on Wednesday, June3, 1998; and
2) consider any member of the committee to be on ``official business'' if that member is: (a) attending an event or meeting related to the work of the committee; or (b) making a presentation related to the work of the committee; and
That the subcommittee report at the earliest opportunity any decisions taken with respect to the designation of members of the committee travelling on committee business.
For the newer senators, this form is a relatively new addition. The motion is not to restrict us talking about the work we do on committees. However, if we undertake to go to a committee meeting, a convention or something else in an official capacity, we follow this process both for the compensation of expenses and attendance.
Is there a mover for that motion?
Senator Brazeau: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item 11 is travelling and living expenses of witnesses:
That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witness expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for one witness from any one organization and payment will take place upon application, but that the chair be authorized to approve expenses for a second witness should there be exceptional circumstances.
MayI have a mover?
Senator Nancy Ruth: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item 12 is electronic media coverage of public meetings: that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow coverage by electronic media of the committee's public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings at its discretion.
Senator Jaffer: I so move.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Item 13 is the time slot for regular meetings.
I understand it has been confirmed that the whips have allocated a time.
Mr.Thompson: The time slot is from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.
The Chair: For this committee, it is from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Senator Jaffer: That is not what I had been told. Senator Goldstein is still at the meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. We were told that we would negotiate and maybe start later. This committee could go from 7 p.m. to whatever time. If it starts at 5 p.m., then we are on two committees at the same time. The Official Languages Committee will be from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. or 6:30 p.m.
Senator Nancy Ruth: MayI ask Senator Jaffer if we can compromise and meet from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.?
Senator Jaffer: Sure; I am fine with that.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Can you make the other committee if it were at that time?
Senator Jaffer: Senator Goldstein is at the Official Languages Committee. I spoke to Senator Chaput and she said she was trying to schedule that committee from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.
The Chair: However, these times obviously are negotiated by the leadership. This committee time slot was from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. and that is the understanding upon which we selected the actual time shots for our committees. Most of the other time slots are non-negotiable during the week, as I understand it. We could go back and ask for 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.
What do we do with this item? Do we pass a recommendation to meet from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.?
Senator Jaffer: Did you say 6 p.m. or 6:30 p.m.?
Senator Nancy Ruth: I said 6 p.m., but I was only asking a question.
Senator Dallaire: As you recollect, Monday is a difficult day.
The Chair: Very difficult.
Senator Dallaire: The later we meet on Monday, the better it is for attendance. In consultation with other members, the later we can push it, the easier it may be, provided it is not unreasonable for witnesses. We do not want to bring them here at midnight; it is already complex enough because they will have to stay overnight.
It is hoped that we can finish at 9 p.m. but perhaps commence around 6:30 p.m. We usually do a solid 2 hours to 2.5 hours, with 3 hours possibly being more the exception.
I propose pushing the start to 6:30 p.m. I do not make that proposal flippantly because it affects flight plans. Speaking personally, if we meet at 6 p.m., the whole day is shot. If we start at 6:30 p.m., it will work more easily with taxis, etcetera.
The Chair: We have difficulty on Monday. That is why anyone who sits on a committee meeting on Mondays really makes a commitment. It is much easier to sit on a committee that meets on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday.
Nonetheless, meeting on Monday was the basis upon which two committees, one of them being this committee, were formed; on the condition that they met only on Monday.
If we meet for less than three hours, the difficulty as you know, Senator Dallaire, is that you have wanted to ask questions —
Senator Dallaire: I do not recall that. MayI see the minutes?
The Chair: That is the beauty of having a long memory. That time slot necessitates that we have only two panels instead of three. That restriction already shortens our work. Most of the other committees have two time slots. They can have twice the number of witnesses to finish their studies or bills. If we move to 6:30 p.m., that time is all the we have for the week. Other committees sit twice during that time period.
I am hesitant to agree to anything less and I am hesitant to go beyond 9 p.m. On committees that sat beyond 9 p.m. we ended up having a problem with one or two people. Everyone becomes tired, and we have clerks who must start at 9 a.m. the next day on other committees, etcetera. I think this is why the time slot was 5p.m. to 8 p.m.
However, if 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. suits people, that is fine. Some of us have trouble getting here, whether it is 6 p.m. or 6:30 p.m.
Senator Martin: On a personal note, I have trouble coming for 5 p.m. as I travel from Vancouver, British Columbia. For that reason, 6 p.m. works better for me as well.
The Chair: Are there any contrary points of view to starting at 6 p.m.?
Senator Dallaire: I may be AWOL for the first minutes of the committee meeting.
The Chair: I think we need to maintain the slot and see how our workload goes. If we shorten our slot, when we request our budget, the comment will come back, how long do you sit? We already have difficulty obtaining our fair share of resources when we sit for a three-hour period per week. Monday time slots have this dilemma. Whips asked members to consider this problem when they accepted this committee.
Is there a motion for 6 p.m. then?
Senator Nancy Ruth: Can I suggest that we ask the whips to approve the time slot of 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., try it for three sessions to see how that works with everyone's flight plans and then re-evaluate it?
The Chair: Personally, coming from Saskatchewan — not as far as British Columbia — it does not matter if it is 5 p.m., 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. because we do not have direct flights. I come in on Sunday. If I take the flight where I run from the airport, that flight is late inevitably. I have learned from past experience.
Is there an understanding that we meet from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.?
Good evening, Senator Goldstein.
Senator Goldstein: I am sorry I came late. However, I was at a previous committee meeting that specifically raised this issue.
In the Official Languages Committee, we reached an understanding that it will sit from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. and stop at 7 p.m. in the hope that this committee would then start at 7 p.m.
The Chair: No.
Senator Goldstein: Senator Jaffer and I are on two committees that conflict.
The Chair: I know. I do not know how to help you with that conflict. I was asked to sit on two committees at the same time and had to make a choice because they were not planning to move the times.
The difficulty is that starting at 7 p.m. means we meet until 10p.m. I said before you came that we have intensive work to do. If we narrow our time slot to two hours, I do not think we can do it.
Each committee is different. The Official Languages Committee has a slightly different workload. It monitors different aspects. I will not prejudge how they do their work.
However, for our studies, one of the complaints in regard to the Convention on the Rights of the Child was how long the discussion went. Those discussions were long because we simply did not have time.
I think we will test the time slot of 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. If you must come late, we will try it out.
Senator Goldstein: Can we compromise and say 6:30 p.m.?
The Chair: I don't want to give up our time slot because we will have budget and other issues.
If I can maintain a three hour slot, that would be preferable.
Senator Goldstein: I spoke to Senator Comeau.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I suggested that we try this time slot for three weeks and see how difficult and possible it is for everyone. Nothing is perfect and there is nothing perfect here.
Senator Jaffer: We already have some members missing. That will be our challenge. This committee always has huge challenges with attendance because it is on a Monday. Speaking of those who are able to attend, it would help us if we were able to come from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
The Chair: Then, by inference, we are saying we will decrease our working load.
Senator Jaffer: No, we are still meeting for three hours.
The Chair: If we continue until 9:30, it is hard for some of us who fly seven or eight hours to arrive here to keep our wits about us.
Senator Goldstein: I understand.
The Chair: We have that problem.
Senator Dallaire: The aim is to have senators participate in the work of the committee, particularly if we end up with legislation. I think it is pertinent that we manoeuvre so that we ensure we have quorum because we are not a huge committee and we already know about the problems of membership and so on.
Since you went back to the history of the last couple of years, when I was a colonel, I came to the Defence Committee and we never left before ten o'clock on Tuesday nights.
We have willing members who are trying to make this committee work. However, bear in mind that 6:30 to 9:30 will be tough on the witnesses, too, who travel.
The Chair: I think it is extremely difficult. Some members are missing, so I do not know what we should do at this point.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I come from Toronto and it would be great if we could meet for 6 or 6:30.
Senator Jaffer: Let us try 6:30 to 9:30 and if we find it difficult, we will revisit it.
The Chair: That change must be subject to speaking with the leadership. The leadership are the ones I have had the conversations with. I am now receiving different information from them.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I want to reserve the right for the committee to slip in a witness if we need to hear a witness who cannot come in the evenings. It will need to be flexible.
Senator Jaffer: The steering committee decides that.
The Chair: Is there a consensus that we set our meeting time at 6:30 p.m. next week? In the meantime, I will consult with both leaderships to determine the operations and management. I am mindful that we are trying to accommodate all senators to the extent we can and not prejudice witnesses, staff or other senators. I need to canvass everyone to determine that balance.
We will meet at 6:30 p.m. next week if there is agreement. Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I do not hear opposition from anyone. The time slot will be subject to review next week.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Do not expect dinner when you arrive here. We do not have any money.
The Chair: I have not gotten that far. Generally, when we had funds, we provided food early. However, not many people were eating it. I think we will again have a canvass to determine whether you wish dinner served before the meeting.
Having supper during the committee is difficult because we need the members here in due deference to the witnesses. If we are being televised, we cannot hear the clanking of forks and knives. I am told it is distracting. I do not want a situation whereby I am shopping and somebody says, ``I saw you on television. Who was that person next to you eating?'' It is not the image we want to project.
We will canvass at the meeting next week at 6:30 what we have in available resources for food.
Item 14 is other business. I do not intend to have a discussion today about our workload. However, I want to have a refresher course and a little update.
Senator Jaffer: I have not seen that information.
The Chair: There is nothing to see. It is a review of our old motions. I will finish and then if you have something to add, please do.
I will not talk about our workload today but I think it will be helpful to know what notices of motion were before the previous committee. The notices are being given out now. I will simply talk about them because they are not in the order in which I wanted to speak.
We started out with a reference on the international human rights machinery and it was a report called, Promises to Keep: Implementing Canada's Human Rights Obligations. It canvassed the international human rights machinery to ascertain Canada's compliance with these organizations, treaties, etcetera. The study was an omnibus study and, since that study, we have routinely introduced motions to keep that issue alive as and when we want to study it.
My proposal, at some point, is to reintroduce the same regular motion to continue that study. It has been a benefit to us because when the Human Rights Commission turned into a council at the United Nations, it was beneficial to have the authority to study it. The motion gives us that flexibility. It is also value-added for the work already done — we continue what we are doing.
The proposal on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is the same. The study was a long exhaustive one and the proposal is to introduce a motion to keep that study on our plate so we can continue to monitor the issue and have the value-added experience.
We also had the report that was prepared under Senator — help me out Senator Jaffer —
Senator Jaffer: It was Senator Maheu.
The Chair: Yes, Senator Maheu was the chair at the time. The initial report was entitled A Hard Bed to Lie In: Matrimonial Real Property on Reserve. Since then, we have tabled a few other reports as follow up, and I propose that we continue to follow up with this authorization.
Another major one is to examine issues of discrimination in the hiring and promotion practices of the federal public service. Last year, we broadened the motion to study the extent to which targets are being met to achieve employment equity and to examine labour market outcomes for minority groups in the private sector.
Originally, in this study, we started looking at discrimination only within the Public Service Commission of Canada. However, we have broadened it now to four target areas and we have produced reports. We found that there are issues overlapping with the private sector and so we broadened our study, primarily because Statistics Canada has prepared a broad-based questionnaire, based on a lot of the employment issues for the target groups that we were dealing with, within the Public Service Commission. A lot of valuable information is contained in that Statistics Canada questionnaire and we want to avail ourselves of that information.
I wish Senator Poy was here. She wanted us to study that broader issue of labour markets. Her particular emphasis was on immigrant groups who have difficulty receiving credentials, as well as second generation immigrants. We need to complete that study, so I propose that we continue that one also. Next week we will speak about what is left to complete, etcetera.
The final one being circulated for your information is human trafficking. This committee indicated this issue would be the subject of its next significant study, and we put through a plan of action with a budget. Unfortunately, we shut down in Juneand did not come back to it, but the study was to be an extensive, detailed report of all issues of human trafficking, with particular emphasis as noted in this motion.
This study is new. Others are ongoing, and I will make a plea to continue them to completion. We started talking about this study two years ago, and then passed it last year. Since then, I went to the World Congress III Against Sexual Exploitation of Children and Adolescents in Rio de Janeiro, representing the government — not the Senate — where all issues of human trafficking were discussed. The question is, do we continue with this study — because so much has happened and so much information is out there now, prepared by others? Will we be repeating what others have done?
Second, is there something more current within human trafficking that we can study as a first tranche to determine whether we should do more?
Finally, we have new members — some of us who are older members have new ideas from time to time — and now is the time to talk about new ideas.
The others are ongoing studies. I think we can manage them within our caseload, but a new significant study will need to be either some part of human trafficking or any other human rights issue.
Rather than discussing this subject tonight to any extent, I ask members to think about what they wish to study, because we have now had time to reflect. It can be human trafficking or part of it — if anyone proposes that — or any other study. If we can give our clerk, Adam Thompson, the subject matter that we wish to discuss — not in detail — by the end of the week, the steering committee can look at it quickly to see if there are any similarities, etcetera. Then we can come back next week for an exhaustive discussion about our workload: whether we continue the ones we have — which I will make a plea for but you may have a different opinion — or any new topics. That review is for your information.
Senator Jaffer: It would be fair if we gave new members a copy of the study. The study is extensive. Then they will know what we have been studying.
The Chair: If you agree, my proposal is that, after we circulate all the reports relating to these subjects — and there have been several of them — new members will have the opportunity to meet with me, or any of us who were there, anytime during the week to be brought up to speed on any subject matter.
This is a good point to introduce Julian Walker, who is taking over from Laura Barnett as Library of Parliament analyst. Laura was with us right from the start on the Human Rights Committee, so she had a great wealth of experience. For some unknown reason she has decided to get married, and they are taking a two-year leave in Australia. Her work has been left with Julian and I think Julian has brought himself up to speed.
You can call any of us to bring you up to speed on any of the reports we have prepared. I encourage you to talk to Senator Dallaire, Senator Jaffer or Senator Poy, who have been on this committee for some time, so they will have studies. Senator Goldstein has been with us and is actively involved with the U.N. Human Rights Council. We can bring you up to speed. The reports are there, as well as any other background information. We can inundate you or be gentle with you, whichever you prefer.
Senator Goldstein: I have two comments and one question. My first comment is that the issue of human trafficking has been studied by a variety of organizations. The Council of Europe studied it in great depth and produced, with humility, an excellent report. I was involved with that report.
This issue has been studied from here to eternity. However, we have two unique circumstances in Canada that might justify a study, and I leave that to my colleagues for their consideration. The first is that the Aboriginal population of Canada is disproportionately represented in human trafficking. As I understand it, it is massive. We have an obligation to try to study that issue and try to make recommendations and observations.
The second, by way of an observation only, is that the Human Rights Council has given us a report about failings in our human rights. I do not want to enter into discussions today about the Human Rights Council's composition and the manner in which it operates. Senator Dallaire and I have had certain words already today. We are good friends but we have had discussions. The fact is that the report is there. It behooves us to take a close look and see what kind of dissecting we ought to do, who we should call to extend help to, and have those people help us see what can be done about that report and those failings that have been signalled to us. A good proportion of those failings relate to the way we deal with Aboriginal people, which I do not want to qualify. You know what I am talking about.
I want to suggest the following: We are all identified by names except for the clerk, the library researcher, the interpreters and the people who prepare the records here.
We are all people. I made this motion some years ago at the banking committee — and it was adopted — to identify these people by name as well.
I made that motion a few minutes ago at the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and it was taken under advisement by the chair. I ask you to do the same, chair.
The Chair: Thank you. I will take it under advisement. I have asked the same question about clerks, etcetera.
As in the court system, it was their choice to have their designation rather than their name. Often, the clerk comes in and out if that clerk must slip out to another committee. I was told it was logistically easier this way, and the capacities rather than the names were more helpful to the witnesses and those who sit in on our hearings.
If the mood is for the names, I welcome it but there may be some reason that designations are more appropriate. We will go back and look at it.
Senator Goldstein: I note, chair, that you are designated both by office and by name. With respect, there is no reason why other people who work on this committee should not also be designated that way.
The Chair: That comment is fair. However, we have many committees, and we should have consistency from committee to committee. That is why the matter is ``under advisement.''
Senator Goldstein: I am on a crusade for each committee.
The Chair: Good; that means you will go to about 12committees.
Senator Nancy Ruth: It is my dream that when committees undertake a new study — or are thinking about new studies — that they do what Senator Goldstein did: Call in experts in the field — who know better than us — to say what would be value-added for us to do, rather than spin the wheels and grind the paper. I encourage that approach. If we send in suggestions to the steering committee before next week and they are circulated, can we also take the time to look at peoples' proposals and invite in experts in the field to say that it would be neat if the Senate could look at this from this way, why and how?
The Chair: I should have responded to one thing Senator Goldstein said. The motion on the international machinery is there so that we can follow up on the council. If the motion is passed, the committee would have either a session or sessions for the follow-up on the council. That is the value of continuity. It would not be the last session; it would be the continuum.
The practice is to have a discussion amongst the senators about what topics are of interest and place priorities on the topics. Then, the steering committee determines where the value-added is or where witnesses can help us.
When we started the international machinery, it was the same process. We sat around the table. We had all kinds of ideas. Everyone had a different idea. There was some consensus that Canadians were addressing human rights issues, but no one was looking at what we called the machinery. The machinery gives us our rights or takes them away, depending on whether we can go to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, etcetera.
In the first session, which I think was within three to six months, we brought in all the experts across Canada to discuss it because there had been no discussion. Some academics were working on it before we embarked on the full study.
That example takes the process to one extreme. We have often suggested to the steering committee: these are the ideas; see what priorities are within that subject matter, put them into a plan of action, cost out the plan and bring it back to the committee for approval. I hope we continue to follow that process.
Senator Dallaire: In presenting what will be done next week and looking at what we will study and report on, I think that the study or the preliminary work for the study on sexual exploitation was thrown in with the others. I wish to indicate to the chair and honourable senators that we have already gone down this road some distance. I was also invited to that conference but was not able to make it.
Trafficking is only one dimension of the problem. If you will notice, we are talking about sexual exploitation on the Internet. I sit on the national police services advisory board, a board that oversees all police services. The Internet is a real problem that people are fiddling with, depending on what province they live in and so on. There is that dimension.
Senator Goldstein mentioned operators involved with the sexual exploitation of children. I took over the ad hoc committee from Senator Landon Pearson. We have been looking at this incredible problem that has all kinds of gaps and people involved in all directions, from national to international non-governmental organizations. We are receiving all kinds of hits.
I contend that we might be able to tighten what we want to do, but I do not wish to see it thrown into the hopper of what we might do. I think we have already gone down that road, if I may indicate, and there is continuity of staff work plus the problem that is identified. We should look at it but maybe focus it and bring in people to give us notions on how to focus this work. Many people, starting with the commissioner of the RCMP and working our way down, would be more than willing to give us a bit of direction.
I plead that we take the time to refocus the study or phase it, and then if we want to undertake other studies, that is fine. Let us not necessarily throw it into the hopper and say, ``well, maybe we will finish it.''
The Chair: If I gave you that impression, it is not correct. The other studies are midway to completion.
Senator Dallaire: There is no problem.
The Chair: In fairness to the old committee, we had discussed and deliberated on the study of human trafficking, as you have stated.
However, this committee is new, with a new mandate, and we are the authors of our own fate here. We have new members with new perspectives on human rights. We have some members that are still going over the information. That is why we need a session. We cannot do it today.
I think members should reflect on human rights issues — international, national and local — that we in the Senate could or should study and bring to the attention of the public and the government. It is a public policy issue, a different perspective.
If members make the compelling case and convince their colleagues that we should study human trafficking, then that is what we will study. I think every senator should be afforded the opportunity to put forward what they want to study. Then, we will have a discussion and come to a collective decision on what we study. We have no choice on legislation. Pieces of legislation will come to us, and they take priority over the rest of the work.
The study is the collective will of this group. I am sure we can find some consensus, as we have in the past, to defer some things and do them later. It is a question of what we think is the priority now, and we will discuss that next week rather than starting a half debate today.
Senator Dallaire: Forgive me for making the point because there is continuity in the institution and in work effort. Respect for that work should be maintained.
The other thing is, if you remember when I started here, I had four or five projects. I have been working two years to bring this project to where it is. Therefore, I am 100percent for giving it some focus because it did not necessarily go the way I hoped it would.
Again, I feel ill at ease that we say simply, this one and others. I contend that we maybe accept this one, as we have these other ones, but give it another look to phase it, and then consider new ones. I have three others I want to table as well.
The Chair: There are no issues we can deal with legitimately and credibly in human rights. Therefore, it is a question of the will of the group; their expertise, their commitment and their time. We obviously work by consensus here. Every senator, when we come to the committee, comes with the same credibility. We all bring a different experience on human rights issues and other issues to the Senate. That is why I think we need to have a good discussion and weigh each others' ideas and opinions. Then, we will see if we can find some collective way of dealing with our priorities. We want all the senators engaged, and I am sure that if we all come and make a good case, the others will hear us out.
I purposely have not put any of my issues forward here. I will wait for the round-table discussion, where I may or may not disagree with Senator Dallaire. I will ponder that issue.
Senator Dallaire: We have all these projects that are well underway and we have acquiesced to them already.
The Chair: No, we have not. I have suggested we continue them.
Senator Dallaire: Forgive me.
The Chair: If anyone after reflection does not want to proceed, they can make their case and it will be a collective decision.
Senator Dallaire: It is not a given.
The Chair: No, nothing is a given today.
Senator Jaffer: I know we will have this discussion next week, but most of us were on the previous committee, and we put in a lot of time on the trafficking study. I respect that you found out in Rio that a lot of this study has already been done.
It is important to see if the studies have been done in Canada. I do not know because I was not at Rio. It would be useful for the committee to know what you learned. As you remember, we all planned to go and then it did not happen. It would be helpful if you could share documents you received with us. You obviously have arrived at an opinion that we were not there for, so we do not know. It would be helpful to know what has been studied, and whether it has been studied in the Canadian experience.
I know this committee is new, with a new mandate, but some things we continue. It would be helpful to know what you learned and what happened. Then, at least, we are working on a level playing field.
The Chair: I have not formed an opinion. I do not want to leave that impression. In discussions you and I had, you said some of the territory had been covered and that is how I feel. Some of the territory has been covered. That is why I want a full discussion about what we can study. My only caution is that, when we studied the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, the study was three years and we subsequently lost momentum because of the length of the study. My plea is that we study something we can start and end in a reasonable time.
Senator Jaffer: I do not disagree with you on that point.
The Chair: That plea is regardless of whatever part of human trafficking or any other human rights issue you want.
Senator Jaffer: I am asking about the lessons that you learned at Rio. If you share them with us, then we can make a better informed decision.
The Chair: I will throw into the discussion my own opinions. I cannot give you the lessons learned in Rio because the report of Rio will come out, and in fairness to all the NGOs and others who were there, that report is someone else's compilation.
I have asked the clerk to obtain additional copies of the program. They gave me only one copy of the program, which was pageafter pageof workshops on virtually every issue, some that I had not even thought of in human trafficking. The program is a compendium. If we decide to look at human trafficking, it is all there. Hopefully, we can have copies of that program.
I do not want to deflect our concerns with that report. I hope that members will come and make their case about what we should study — not only through witness comments but what in the essence in human trafficking you want to study. Make the case to honourable senators on this committee, and if it is for human trafficking, that is fine. If it is another issue, then let us have the same compassionate debate about that issue, too.
Senator Goldstein: MayI make a suggestion along the lines of what you suggested, and what Senator Jaffer referred to as well.
I said earlier that the Council of Europe had undertaken a significant amount of studying on human trafficking. It occurs to me that if the clerk can speak to Philippe Méla, who probably has a copy in his files, and obtain a copy of the report on human trafficking by the council, that report will give us the outline of what the European community has undertaken. That information, I hope, will help us focus significantly on the Canadian aspects if we decide that we will deal with that issue.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I suggest, too, that either the Library of Parliament or the clerk contact Joy Smith, the member of Parliament from Winnipeg, who is the expert in the House of Commons on trafficking, and ask her what she sees as issues for Canada.
Senator Goldstein: That is an excellent idea.
The Chair: First, I think we should reflect on the whole human rights issue and where we want to dedicate our time.
We will leave it there for now. I ask you to give your subject matter of discussion to the clerk before the end of the week. We will go to other business now.
Senator Jaffer: Excuse me, please: If the clerk receives the items by the end of the week, it will be difficult for the steering committee to meet and discuss them.
The Chair: I am not sure that we can mandate a shorter time frame.
Senator Jaffer: I know, but perhaps we should think about what we do on Monday as the steering committee will not be able to meet before then.
The Chair: I am also mindful that we are at the end of Februaryand the beginning of March. We will not do anything if we do not move a little faster.
Senator Jaffer: I understand that.
The Chair: Can we meet at some point?
Senator Jaffer: If it is at the end of the week and our committee meets on Monday, when will we meet?
The Chair: Can we meet on Monday? The meeting would not be for a decision but rather to see if there is some similarity in items. We can have a discussion about them. The alternative is to collate the ideas and send them to the entire committee, circumventing the steering committee and then have an open discussion on Monday. We do not need to settle on ideas on Monday, but if we do not start moving, the lack of inertia will take over.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Senator Jaffer and I will meet tomorrow about a study we are interested in. If we have that idea ready, can we send it to the clerk for you to circulate as soon as it comes in so we do not receive the information on Friday?
The Chair: Certainly.
Senator Nancy Ruth: If we can pull it off tomorrow, you can have it.
Senator Dallaire: I must be transparent. Next Monday, I am in Banff.
Senator Goldstein: Skiing again, are you?
Senator Dallaire: Flying in and flying out, but flying out will not have me here in time for the meeting. As you have indicated, there will be a discussion next week with a possible decision at the subsequent meeting.
The Chair: My hope is that we reach a point where we are at least focused on one topic next week. I am mindful that with the year passing by, we will not have anything underway. We need to call witnesses and go through a budget process. We need to go to the Senate, and we must be mindful of the fact that the Senate has the right to say yes or no to any of our decisions. Often, they have a discussion before they approve it. We then must come back, make a plan and go through the budget process. I am afraid the entire spring will be gone before we have a topic, and that gives me great concern regarding how long the lull has been since the last committee meeting.
I encourage members to move as quickly as possible, although I am in your hands if you cannot make a decision.
Senator Goldstein: To avoid losing time, since, sooner or later, we must deal with the Human Rights Council report, can we at least start on that report and suspend it if we must to deal with other things, but at least not waste the time now? I am particularly mindful of the time, frankly, because I terminate my service here all too quickly in May, and I want to get as much as I can under my belt.
Can I suggest that we start with a presentation on the approach of the Human Rights Council to us so as not to waste next Monday?
The Chair: First we must get our references through the Senate chamber.
Senator Goldstein: Yes; this would not be a study.
The Chair: We need an order of reference to bring witnesses to the committee, which is why I am pushing as quickly as I can, but then there are all these other impediments to go through.
Senator Goldstein: All right.
The Chair: I take your point; I agree. It is all so fresh, so I hope we can do that as quickly as possible.
MayI now turn to other business?
We had Laura Barnett, our researcher, with us for a long time. I suggest — and I am sure you will concur — that we send a letter to Laura expressing our appreciation and gratitude for the many hours she put in with this committee. When we started this Human Rights Committee, which intended to undertake international and national studies, because the other house has a different way of approaching it, the library attempted to find someone with the expertise to cover that range entirely. It was virtually impossible. These people are very few. Laura had expertise in international law to a certain extent. I have seen her come from a master's level to a PhD level here. She is one of Canada's true experts on international machinery in the human rights field. Our reports have been able to withstand academic scrutiny as well as both public opinion and governmental scrutiny, and much of it is due to Laura's expertise and commitment. I ask if we can send the letter on behalf of the committee to her expressing our gratitude and wishing her well in her new venture in life.
Senator Goldstein: Absolutely.
The Chair: Also, I want to send a letter of gratitude to Jessica Richardson, our previous clerk; she was not with us for long but she was dedicated to the task, and I think she now has other duties and other committees. We would be amiss if we did not also express our gratitude to Jessica. Are senators agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, and welcome to the new team.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Can someone give a history of this room for the new senators? I cannot provide it because I cannot exactly remember but Prime Minister Trudeau did something here that was significant.
The Chair: We will attempt to give that history next time. We did it for a while when this room was opened. Every time a committee was televised we would have a little historic lesson but I am not the one to give it properly.
We will adjourn, if there is nothing else. We will meet at 6:30p.m. next Monday.
(The committee adjourned.)