Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 3 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, March 30, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 6:30 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, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights is here this evening to study the order of reference for the review of the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations. We are specifically looking at Canada's Universal Periodic Review of 2009, which just occurred. We filed a report in the late spring of 2008 with some of our preliminary assessments about the new United Nations Human Rights Council. We signalled that there are some issues we believe to be worrisome. We made recommendations both to the government and to the Human Rights Council to ensure that the council works appropriately to further the rights of citizens throughout the world.
Canada came up for review quickly and earlier than we had been told originally. We have before us today John Sims, Deputy Minister, Department of Justice Canada. Mr. Sims related to me that he had not been the key person involved with the Human Rights Council and its issues, but that he had been asked to represent Canada and to coordinate. I assured him that we would not ask him all of the questions on human rights. If there are questions that we put that he cannot answer, perhaps they can be answered at a later date or by one of the other presenters here this evening.
I also have Diane Fulford, Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship and Heritage, Department of Canadian Heritage, here to assist you, Mr. Sims; and Ms. Lyn Elliot Sherwood, Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage. Welcome.
I know you have an opening statement and then the senators will have questions for you related to the Universal Periodic Review and, perhaps, to the entire context of the Human Rights Council. Feel free to respond to those questions that you feel you came prepared to answer. If there are others to which you are unable to respond, we can seek further clarification at a later date.
Welcome to the committee, Mr. Sims. Please begin.
John Sims, Deputy Minister, Department of Justice Canada: Honourable senators, I am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to speak to you about Canada's appearance before the United Nations Human Rights Council's Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review.
[Translation]
First, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for its ongoing work and demonstrated commitment to human rights.
My introductory remarks will focus on Canada's presentation in Geneva on February 3 of this year. My colleague Diane Fulford, Assistant Deputy Minister, Canadian Heritage, will address the process now under way to follow up on that presentation and to respond to the recommendations received.
[English]
Canada was a leading proponent of Universal Periodic Review and the idea that all UN member states' human rights records should be reviewed on regular basis in a fair and impartial manner. As you know, UPR is a new mechanism. It is still in its first four-year cycle. Its effectiveness as a mechanism to improve human rights on the ground in countries will need to be assessed as the process evolves over time.
I had the honour to represent Canada as the head of the Canadian delegation for our first Universal Periodic Review. In my remarks this evening, I will share some of my personal impressions.
It was decided early in the preparations for this first UPR experience to take an open and constructive approach to the examination of both Canada's strengths in respect to human rights and also the challenges faced. We acknowledged that no country, including Canada, has a perfect human rights record. It is important that every country should open its record to scrutiny, both domestically and internationally.
In preparing for Canada's appearance, I was struck by the breadth and complexity of the issues. The issues touched upon the whole spectrum of human rights — economic, social, cultural, civil and political. Many of the issues require multi-faceted responses from a variety of departments at the federal, provincial and territorial levels as well as by civil society.
Canadian Heritage organized engagement sessions with civil society prior to Canada's review. In addition to a session held in the national capital, sessions were held in five regions. This included a session organized by the Government of Quebec in their province. Aboriginal groups were also included in these meetings.
I am aware that several civil society groups were not satisfied with these sessions given their nature and late timing as a result of two elections. The Canadian delegation also met with representatives of civil society groups in Geneva. Many organizations filed submissions with the Human Rights Council prior to Canada's review.
The government is committed to holding further engagement sessions with civil society and Aboriginal groups as part of the follow-up to UPR. My colleague from Canadian Heritage can provide you with further information on the issue of civil society engagement.
[Translation]
I was part of a strong Canadian delegation made up of officials from various federal departments — such as Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Justice Canada, Human Resources and Social Development Canada, and Canadian Heritage — as well as officials representing the provinces of Quebec and Saskatchewan.
As several of the issues pertain to matters under provincial jurisdiction, provincial representation on the delegation was important. We received very effective support from our Ambassador at the UN in Geneva and from his team, which ensured that the delegation was fully briefed on the Council's procedures and dynamics.
[English]
A number of key documents, which are available on the UN website, were made available for the review. These included Canada's national report — a compilation of the information contained in the reports of treaty bodies and special procedures in other relevant UN documents; and a summary of information contained in the reports submitted to the UN by 50 stakeholders.
On the morning of February 3, three hours of the time of the working group on UPR was devoted to examining Canada's human rights record. The timing is strictly controlled. States under review are allotted one of the three hours available to give both an initial presentation and to respond to questions raised during the course of the interactive session.
There was great interest in Canada's review by other states. Sixty-nine states sought to speak during the interactive dialogue. There was only time for 45 states to comment and offer recommendations to Canada.
Many of the issues raised by other countries were anticipated and pertain to challenges acknowledged in our opening statement and during our responses to questions. After the review, a number of states commended Canada's presentation for its candour and thoroughness. Not all states have taken this approach to UPR and some are manipulating the procedures in an attempt to avoid any real scrutiny. However, I think it is important that Canada took the process and follow-up seriously. Indeed, I am of the view that Canada's approach served as a model or best practice for other states who will be coming up for review.
Sixty-eight recommendations are contained in the draft report of Canada's UPR. These recommendations touched upon a number of themes, including: Aboriginal issues; ratification of international treaties and enhancing transparency respecting Canada's responses to UN recommendations; reducing socio-economic disparities of Aboriginal Canadians and other vulnerable groups; poverty and homelessness; violence against women; and racism and discrimination.
The report, including the recommendations, has been broadly distributed across the federal government, the provinces and territories, and a large number of officials are reviewing the recommendations. I can say that Canada's UPR review has again highlighted the importance of working horizontally across government, with the provinces, territories and civil society in responding to the human rights challenges Canada faces.
[Translation]
Now, I suggest that my colleague from Canadian Heritage, Diane Fulford, speak to you in more detail about the follow-up process, including civil society and aboriginal engagement.
Diane Fulford, Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship and Heritage, Canadian Heritage: Madam Chair, I am pleased to be here today to give you an overview of the process that is in place to follow-up on Canada's UPR appearance.
Now that our appearance has occurred, we turn towards our next milestone: responding to the recommendations made by other states. Canada must provide its response prior to the session of the Human Rights Council starting at the beginning of June.
[English]
We have two key objectives in this process: First, to present a response that is both timely and considered; and, second, to set the stage for progress over the next four years. Meeting these objective means engaging the federal government, provincial and territorial governments, as well as civil society and Aboriginal organizations in a very short period of time.
This is a considerable undertaking. Canada received 68 recommendations that cover a wide range of issues, as the Deputy Minister of Justice indicated. These issues fall under the responsibility not only of several federal department but also that of provincial and territorial governments. Of course, they are also of great interest to civil society and Aboriginal organizations.
All of these players factor into our follow-up process. I would like to use the "map'' that has been provided to you to explain the steps we are taking. We have introduced some new mechanisms with respect to UPR.
First, I would like to draw to your attention the time frame set out in the gray strip down the left-hand side of the page. As you can see, the time frame to meet our deadline of tabling Canada's response before the Human Rights Council convenes on June 2 is very tight.
Next, I would like to draw your attention to the 11 blue boxes at the top of the page. We have clustered the recommendations from the Council according to themes, with one cluster in each box. Each cluster has been attributed to a lead department that, in turn, is working with colleagues from other relevant federal departments in considering the recommendations and providing input into the official response.
[Translation]
Of course, each cluster involves not only the recommendations but also the ongoing work of these departments in developing legislation, policies and programs in consultation with their stakeholders. In the UPR process, we are seeking to complement this ongoing work.
Officials are currently analyzing the recommendations in order to develop an appropriate response. These individual working groups are feeding back to the interdepartmental committee that is identified in the top black box immediately below the blue boxes. This interdepartmental committee was created specifically for the UPR process. It was established during the preparations of Canada's national report and met throughout the lead-up to Canada's appearance. It continues to meet on a regular basis and includes all of the relevant federal departments.
[English]
As you can see in the box below the interdepartmental committee, the three core departments — Canadian Heritage, Justice and Foreign Affairs — have the responsibility of integrating the information provided by other federal departments, civil society and Aboriginal organizations and provinces and territories.
I would now like to focus on the part of the process represented in the green boxes on the left. Canadian Heritage has a particular responsibility of ensuring that civil society and Aboriginal organizations are engaged in the process.
[Translation]
We know that some were disappointed with the timing or nature of our engagement prior to Canada's appearance in February. They wanted to be consulted ahead of the drafting of Canada's report. That is what we had originally planned but the realities of both the federal and Quebec elections during this period meant that sessions had to be postponed. We remained committed to having these sessions and proceeded with them in January.
Six sessions were held in total across Canada, one organized by the Government of Quebec. Despite the challenges we faced in getting these sessions organized, we were very pleased with the quality of the participation and the commitment of all organizations to the process. We heard the views and concerns of a wide cross-section of stakeholders. These views were shared across governments and are being taken into account as we consider the recommendations.
[English]
We will be seeking the views of civil society and Aboriginal organizations again to discuss the Human Rights Council's recommendations. In order to maximize the process and hear from the widest possible number of stakeholders, as a first step, we are conducting a Web-based consultation. The report has already been posted on the Canadian Heritage website and there is a dedicated email address to receive input. We will soon be enhancing this process by adding a series of questions to stimulate responses.
In addition, face-to-face sessions will be held in Ottawa on April 21 and 22. One session will be geared towards civil society, while the second will be for Aboriginal organizations. These sessions, as well as the Web-based consultations, will also focus on the recommendations and will mirror the thematic approach being used in government discussions.
I am sure an important question in our meetings with NGOs and Aboriginal organizations will be how Canada will address the recommendations concerning effective implementation and ongoing engagement. We look forward to hearing their views on this issue, not only to inform Canada's immediate response to the council, but also to begin to elaborate a plan for continued engagement.
Of course, government departments already consult with civil society and Aboriginal organizations on an ongoing basis on the specific issues that are covered by international human rights treaties. The goal would not be to duplicate these existing discussions but to address any additional need for a horizontal forum.
Next, I draw to your attention the red boxes on the right-hand side of the page and the essential participation of the provinces and territories. The Government of Canada is consulting with provinces and territories through the Continuing Committee of Officials on Human Rights, a long-standing FPT consultative mechanism that is chaired by Canadian Heritage. The committee plays a key role. Each of its members has the responsibility to obtain and integrate the views of all the ministries in that jurisdiction that are affected by the recommendations. Through the committee — which holds a teleconference every month and meets face-to-face twice a year — the provinces and territories helped to shape Canada's report and are now helping to shape our response.
In addition to the meetings, there is ongoing email communication with the committee members.
[Translation]
The recommendations of the Council are broad-ranging. At all levels of government we are consulting with subject- matter experts and tapping into readily available resources. There are other existing FPT tables that are dealing with the substantive issues raised on an ongoing basis. Officials at these other tables are key contact points for our provincial and territorial colleagues on the Continuing Committee of Officials on Human Rights.
The information obtained through all these processes, within the federal government, through federal-provincial/ territorial consultations and through our consultations with civil society and aboriginal organizations, will feed back into the core group of departments — Canadian Heritage, Justice and Foreign Affairs — that continue to work in close collaboration on the UPR follow-up and that will prepare Canada's response. The draft response will need to be approved by Cabinet.
[English]
We have a lot of work to do in the next couple of months. Officials at all levels are working very diligently to ensure that the work is completed within this time frame. However, I would also like to stress that, although our immediate focus is the development of Canada's response, it is not the end of the process. In fact, it is the beginning of the four- year cycle until Canada's next UPR report. The role of the response is to set the stage for the next four years.
At this point, we would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have.
The Chair: I thank both of you. Before I turn to questions, I neglected to point out that two members could not make it here because of illness. Senator Dallaire has been away due to a medical condition, and I am pleased that Senator Munson has been able to step in and help us out. Senator Martin was taken to the hospital rather urgently today.
Senator Stratton: She is all right.
The Chair: She is all right, good. That occurred just before the committee meeting. I am pleased that Senator Stratton has come to replace her so that we have a full complement of senators here.
Thank you for the opening statements; they are very helpful. I want some facts put on the record. There were 68 recommendations made to which you will have to respond in June. Did you feel that they were fair appraisals of Canada's position or will there be some correction of the record, restating Canada's position?
Mr. Sims: There is a range of views expressed in a body such as the Human Rights Council. A great deal of what we heard was very fair. "Fair'' does not mean we necessarily agree with every word that was said, but a great deal of what one hears from like-minded states is something one takes very seriously. These states hold up a mirror; they are countries we respect. When they make these considered views known to us, we listen carefully. There is a great deal in the 68 recommendations to which Canada will be paying close attention.
The Chair: I do not know if you feel comfortable with this — and I am certainly not asking you to name countries — but do you feel some countries came with a political agenda rather than with an open mind?
Mr. Sims: In some instances, one can detect that some countries had a better understanding of Canada's situation than others. It is clear that civil society, for example, had tabled reports to the UN before we arrived as a delegation. Many of the countries are astute observers of Canada. Others, it is pretty clear, do not understand our federal system, for example, and so they assume certain things about us that are simply inaccurate. Some would not understand necessarily that we emphasize that we do not try to solve all of the problems with legislation. Sometimes we address most powerfully human rights issues through programs. If we do not have a legislative solution, they think we do not have a solution.
Sometimes I think some states simply do not understand our system as well as the others. Many of the states there are extremely well informed and see us clearly.
The Chair: There was one thing that troubled me even under the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Canada prepared its presentation under the old system, before it was a universal periodic review, but there would be assessments at other treaty bodies and the NGOs would input also, and it seemed that we were playing out the lobbying discussions, the differences, on the international stage and that often was misunderstood by other countries.
In the universal periodic review, you say that you put in your report but NGOs had already put their input in and after the report has been published the NGOs will also have their input.
Do you still believe that this process is the way we should go or should we be considering a different way of working with the nongovernmental civil society in Canada, rather than what seems to be more adversarial than supportive at points in this process?
Mr. Sims: It is early days to know how the UPR will play out. As we said in our remarks a few minutes ago, it is clear that some states are not yet embracing the approach that we tried to adopt and which is certainly desired by the proponents of UPR. On that side, it is hard to know whether the states that could perhaps best benefit from this kind of universal examination will benefit.
Those of us who are playing by the spirit and the process will benefit, I have absolutely no doubt. There are some elements that are adversarial, I suppose. I did not feel unfairly treated. There are questions that are hard to answer but I do not find that to be unfair. I think it is very healthy that we would have to look at ourselves in the mirror every so often and say, "What are we going to do about this?'' I did not think it was unfair, but some questions are more on the mark than others.
I do not think anyone yet knows whether this process will be a success. So far, I am very hopeful. There are some encouraging signs. Other states who have already filed their final reports, which are very encouraging. Some states that might have been far more defensive have embraced it, honestly and transparently addressing difficult questions for them. There are some encouraging signs.
The Chair: Ms. Fulford, you have given us a chart, which is the first time we received this, and I presume this is the way you intend to proceed in the next four years.
Where do parliamentarians fit in on that chart? I fully appreciate that we have invited you, and it was not your request to be here. I know it is one entry into a parliamentary process, but it is one initiated by us and not by the government structure.
Ms. Fulford: Just to put it in context, this chart was prepared to get us from here to the end of May, and then the tabling of the report is anticipated for June. It will mirror some of the things we want to do over the longer term, but it was designed to get everyone focused because there is a lot of work to do between now and the end of June.
As for the role of parliamentarians, our primary responsibility has been to work with the executive branch of all levels of government in the preparation of our response.
As you can see, the state's entire response will have to be reviewed by ministers, so that process will be ongoing and will be reviewed by ministers. We do not anticipate that there will be sufficient time between that and the tabling to get input by parliamentarians, although it will certainly be tabled.
The Chair: Are you saying that the Canadian response for June will be tabled in Parliament, or do you mean tabled at the United Nations?
Ms. Fulford: It will be tabled at the United Nations.
The Chair: I wanted that clarified on the record.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much for your presentations. I am sure you read our report before you came here today. Our number one recommendation was for you to meet with civil society and to meet with us and tell us what your plans were. I am not faulting you because I know Parliament probably was not sitting. To move on from there, I respectfully suggest that you look at our recommendation number one in your work.
You do not have to give me a list now, but I would like to know who you met with and which civil society groups you met with before. I have had so many complaints from people that did not meet with you. That is the past.
When you say you are going to engage civil society, who are you going to engage, and what will the process going be? You set it out, but I am not clear.
Senator Nancy Ruth: How do you choose them?
Senator Jaffer: Yes, exactly.
Lyn Elliot Sherwood, Executive Director, Heritage, Canadian Heritage: We have worked with a steering committee of non-governmental organizations to identify organizations to be invited to the meetings.
In the preparatory stage for the report, we met with approximately 150 organizations in the various sessions across the country, and we will be happy to provide you with a list of those organizations.
In the follow-up sessions, the ones that are planned during April, we will work again to identify, for the face-to-face meetings, primarily national organizations, given that it is, at this point, only two and a half months since we had the previous face-to-face meeting.
We recognize that that is a limited number of people in a room at a given moment, which is one of the reasons we are choosing to use the web-based consultation as a means of hearing from a broader group of people. We are also, of course, reading the 50 submissions that were tabled with the UN council from stakeholders.
In terms of Aboriginal representative organizations, we are consulting colleagues in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to ensure that we have included all the appropriate organizations, but our focus in this narrow time frame from now to June is primarily the national organizations for the face-to-face meetings.
Senator Jaffer: I would appreciate receiving your list. When you send it, please include how long you met with them and where.
One concern I had when I was reading all the submissions was the treaty process. Through all the submissions — I read them all — I had the impression that the treaty process does not seem to be transparent and accountable, as Amnesty says well. I would appreciate your commenting on what we all need to do to make the treaty process more transparent.
Ms. Elliot Sherwood: I am not sure that any of us on this side is clear on the import of your question. Do you mean with the individual treaty bodies?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Elliot Sherwood: How they could be more transparent?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Elliot Sherwood: Do you mean transparent from the perspective of the stakeholders or from the perspective of the Senate committee?
Senator Jaffer: I mean transparent from the perspective of the stakeholders. From the submissions, I understand that people do not know where the treaty process is or what is happening. They feel that because you have put some things on the web, maybe there was a way to see what is happening. From what I understand from my reading, it is not transparent as to where the process is.
Ms. Elliot Sherwood: As part of responding to the recommendations of UPR but looking more broadly at the process of civil society engagement, we are looking at how we use the tools available to us, such as the web, to provide an easy place for people to have access to the schedule of treaty hearings and all of the other processes that are underway. The point of simply where to go to find information is a reasonable one.
Each of the treaty bodies, of course, is responsible directly for posting information about its own processes, and all of the treaty body reports are available through the treaty body web sites.
Senator Jaffer: I apologize; I am probably not making myself clear.
What I understand from the submissions is that stakeholders are not clear as to what Canada's position is. It is best if I give you an example and you walk me through it,
Let us use the migration treaty as an example. What is Canada's position? Where is Canada on that, and why are we not ratifying? Is it anywhere to be found? Where can I see that?
Ms. Elliot Sherwood: For treaties that are still under review by Canada, generally, there is not a public posting of information because the review process is within either the federal or the provincial and territorial governments in an analysis that has yet to go forward for approval by ministers. By and large, unless Canada has formally tabled its reservations about a treaty instrument, which it does in the treaty process, that may not be broadly publicized.
Senator Jaffer: Do you mean "may not'' or "is not''?
Ms. Elliot Sherwood: I would say, generally, it is not unless it has been a formal statement of Canada's position within a treaty body.
Senator Jaffer: Therefore, they are saying the submissions that have been put forward are not transparent because you do not know what Canada's position is. Is that a correct statement?
Ms. Elliot Sherwood: Canada has not yet determined a final position. I think that is the case.
The Chair: In our Promises to Keep report, we talked about something similar to Australia, although that one is adapted to that country, where at any given moment you could find out where Canada was in the process. It is not just the content of the national government's response to them. It is to know, for example, when the next review of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is and when will the submission dates be so that you can track, as one of our like-minded countries does. Perhaps at some point you would say the contents' tabling will be in the future, but you have the process laid out so that citizens can find out. We urged at that time starting to use the new technology as a way of reaching more people and having them understand the obligations, responsibilities and rights that people have. I think that is what Senator Jaffer was getting at, as well as the content, of course.
Mr. Sims, you pointed out that the Universal Periodic Review now has this structure. Some of the other treaty bodies do not. It was hard for our committee to find out how, when, why, what, who could input when — none of it was clear. Part of that is that Canada has not definitively structured this so we can get access but also neither had the Human Rights Council, so that is an ongoing dilemma.
Mr. Sims: Yes, madam chair and Senator Jaffer, and there are recommendations in the interim report generally about how Canada deals with international instruments. I think part of the work that needs to go on now is to look at gaps, look at deficiencies, look at the suggestions of people who are observing how Canada manages its international instruments compared with other states that perhaps do it better. Then we can try to propose some solutions going forward that, as Ms. Fulford said a while ago, will not duplicate things we have in place. The problem is there are many pieces out there that are part of this situation, and we do not want to duplicate those while we try to plug something else. People will be looking at that, I think, as part of the response in June.
Senator Jaffer: I would like one clarification. This chart is very useful and certainly will help us, but one thing that came up in a number of submissions was gender analysis. I would hope gender analysis would be everywhere. Sometimes when it is not put down, it gets forgotten. How will you deal with the issue of gender analysis, which committee is looking at it and is it the central body?
Ms. Elliot Sherwood: Every policy area looks through a range of analytical lenses. Status of Women has a particular responsibility of looking horizontally at the issue of gender analysis. That is not as full and detailed an answer to your question as you would like, but it is one we would note as we review the input we are receiving.
Senator Jaffer: I do not understand your language when you say "horizontal.'' You need to clarify that for me, and can you please tell us how you will look at gender analysis? If I could ask, I would like gender analysis to be everywhere, but tell us how you will do it.
Ms. Fulford: In these blue boxes where we have clustered the themes, things like gender analysis will very much play out in many of these areas, in fact, in probably all of them. Therefore, there will be a particular gender analysis lens applied when we are actually looking at these things.
We can ensure that actually happens because, as you see, everything must be coordinated through the interdepartmental committee which we chair as well as the Continuing Committee of Officials for Human Rights, which takes in the input that we would get from the territories and the provinces. That kind of gender analysis you brought up would not be done at only the federal level. To do it justice, you would need to have it mirrored well through the work that the provinces and territories are likewise doing. There will be a number of these types of lenses such as you have brought up that we will have to ensure are used.
Finally, one of the things we will be seeking, and this relates maybe to your prior question, is a lot of input from everyone on how to best establish this over the course of the next four years. Those are the kind of mechanisms that we will be paying very close attention to as the UPR process actually finds its way and evolves over that period of time.
That is why we talk about it being horizontal. The great beauty in UPR is that it does offer this very global view of all of the treaties and, of all the work that is being done across the country and at different levels of jurisdiction inside and outside of the treaties. Up to the UPR process, I do not think we had that kind of really global view. The challenge of UPR for us is that it does require and points out that we have an awful lot of work to do to coordinate among ourselves. We cannot silo these things in a way that we may have done in the past, and that you have to look at the inter-relationship of many of these areas. I think that is what UPR will offer us, and certainly the mechanisms we have put in place will plug that hole.
Senator Jaffer: When you look at this, will you ask all those reporting to you for the gender analysis they have done so we have a way of seeing that, please?
I have a question on the continuing committee. In the submissions, I understood that they found that the continuing committee was a weak link, it was not as strong as it should be. I would appreciate hearing from you, Mr. Sims and Ms. Fulford, how you have strengthened this committee to be more effective.
Mr. Sims: This committee has been in place for some time. We think it works well on one level, in coordinating the responses of governments, which is one of its primary roles. It is not a body, to come back to the theme you raised a moment ago, in which outside stakeholders have an opportunity to make their views known.
To take us back to the previous answer, if we need a mechanism by which to appropriately engage civil society, it will not happen through the Continuing Committee of Officials on Human Rights as currently structured. It works well for the purpose for which it was designed. It may need to be re-examined in light of the various recommendations made on how to effectively implement our international obligations and to consult with civil society.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you all for being with us this evening. My question is specific to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I believe Canada has been subject to some criticism in terms of why Canada did not adopt the UN declaration in September of 2007.
In my previous role, I had the opportunity to be directly involved since 2002 in the negotiations that led to the actual declaration. I can say from experience that the spring of 2007 — a few months before the vote on the declaration — was the first time we, as Aboriginal leaders, heard the Government of Canada come out with its official position on the UN declaration. We were advised at that time that Canada would not support the UN declaration.
At no point prior to 2007, had we heard the position of the Government of Canada. We then had the opportunity to meet with former ministers Jim Prentice and Peter McKay, who were the ministers of INAC and Foreign Affairs at the time. They were quite forthright with the Government of Canada's position that because of many sections dealing with land, resources and conflict with the Constitution of Canada, the government would not be in a position to support the declaration.
I apologize for the long preamble. There is a lot of misinformation about why Canada has not adopted the declaration. For the benefit of this committee and for all Canadians, can you share with us the position of the Department of Justice on the UN declaration? Specifically, what advice the department provided to the Government of Canada leading to its decision with respect to the declaration in 2007?
Mr. Sims: I would prefer not to provide the legal advice offered by the Department of Justice to the government on this or other questions.
Today, at the end of March, we are mid-stream in this UPR process. We have the position of Canada on the UN Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, which you have summarized. We have gone through the UPR exercise in Geneva. Various states made proposals on that topic and invited Canada to reconsider its position. My colleague described the extensive process the department is going through in reviewing these recommendations and giving advice to the government on how they should respond to the recommendations and interventions of all these states in Geneva.
By the beginning of June, we will know whether the government is reconsidering its position in light of the new information. There have been other changes around the world too, as you must know. This may have some affect on the government's thinking. That is the best answer I can give this evening.
Senator Brazeau: Without going into the specifics of the advice that the Department of Justice has provided the Government of Canada, can you answer whether the advice given to the Government of Canada has been consistent throughout the years?
Mr. Sims: I should not answer that question senator. It goes to the nature of the advice we are providing. To be fair to the process, we should see the government's response to the recommendations of several states in Geneva. That will be part of the decision making ministers must take within the next few weeks.
Senator Brazeau: I felt I must ask the question because, from experience, I can tell this committee that, prior to spring of 2007, I never heard the Government of Canada's position on the UN declaration. Therefore, it is important that be said to clear any of the misinformation that exists.
My second question is with respect to the engaging of civil society and Aboriginal organizations. Can you elaborate on what exactly you mean by "engagement''? Engagement sometimes is only inviting groups to the table and sharing what the position or draft position will be, perhaps allowing individuals to intervene in some cases. Will there be an opportunity for these groups, not to co-draft, but to have a role to play in the Government of Canada's response? Who will be invited in terms of the Aboriginal stakeholders?
Ms. Fulford: We acknowledge that the time is very short between now and when we have to table this. As we mentioned, we will have specific engagement process in Ottawa with Aboriginal organizations. We will be asking specific questions. We are interested to know how the Aboriginal organizations are reacting to the recommendations. That will be very important to get a sense of the priorities and how those particular recommendations resonate.
Another item will be important for us. Given that this process is new and that June is only the beginning of the process, not the end, we will be very interested to learn what mechanisms Aboriginal organizations feel need to be put in place over the course of the four years the UPR runs.
As you know, many of the 68 recommendations dealt specifically with the mechanisms and implementation of the UPR process over that four-year period. We need to recognize the limitations of any significant changes between now and the end of June. However, we will want to set the stage for the work that needs to be done over the course of the next four years.
We will be listening attentively to the feedback we get. Input will be duly considered in crafting the response. UPR guidelines specifically state the obligations of the state to have full engagement by civil society. Obviously, that will include Aboriginal organizations in this case.
I can assure you we are taking that very seriously. We know it is at the core of the UPR process if it is to succeed. You should consider this to be the beginning of the engagement process, not, in any sense, the end of it.
Senator Goldstein: Thank you for giving us an enlightened and enlightening presentation.
As you have suggested, holding Canada up to a mirror so we can better see ourselves is a useful process. I am very impressed by the manner in which you have organized our internal review of the recommendations and the manner in which you propose to put forward Canada's position in June.
Having said that, I have great difficulty overcoming the source of these recommendations. The Human Rights Council is, by most objective accounts, an irreparably failed organization. It is run by a group of reactionary, non- human rights enforcers. Indeed, they are human rights abusers. You have leadership such as Cuba, a great home of the free press; Iran, a wonderful home of gender equality; Saudi Arabia, such a great home of democracy; or Pakistan, so well organized and able to ensure that the military does not run the state; et cetera.
One of the states that leads the council condemned nine individuals to eight years in prison because they are homosexual only three weeks ago. Therefore, I have a great deal of difficulty accepting anything that comes from this organization. I have even more difficulty trying to understand by what right they propose — as they did during the UPR session, for instance — to ask us what steps we are taking to implement recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur on racism when it is universally known that the Special Rapporteur on racism is himself a rabid racist.
I have great difficulty understanding why they have the right to raise whether Canada was reconsidering its decision to withdraw from the Durban 2 conference. Admittedly, there were some changes to the draft resolution last week. Those changes, as you know, were significantly more cosmetic than substantive.
I am absolutely unable to understand how and why we should be responding to observations made by this group of human rights abusers. Can you help me to understand?
Mr. Sims: That is an important question. As I look through the draft report they tabled with us, I do not read the Human Rights Council as a single entity so much as I read through the report of the interactive dialogue, responses and interventions by serious states whose opinions we value: Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Norway, Australia, the United Kingdom, Mexico, the Netherlands, India, Finland, Belgium, France, Argentina and so on.
Not every recommendation made in Geneva will be of the same weight. When we respond, I am sure we will find an appropriate way to say which recommendations we are giving greater weight to. However, the countries which I, without any effort, was able to name held that mirror up to us. It seems to me these interventions are important and will be given appropriate weight.
Senator Goldstein: Let me name others you did not mention who held up this mirror: Cuba, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
I appreciate that Canada is not a paragon of human rights. We are trying to get better; it is a dialectic, to use Hegelian terms. We have to be better. As I said earlier, it is good to have a mirror in which to look at ourselves. It is not good, however, when that mirror is held by human rights abusers and we say nothing about it.
Mr. Sims: Senator, there are aspects of the UPR process about which I can respond. The chair of this committee began the evening by referring back to your report, which mentioned concerns that this committee has had.
There are issues but there is so much value in the report that we have we intend to take it seriously and respond to it. Canada, I am convinced, will benefit. When we total up all the pluses and minuses on the "ledger,'' there are a lot of pluses. However, it is not a perfect institution.
Senator Goldstein: That is a legitimate observation, Mr. Sims. I do not dispute that and I think the work you are doing is exemplary. However, it remains very difficult for me to overcome what I see the source to be.
Ms. Fulford: I would like to add one thing. Looking at the big picture here, one of the things the UPR process allows Canada to do is to make comments on those particular countries. It is quid pro quo, right? These countries do get to hold the mirror up to us but our day is there, too, where we get to hold the mirror up to them.
I think the great hope of the Universal Periodic Review process is that sort of "collaboration'' — and it will take some time, admittedly. That is the value of having that peer review, which is at the heart of the UPR process: We will be at the table, as well, to point out where these countries have definite short comings.
Senator Goldstein: However, those countries do not appear to pay much attention to us. Just as recently as last week, Canada found itself in a principled but uniquely-isolated minority of one with respect to three resolutions. Two were passed unanimously except for Canada. The third was passed with Canada and two other principled countries voting against it.
It is hard to see that, on the one hand, countries of the nature that I have described are free to criticize our record — it is fine that they do so and it is excellent you are reacting to it — while not responding at all to any principles that Canada seeks to enforce.
I am sorry; that was more political than you would want it to be and it is not really a question. I do not want to put you in a difficult position because I admire the job you are doing. You are doing excellent things for Canada.
The Chair: Senator Goldstein, in the old days, in the Human Rights Commission, we were always mindful that the governments at the United Nations represent the people but that the United Nations process — the Declaration — goes beyond that. Those countries have people who aspire to the same dignity and rights that we do. We can sometimes speak to them when we address human rights when we may not have the same point of view as their governments. I hope we pass your message on, that some of those who are criticizing should, in fact, look at themselves. We should also not forget there is a whole nation and that all nations are in flux. The question is how do we build upon the positives in those nations? You did an excellent job pointing that out in your other committee regarding the all-party genocide. I thought I would put it back on the table.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Thank you for being here. It is really great for us. I am glad you came.
I want to start by following up on Senator Jaffer's question about the treatment of civil society groups. When you held the consultation in June last year, what were the outcomes? How did you use it, if at all? Did you simply receive it as information or did you take any ideas and develop them into your report? What happens to all these groups that come in and share what they think the world should be like?
Ms. Elliot Sherwood: For a point of clarification, the meetings with the civil society and Aboriginal organizations were actually in January. As Ms. Fulford said, we were in a position this year of being unable to hold these sessions when we had originally planned, which would have been prior to the submissions.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I do not really care about timing. I care about content.
Ms. Elliot Sherwood: I think it matters, however. Our intention had been to have these sessions prior to the submission of Canada's report, at which point they clearly would have informed the development of Canada's report to the Human Rights Council. We had to have that report in by December.
In January, we were left with the opportunity to hear the issues that were of most concern to people. It gave us an opportunity prior to the appearance of the recommendations at the beginning of February to understand issues and recognize them in places such as Canada's opening remarks, where we needed to provide a more nuanced statement about some of the things that had been in the report.
We have all of the notes of that which are being taken into account as we develop the response to the report. However, that information has is all been fed back to all of the vertical tables that are represented in the blue boxes.
One of the challenges as we integrate the processes is acknowledging the great number of tables that already exist with civil society and with Aboriginal organizations around individual issues or groups of related issues versus the process that we need to be engaged in horizontally. One of the issues we want to examine in the meetings in April is what ongoing processes we should be setting up in relation to UPR as a cross-cutting subject and how they would complement the tables that already exist in individual federal or provincial and territorial departments.
Senator Nancy Ruth: That would be great.
To make myself clear, there were no consultations with civil society groups before you reported, not even an email. Did you not have a website or something going?
Ms. Elliot Sherwood: Prior to the report we were drawing on the vertical consultations with stakeholders that departments were doing. We were not able to do more during the election period.
Senator Nancy Ruth: It was with great interest that I read sections 80 to 85 of your report, which have to do with women and women's rights. It was with even greater interest, since I sit on the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, that I saw you used the Finance Committee and Finance Canada as an example of where gender-based analysis (GBA) is done. Since I know how hard I struggle every budget year to find out was done out and what conclusions the reach, which they do not want to share, I found it amusing.
If GBA is so important, is the coordinator of the Status of Women part of this interdepartmental committee on your chart, even though she is part of Heritage Canada in this sheet?
Ms. Elliot Sherwood: I would have to get out the background list for all of the committees that Status of Women is part of. They are not leading one but they are part of a number and they are working with us as part of the interdepartmental committee as well as with the individual organizations. I want to verify with colleagues if I may.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Are you able to say whether the coordinator or her staff is able to look at other departments' GBA and say whether they are successful or whether there is improvement, or must we all wait for the Auditor General's report?
Ms. Elliot Sherwood: In this context the materials are available to the interdepartmental committee. I would not be in a position to comment on the broader issue of gender-based analysis in departments as they go through their daily business.
Senator Nancy Ruth: In your list of what Canada has done against violence against women, you have itemized a great many things that the government has done in the Justice Department in changes of laws and in other places. You talk about the Sisters in Spirit campaign and a whole variety of programs that you use as good examples of what this government has done on violence against women. There is nothing done about the perpetrators of violence — that is, the men. Is this an issue? If you do a gender-based analysis, there might be some department monies, policies and everything else directed to this factor. Is there some reason it does not? You cannot deal with violence against women unless you deal with the other side of the coin.
Mr. Sims: Let me try to answer your question. Clearly the level of violence against women in Canada is unacceptable. It is particularly unacceptable with respect to Aboriginal women. You point to a number of activities that are mentioned in various reports that we have underway. There is an enormous amount of work underway now in the federal, provincial and territorial tables that I attend. For example, federal, provincial and territorial ministers of justice meet on this subject regularly. In fact, when we were in Geneva, as I mentioned in my remarks, we had a Canadian delegation, not a federal delegation. The individual who responded to one of the points made by one of many states who commented about Canada's less-than-ideal record with respect to violence against women, was the Deputy Minister of Justice of Saskatchewan, because Saskatchewan is heavily engaged in this. There are studies in Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. I am sure you know better than I.
These are dreadful problems. There is an enormous amount of work going on and people are examining laws that would deal with the perpetrators. They are dealing with police practices, because it is not just the laws, of course. Various practices must be improved and coordinated and best practices shared so that we can make a more effective response.
A great deal is going on. We do not seem to have good enough answers yet and everyone is acutely aware of that and is resolved to trying to do it better and sooner, but emphatically men are part of the examination.
The Chair: I understand Senator Pépin has a supplementary on that point and Senator Stratton also wishes to ask a question. You have generated activity.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I know some of what goes on in Ontario and I did read about Saskatchewan in your report. I want to see it in the schools, on Hockey Night in Canada. I want to see the Prime Minister talking with "Big Mouth'' who says these things. I want those eight indicators and signs of what violence looks like.
Senator Stratton: Are you talking about Don Cherry?
Senator Nancy Ruth: Yes. I want to see something public. I do not just want ministerial meetings. I want it going down to the grassroots.
I live in the centre of Toronto, where we have high income, low income and everything in between. Of course, we have lots of shelters. I know what goes on in my little constituency. I have all these questions, but let us get to the supplementaries.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has recommended that Canada pass specific legislation on violence against women. Do we have the legislative tools required to fight violence against aboriginal women? Should we pass legislation to fight domestic violence against women?
You said that there are all kinds of tools to fight violence, including a committee on violence against women and against aboriginal women. Looking at the issue, you stated that everybody does many things but there have been many such recommendations in the past.
Mr. Sims: Senator, that is part of the 11 boxes at the top of the document.
Senator Pépin: Yes, I see.
Mr. Sims: Recommendations have been made by other countries and states which have legislated on violence against women. It remains to be seen if passing such legislation would be desirable or if we already have enough tools in the Criminal code to deal with such assaults and other crimes against women.
Furthermore, on the recommendation of several states, a study has been launched to see if Canada should have such a piece of legislation.
Senator Pépin: Is this study part of your meetings, such as the one in May? Since it is not finished, you will not be able to come up with a recommendation on such a piece of legislation. Do you know when it would be available?
Mr. Sims: I do not know when it will be finished. We would have to include a response in our June report in which we will indicate what the procedure will be to develop a recommendation. Much work has been done on this at the federal-provincial/territorial tables. We will then have to take stock of the situation
Senator Pépin: We will await your June report with significant interest.
[English]
Senator Stratton: I do not have a background in human rights. My background is in management and finance.
In this situation, when you hear "engage'' and "consult,'' and you "try to be better,'' do we have measurable devices to show that we are, indeed, slowly getting better? How long have we been at this? Is there less violence against women? Is the life of Aboriginal people getting better? Are the lives of the poor getting better? Do we have those measurable objectives to show people that, indeed, it is happening?
It is fine to talk about it and to say that we are doing this, that and the other thing, but if you do not have anything to measure that tells us we are getting better in these areas, people look at you cynically and say, "So?''
How do we tell people we are getting better as a society? I do not mean as a society just with respect to Canada, but I am curious about the rest of the world as well. I know it is a big question as far as the rest of the world is concerned, but give it a shot.
Mr. Sims: That is a very good question. With the permission of the committee, I would like to come back with the kinds of measures that are in use now. There is a variety of measures for different kinds of crime or for the status and the evolution of the state of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. Various measures are used, and, rather than trying to do it from memory tonight, I would prefer to come back and give you the best answer I can give you.
There are various measures, they are not always satisfactory, but they certainly give a good indication of where we are. By some measures, things are definitely improving, and in other areas, because they go up and down a little, they are not, but I should come back.
Senator Stratton: I will have to accept that. I was hoping for a "Yes, we are overall.''
Senator Nancy Ruth: I would be happy to answer that question. Yes, we are doing well. About 54 per cent of women have post-secondary education in Canada; we have freedom of choice.
Senator Stratton: Perhaps Senator Brazeau should answer the biggest part of the question, then.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I will turn to conventions and Security Council Resolutions. I know things were said about Canada finking out and not doing what it should do on all of the conventions. Senator Brazeau raised some of that.
My particular concern is as follows: I went onto the Status of Women website a year ago, and I saw all reference to the CEDAW convention and the Beijing Plus 10, or the Beijing resolutions, had been removed from the site. I asked the minister of the day about that, and she looked me boldly in the eye and said, "We are looking to the future, not to the past.'' I shut my mouth then. I have to tell you, being the age I am, I would surely like it if some of you good civil servants and good women could get this stuff back on so that Canadians know what their rights are and the context in which public policy is made. I was appalled that this has happened and that it is archived. I find it strange.
The other thing that amused me a great deal is Security Council Resolutions 1325 and 1820. They are with respect to women, peace and security. I had fun on the defence committee last year asking some of these generals, admirals and other folk what they were doing about it and whether they even knew about it. The answer on the whole is they did not. One admiral had the audacity to tell me that he did not need to know about that for rules of engagement because he was in the navy and was not going to Afghanistan. He was on the short list to be chief of staff, so I thought he should know about it. I gather a few more generals know about it.
What is the Department of Justice doing to help various departments and the people who work for them understand that we have signed some of these things, and we need to set about implementing them, especially when we are at war? Our soldiers need to know what the rules of engagement are, especially around things like that. What is happening? How do you do it? How can you do it better?
The Chair: The question is on the table.
Senator Nancy Ruth: When everything is done, where does the PCO come in as far as implementing some of the stuff around the criticisms of Canada? How do we get ourselves better? How does PCO help us to do that?
Mr. Sims: The advice to the Canadian Forces on the rules of engagement, of course, does not come from the Department of Justice; it comes from the Judge Advocate General. We would give advice to Judge Advocate General; they are responsible for ensuring that the Canadian Forces know what the rules are in theatre.
I cannot give you a specific answer on resolutions 1325 and 1820. I can inform myself and, with my colleague, the Judge Advocate General, provide an answer to the committee about it, but that would be the way the responsibilities are divided up.
Regarding PCO, as the coordinating body and secretariat to cabinet, will be involved in the process that my colleague Ms. Fulford has described as we seek the approval of ministers to the recommendations that we as officials will make. They will, of course, be informed and will give their own advice to cabinet on the way by as we as a committee come forward with the recommendations. They will be emphatically engaged, and that is the stage at which I expect them to be engaged. They might be involved earlier, but that is the point at which I expect them to be engaged.
Senator Nancy Ruth: They are reactive not proactive.
Mr. Sims: When we went to Geneva, we told them what we were proposing to do. They knew of the remarks that we intended to make, so they were engaged at that stage. They are not passively waiting for something to happen. They know about our process and the fact that we will be coming to ministers at a certain stage, and I would expect that they will start asking us, "When do you have your first notes for us, so that we can start getting ready?'' They are actively engaged, but that would be the stage at which they would be most actively engaged, I would think
Senator Poy: I would like you to explain the process of how these 68 recommendations came about.
I have noted what Senator Goldstein said. We accept the mirror held up by some member states, and some we do not. Can you walk us through the process, please? How did we end up with 68 recommendations?
Mr. Sims: The rules of the UPR are spelled out on the United Nations website. One of the rules is that on the day before a country appears for the review, the wicket opens and countries have sent officials to line up in the way you might line up to buy theatre tickets. They line up on a first-come, first-served basis, and they will get a right to speak. That is why, as we said, there were something like 69 countries that wanted to speak, but they ran out of time. All these people simply lined up. They self-selected the ones who wanted to speak about Canada.
They may have been influenced either because, as Ms. Fulford said, we sometimes hold mirrors up to other countries, and they are coming back because it is now our turn and they want to be sure that we hear the other side of the story.
Sometimes it is because like-minded states are very interested in what Canada is doing. By the way, a typical intervention by like-minded states was highly complimentary at the beginning saying, "We note all the things that Canada has done,'' and they would cite many things we were proud of, and then say, "But.'' So they wanted to be there to be part of a conversation with us.
As to the actual content of the submissions, they are very knowledgeable about us. Great Britain knows us; France knows us; Denmark knows us; they observe us closely. They are very well informed by NGOs who have given them extra information, but they have missions in Canada. They participate with us on all these international institutions, and they have staff back home doing their homework and providing the actual content of what they want to raise. The actual selection of people is by lot; the content, of course, is what they want to say.
Senator Poy: There were 69 speakers and we have 68 recommendations?
Mr. Sims: No, there were 69 countries that wanted to speak, but there was only time for 45.
Senator Poy: So out of the 45 speakers, we ended up with 68 recommendations.
Mr. Sims: Sometimes they make more than one recommendation. It is a simple as that.
Senator Poy: I see. Are these recommendations voted on by the member states?
Mr. Sims: No.
Senator Poy: So any member state representative can make a recommendation?
Mr. Sims: Yes.
Senator Poy: When you respond, would you agree that some are fair criticisms and others you would be defensive about Canada's position? Am I right?
Mr. Sims: I guess we will have to decide precisely how to do it. For one thing, there is a very tight space limit. We are only allowed five pages in our response. Before coming this afternoon, I looked and saw it took something like seven pages simply to list the 68 recommendations so there will clearly have to be a grouping. I guess the clear answer is we will spend more attention on some than others.
Senator Poy: Yes. Where does Canada stand internationally with similar countries like Britain, et cetera? Is that how you judge yourself at the UPR? I just want to know where we stand internationally.
Mr. Sims: I am not an expert on Canada's international reputation, but my impression and what I heard personally and everything I read getting ready and going through the process is that Canada has a very high reputation on human rights. It is recognized that we have been a leader on many of the most important values reflected in the kinds of issues examined under the UPR. We have some shortcomings, but I think we compare very favourably with the best countries in the world on human rights.
Senator Poy: When the response is done in June, you said it will be tabled at the United Nations. Where does it go in Canada, or does it go anywhere? What happens with the report?
Ms. Elliot Sherwood: We will certainly make it available on the Department of Canadian Heritage website. We have said already we will make it available to this committee or any other parliamentary committee that would like it. The process in the council is that in June our report is tabled.
That is actually an opportunity for NGOs and other stakeholders to have the floor. They did not have the floor directly in February, but they may have the floor in June, and the council essentially adopts the report and our response, and my understanding is it does not go further until we are back in four years in the council in terms of the UN process.
Senator Poy: So nothing happens within Canada unless someone wants to do something about it?
Ms. Elliot Sherwood: Not with the response itself. I think the point that we have made is that this is not the end of the process but the beginning of our next four-year process.
Senator Poy: I understand that.
Ms. Elliot Sherwood: As a document, it does not go anywhere further, either at the UN or in Canada, other than as a guidepost.
Senator Poy: However, if it is the beginning of a process, who will take that process forward? I am actually referring to what Senator Brazeau said. What happens from there? Once you have a report, who will take it up and move forward?
Ms. Elliot Sherwood: I think each of these areas it represents a distinct area of activity. Within the federal government, the continuing process that exists around, to use the earlier example, of women and violence, the Department of Justice would have a leading role. That would continue to move forward. At the federal-provincial- territorial table, the continuing progress in respect of each of the treaty bodies and an ongoing role in assessing where we are, where we have made progress, would be part of the role of the Continuing Committee of Officials on Human Rights. The processes that are set in place in terms of the ongoing engagement of civil society and of Aboriginal organizations under the UPR heading would continue to be the responsibility of the Department of Canadian Heritage.
The Chair: We are over time, but I still have Senator Pépin, and Senator Jaffer promises a very short question, which hopefully will be a short answer.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: In February 2009, some countries criticized Canada for not having ratified the protocol of the convention against torture and cruelty. I know that the federal, provincial and territorial governments were looking at the issue in view of future ratification. Has there been any progress on those two matters since February 2009? Do you know if something will be done soon or is it still under study?
Ms. Fulford: It is still under study. We are in the middle of the process. We have to wait for an answer.
Senator Pépin: I want to come back to the issue of violence against women. A piece of legislation was passed at the beginning of the Eighties. It was passed quickly. Previously, one could not be violent against one's neighbour but police officers would not intervene in cases of domestic violence. I believe that the piece of legislation passed twenty four years ago needs to be dusted off.
In 1996, various groups had recommended setting up an independent body to receive complaints from women detained in federal institutions. The Human Rights Committee made the same recommendation in 2003, and it was repeated in 2005 by the Human Rights Commission. Could you tell us why this recommendation keeps being made and why it never seems to be acted upon? Is the existing surveillance mechanism ineffective?
Mr. Sims: I do not know why those are recommendations were not acted upon.
Senator Pépin: They came from very important bodies.
Mr. Sims: I have no answer for you at this time but I make the commitment to provide you with one.
Senator Pépin: That could easily be part of your program.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: In regard to what Senator Goldstein was saying, I know that Canada is very constructive in our role looking at other countries. Thank you for that.
I have two questions. We made a number of recommendations. Can you clarify if will you reflect upon it or put it the UPR report?
The second point is, I want some clarification. For example, recommendation number 18 of the report is about migrants. Mr. Sims was saying that the answers will be clustered. The request is about why we do not accept the rapporteur on the human rights of migrants to come. Will you respond to that specifically or will it only be a general answer?
Mr. Sims: I do not know exactly how we will do it. We have a limitation of five pages. I am sure we can add some things through annexes. If the list of questions is seven pages long, I cannot imagine that all our answers are limited to five pages. There will be some way to do it. We are under an obligation to respond openly and transparently to the best of our ability to the recommendations made here. That is what we will endeavour to do.
The recommendations fall into 11 baskets. Therefore, I think we will try to find a way to make it simple for readers. The list is hard to read. Part of making an effective presentation is to group it in a way that citizens and the international community will understand where Canada stands. We will be responding, but I do not know precisely how we will do it today.
Ms. Elliot Sherwood: We appeared on February 3 and the report followed. We have to table our response by June 2. It is quite clear that, in some cases, the only thing we will be able to say is we will consider this further. We will not be able to say, yes, we will, or no, we will not, and have an exhaustive and detailed set of new approaches or policies in some of the areas. Part of the process we are going through now is to determine which recommendations we can say we are ready to move on, which where we can detail the processes we are going through to move forward, and those in which we reject the premises. We will also have to sort the answers.
Ms. Fulford: I would like to address the other point you raised as well. We are in a process of receiving a lot of input now. Speaking on behalf of my colleagues, we have found this evening very instructive as an indication of where you would put emphasis and some of the questions you are raising. We will be getting back to you on some of those questions. It is also a lens for us to watch how the responses will be crafted as they come through.
We discussed the issue of input by parliamentarians. As we are receiving input over the next two or three weeks, we would be happy to consider anything that you did not have time to raise in our discussions today. It will have to be a fairly timely process, because we will be crafting those responses within the next few weeks. There is the added lens wherein the provinces and territories will also provide input.
The Chair: We have run out of time.
You can understand the interest we have in this topic. This committee is constantly examining how we can further human rights for individuals. We also understand that it is the processes, structures and countries that we have to address.
I hope that you will take this activity this evening as the Senate periodic review. I assure you, we will not go away. We will continue our scrutiny. It may be difficult for the committee to be able to respond to you in that time frame for all the reasons that you have said — the short time and to do it proper justice.
However, you will get our report in response to the whole process and suggestions on how Canada should look at it. At a different phase, perhaps, we can look at the content of some of the issues you heard around the table. I would not want you to think those are the only issues we are concerned about from your review. They are some of the highlighted issues.
You have touched on many of them. Your willingness to continue to work with us is reassuring. We hope that we, in Canada, all of us can build upon a better Universal Periodic Review that can withstand the test of time for all citizens, wherever they are. I hope this evening was not as gruelling as the Universal Periodic Review and was of some benefit to you. Thank you for your words and for the time you have taken with us.
We now have some groups that had an interest in the Universal Periodic Review and I believe all either submitted statements or had some role in the review itself. We are pleased to have you here this evening and we apologize that we are running late. We will hear your statements and perhaps be crisper in our questioning.
I will introduce them according to the order on the witness list; all groups are equal here. First, we have Mr. Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada. Also with us is Mr. Rémy Beauregard, President of the Rights and Democracy, and with him is Ms. France-Isabelle Langlois. From the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation, we have Leilani Farha, Executive Director.
Welcome to all three groups and have you decided who will speak first?
[Translation]
Rémy M. Beauregard, President, Rights and Democracy: Madam Chair, I want to thank the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights for its invitation to take part in this debate relating to the United Nations Human Rights Council and, specifically, the Universal Periodic Review.
The Senate of Canada, through your committee, has played an essential leadership role in this fundamental field of foreign affairs and international human rights. We thank you for your important contribution.
Even though the Universal Periodic Review — the new process used to assess the human rights situation in each UN member country — is very young, we can make some observations about its challenges and the opportunities it offers.
Rights and Democracy has been working for a number of years on developing human rights standards at the international level and on strengthening human rights mechanisms to ensure compliance with those standards.
We carry out this work in the context of our legislative mandate which is "to help reduce the wide gap that sometimes exists between the formal appearance of states to international human rights agreements and the actual human rights practices of those states''.
In 2007, according to this mandate, we launched a project aimed at ensuring the effective participation of stakeholders, specifically civil society organizations and national human rights institutions, to the UPR process.
This project has produced interesting results and we are pleased today to be able to tell you about some of our experiences, some of the lessons learned, some best practices and our recommendations for improving the effectiveness of the UPR process in the future.
The work done by Rights and Democracy in the context of the Universal Periodic Review was primarily related to the preparation steps and the review itself. However, we are now working on the development of concrete steps to ensure that the recommendations and the plans of action of governments are really implemented in the field.
We believe that the UPR process is not an end in itself but rather an important tool for ensuring that human rights obligations be implemented at the national level.
For the preparation stage, Rights and Democracy has developed a specialized training program on the UPR which has been offered to the civil society organizations in those priority countries and in Canada, as well as to national governments and to institutions such as Human Rights Commissions.
As far as the review itself is concerned, Rights and Democracy provides support to its partners in the priority countries in order to allow them to be involved in the activities surrounding the interactive dialogue happening in the Geneva between the country being reviewed and the member states of the United Nations.
Relating to the follow-up process, Rights and Democracy is working on the development of mechanisms aimed at facilitating a continuing dialogue between civil society and governments at the national level for implementation of the recommendations coming from the process.
[English]
While we are focusing on the UPR process in this presentation, Rights and Democracy also works with and makes use of other international human rights mechanisms. Rights and Democracy believes the special procedures mandates are the crown jewel of the UN rights system, to paraphrase former Secretary General Kofi Annan. We continue to support the work of Special Rapporteurs on the right to food, on the rights of indigenous people, on Burma, on Sudan, on violence against women and on freedom of religion or belief. We also work closely with the Independent Expert on Haiti of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the Independent Expert on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty.
Rights and Democracy also contributes expertise on other issues of debate within the Human Rights Council, both during regular and special sessions. Most recently, Rights and Democracy participated in debates on violence against women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Burma and on the right to food.
The Human Rights Council and the UPR mechanism are still very young and are constantly evolving. While it is still early, some lessons can be drawn from the use of the mechanism so far; lessons that would be beneficial for the future of the Canadian engagement and support.
The following challenges were identified. First, the lack of awareness of the existence and functioning of this new mechanism by key stakeholders at the national level is a cause for concern, as well as the weakness or nonexistence of a consultation mechanism between the state and civil society on human rights.
Unfortunately, the level of participation of civil society at the national level depends on the degree to which freedom of association and expression is respected and on the existence and representivity of the national civil society network.
The absence of key stakeholders, such as parliamentarians, bar associations, the judiciary and local human rights NGOs in the preparation, review and follow-up process diminishes the quality of the process and the viability of genuine follow-up. The development of the capacity of national human rights institutions where these exist to play a bridge-building role in this process needs to be supported.
Also, the willingness of states under review to recognize human rights challenges and the need for improvement in key areas during the interactive dialogue and in accepting recommendations is important. This is particularly true for economic, social and cultural rights, which have figured prominently in stakeholder submissions but much less in final outcome reports.
The lack of precision of the recommendations and specific measures to be taken by a state to overcome the challenges identified continues to be a problem. Finally, the protection of stakeholders who contribute to the review process is a cause of concern. Human rights defenders are sometimes threatened and even attacked for their activities aimed at contributing to the review.
The follow-up is, arguably, one of the most important parts of the UPR cycle. The mechanism will only be deemed useful to the extent that it has an impact in improving the human rights practices of states and contributes to reducing the gap between international norms and the lives of individuals and communities. Some of the challenges identified include the absence of a mandatory systematic follow-up mechanism, the absence of a mandatory interim follow-up mechanism before the subsequent review, the degree of precision of recommendations and measurability of progress, and the degree to which states accept or reject recommendations.
Canada has played an important role as a member of the Human Rights Council, particularly through the permanent mission in Geneva, in supporting the participation of civil society in the process and in encouraging states to fulfil their human rights obligation. As Canada prepares to leave its seat on the council at the end of its current term, there are important contributions that we can continue to make in support of international human rights through this important mechanism.
These recommendations fall under two categories. First, to strengthen the capacity of states and stakeholders, we need to strengthen the capacity of willing states through technical assistance to prepare their report. We can contribute to the capacity of states, including through the creation and strengthening of national human rights institutions to follow up on recommendations and implement policies and programs that give effect to international human rights at the national level. We need to continue to support the participation of civil society and other important stakeholders in the process from preparation of stakeholders' submissions through to follow-up. It is essential that we encourage the UPR process to continue to address the broader issues of accountability and responsiveness to the human rights treaty observations. Finally, we need to promote awareness of the UPR within developing countries, especially through our partners, through CIDA, human rights and governance programming and through continued support to Canadian NGOs operating in the field.
Second, to strengthen the Human Rights Council and the UPR mechanism, we need to contribute to the evaluation of the Human Rights Council and the UPR in coming years. It will be important to promote the inclusion of mandatory UPR progress reports and accountability mechanisms within the council to measure progress according to specific timetables of states under review, as well as to promote the development of a protection mechanism for stakeholders participating in the UPR process. Canada should contribute to the two UN trust funds that have been created to support developing countries in their participation with the UPR, and also promote the creation of an additional trust fund to support the participation of civil society and other stakeholders in the UPR process, and to contribute financially to the fund.
Alex Neve, Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada: It is a pleasure to be here this evening. Amnesty International has always welcomed the much-needed attention that this committee gives to the issue of Canada's engagement with the international human rights system, a fundamentally important issue that in our view does not get enough focus and attention elsewhere in government. We very much thank you for that and it is great to see it continuing.
Without doubt, perhaps the most significant and innovative outcome of the United Nations human rights reform process that was launched in 2005 was the establishment of the universal periodic review under the new Human Rights Council. As senators are undoubtedly aware, Canada was a champion of the effort to establish this new review process.
Hopes were high at the time, undoubtedly naively so. Many hoped — I suppose it would be better to say "dreamed'' — that this might mark an end to the bickering and horse-trading that had paralyzed so many efforts within the previous United Nations Commission on Human Rights to ensure that all countries, any country with real human rights challenges, would have its record examined by the international community. There was hope that the prospect of a universal periodic review would mean that every country, no matter how powerful or how neglected, would come under the microscope of international scrutiny — an exciting prospect.
It is fitting and important that this committee is giving some focused attention to the specific question of Canada's UPR experience. As I said, the UPR process is an important, albeit very imperfect advance in the UN human rights system. It deserves and it needs to succeed. If it does succeed, it stands to make significance contributions to improving human rights protection in countries around the world. Towards that success, Canada can and must aspire to be the best possible example to the international community — both in how we approach the review of other countries and in the approach we take to our own review.
In my remarks, I want to touch briefly on three UPR-related topics. First, I have some general comments with respect to how the process is faring overall. Second is a very broad overview of the nature of the recommendations that have been put in front of Canada. Third are some concerns and recommendations with respect to the steps Canada needs and should take to ensure strong implementation of the recommendations emerging from this review.
How is the process faring? Amnesty International, through our office in Geneva, has followed closely and participated actively in all four rounds of the UPR to date and has made submissions in almost every case. Perhaps the most important thing to say here — and this is what my colleagues at our office in Geneva say to me all the time — we must be careful not to rush to judgment. We are still only one third of our way through what is a groundbreaking process dealing with one of the most politicized and polarizing of all UN issues, human rights. Sixty-four countries have had their records reviewed. That does give us a body of work now to start to look at closely. Some of those countries, such as China, have never been reviewed before in this sort of setting, despite many efforts over several decades to do so, always thwarted by the Chinese government. The Chinese review was obviously imperfect but the fact that it happened at all is, in itself, a notable achievement.
However, there are still 128 reviews to come. We still have a lot of learning ahead. The results to date, as I said, have been far from perfect. There have been some examples of quite good reviews. Two that come to mind are those dealing with the United Kingdom and Colombia, the latter certainly a country with serious human rights challenges. There have been a number of woeful disappointments as well — Tunisia, Algeria and Cuba come to mind, politicized reviews with a sycophantic chorus of states projecting to the world that everything is absolutely fine in those countries.
Most come somewhere in the middle. There have been some positive impacts already. Many countries that have never had any meaningful process of dialogue with NGOs in their country about human rights have begun to do so.
They have far to go before those will be strong processes, but it has begun. Several countries have already taken or committed to a concrete set of human rights improvements because of the review. Nigeria, for instance, signed three treaties and ratified one just before its review was conducted. However, we cannot yet point to a cascade of positive human rights changes that can be attributed to the UPR; it is still too early.
At this stage, Amnesty International is pressing for a number of procedural improvements to the process. The strengthening of the UPR will come incrementally. We are urging government delegations to consider including independent experts on their delegations to take some of the politics out of the process.
We are pressing for governments to more consistently draw their legislative bodies into the UPR process, both before and after reviews. At a minimum, it is vital that the results of UPR reviews be formally tabled with national parliaments.
Consultations with civil society must continue to improve and expand, and tactics that encourage only friendly interventions must be curtailed. New rules are needed, for instance, to ensure that all countries wishing to make recommendations will be heard from, not just the friendly few who managed to get themselves listed first on the speaker's list.
We are also urging that governments ensure that they are forced to clearly indicate which recommendations they accept in the final report. This has been left far too vague, to date, in many instances and needs to be clear.
Moving to my second point, I would like to highlight the nature of the recommendations that emerged in the Canadian UPR. The official report, as you know, adopted by the working group lists 68 recommendations, many of which were made repeatedly by several governments, so there is a great deal of duplication. Notably, as has been highlighted earlier, additional recommendations by 24 countries that did not have the opportunity to make oral presentations at the review because of lack of time are not included in the official reports, and that is a shame because there are good recommendations amongst that group.
The recommendations cover a broad array of topics, all of which will be familiar to committee members. These include: consultations and dialogue with indigenous people and civil society; implementation of international obligations; Canada's position with respect to the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples; the ratification of a whole number of international treaties; numerous concerns with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples, including alarming rates of discrimination and violence against indigenous women, and need for significant improvements in protecting land and resource rights; a range of concerns related to poverty, including calls to develop poverty reduction strategies and to deal with homelessness and inadequate housing; women's rights concerns including domestic violence, trafficking and the treatment of women prisoners; issues related to immigrants and refugees, such as concerns about the domestic live-in caregiver program; unequal labour rights for some migrant workers; a variety of justice issues including detention facilities for juveniles; the use of taser guns; Canada's clemency policy in death penalty cases; anti-terrorism issues, such as fair trial concerns and immigration security cases and failure to fully live up to the absolute ban on deporting individuals to torture; and a variety of other topics, including persons living with disabilities, the treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered individuals; and, issues related to hate crimes.
That broad overview touches on a range of human rights concerns which would be familiar to most Canadians. Many are issues that this committee has examined in depth over the years. Most have been raised with Canada over the past 15 to 20 years already in the course of various reviews conducted by other expert bodies within the UN, such as the committees that monitor compliance with the treaties or the special rapporteurs, working groups and others who have come to be known as the UN special procedures.
The main point I want to highlight is that this is a collection of important and reasonable recommendations, the bulk of which are by no means new to Canada.
That brings me to my last point, namely, implementation. If many of these recommendations have been put before Canada before, some repeatedly, what has stood in the way of implementation and how do we ensure a better approach to implementation this time?
Canada, for all of the tremendous leadership we demonstrate and exercise on the world stage when it comes to human rights, does, sadly, have a dismal track record of acting on the human rights advice we receive from the UN. Recommendations come back to Canada and typically disappear into the labyrinth of federalism. The overwhelming bulk is not implemented. More frustrating, it has typically proven next to impossible to determine the status of recommendations, which level or department within government is looking at it, if at all, and whether the government does or does not have any plans to move forward with it.
The government generally points to the continuing committee of federal-provincial-territorial officials on human rights in existence for some 30 years, I believe, as the vehicle which coordinates and ensures implementation.
As members of this committee know, the continuing committee is comprised of mid-level officials who generally have no decision-making authority with respect to what may often be complex and politically charged issues, and the continuing committee carries out all of its work in absolute, total secrecy, declining even to release its agenda to the public.
As a group that facilitates an exchange of information among government officials working on human rights issues, the continuing committee undoubtedly plays an important role. It was never meant to be, and should not be considered to be, a body that will ensure accountable and transparent implementation of important human rights recommendations that the UN directs at Canada. Something more, something different is needed.
There should be nothing at all secretive about human rights in Canada. That must end. The discussions about how to move forward with human rights advice from the UN should be accessible to all Canadians and should benefit from high level political support and involvement that facilitates prompt and accountable decision-making among governments in the country.
As a notable aside, I would like to highlight for committee members — many of you may know this — that there has not been a ministerial level meeting in Canada focused on human rights for more than 20 years. The last such meeting was in 1988. Many issues as we all know — health, the environment, justice — are recognized to be of such importance as to be deserving of yearly ministerial meetings. Surely human rights are important enough to merit senior political attention more than once every two decades.
UN bodies have, with increasing impatience, called on Canada to develop a better approach for many years. This committee has powerfully gone on the record with that same concern, and now numerous other governments have urged Canada to improve. Federalism cannot and need not stand in the way of an effective approach to implementing human rights. Canada heard this from many countries last month in Geneva, including the United Kingdom, Portugal, Norway and Mexico.
I want to end by highlighting for you that in many respects this may be the most important issue at stake in this review. It is the one issue that unites indigenous and civil society groups across Canada. Regardless of their area of concern, they all agree that the answer is to develop a better system. A group of organizations has written to the Prime Minister urging that when Canada goes back to the UN in June, we indicate which recommendations we are prepared to accept, and that we take up the recommendation from so many states to strengthen our approach to implementation.
We have noted a number of key points that we think Canada should put forward and should commit to as defining that new approach. That should include convening a meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for human rights, a meeting which would review the UPR recommendations and adopt a shared implementation plan. It should include tasking bodies such as the continuing committee to work closely with indigenous peoples and representative organizations and with civil society groups to support and facilitate the ministerial meeting and decision-making process. It should include ensuring that parliamentary and legislative committees across the country — federal, provincial and territorial — actively review the UPR recommendations in sessions that are open to the public. This is a tremendous example tonight, but it is a very singular example in this country.
It should include working with indigenous peoples and representative organizations and civil society to immediately launch an accessible, timely process of dialogue and consultation, and it should seek the input and advice of Human Rights Commissions across the country.
Canada's leadership is on the line. If we are not able to move through this UPR and demonstrate a willingness, determination and ability to implement and comply with the recommendations that emerge from this review, the UPR will have lost an important champion, and an opportunity to significantly strengthen human rights protection in Canada will have been squandered. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Neve. We will now turn to Ms. Farha.
Leilani Farha, Executive Director, Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation: I am often in this unenviable position of being the last speaker at the end of a long day. I hope that my energy and enthusiasm for the universal periodic review of Canada will take us through the next several minutes with some energy.
First, I would like to thank you for allowing me to appear today. My organization has not previously appeared before this committee, so I will tell you that the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation is a non-profit human rights organization. We promote the right to housing and we challenge housing discrimination. We have been using both domestic and international human rights law to address the issues of homelessness and poverty.
CERA was one of the principal organizers of the five meetings you heard about that transpired in January just prior to the actual review, and I had the privilege of chairing each of those five meetings. It is in that regard that I am here tonight.
I will discuss two things with you, and I will try to keep my comments as lively and as brief as possible.
First, I will address the issue of NGO consultations and whether the Government of Canada has to date actually engaged in consultations. If there is time, I will then speak to one particular issue of implementation following from what Mr. Neve just spoke of.
When you think about this concept of consultations, I ask you to think about it in terms of implementation. In other words, look at consultation and the government's approach as indicative of their approach to implementation of Canada's international human rights obligations.
I think it is clear at this point — you heard from the government representatives — that there were some serious problems in launching a meaningful consultation with NGOs in the lead-up to the UPR. There was no consultation, to be frank, especially not prior to the submission of their report, which was on December 22. It was only after the submission of Canada's report that meetings were held with the civil society organizations and indigenous representatives in Winnipeg, Vancouver, Ottawa, Toronto and Halifax.
In some instances, groups had a couple of days notice to attend these meetings and therefore had very little time to prepare. The impact on organizations of such short notice is particularly important, especially for those organizations representing disabled people. For example, we were not always able to accommodate the disability needs of organizations that wanted to attend. In some cities, there was under-representation of those groups. That is just one small example of the limitation of such a time-limited process.
A separate meeting was originally scheduled with indigenous organizations and then it was cancelled and then it was integrated into another meeting. All of these things made it clear to us that there was not a very strong sense of commitment to engaging civil society.
Let me be very clear about what these meetings were and what they were not. The meetings did result in the mobilization of 125-150 organizations across the country, including indigenous organizations. All of these organizations used a human rights framework to express their issues of concern and committed themselves to participating in the UPR process.
Civil society engaged in the process in good faith, despite the lack of notice for the meetings and despite a certain amount of skepticism because of the lack of notice. They participated on the understanding that a comprehensive NGO report on the major issues confronting NGOs and people would come out of the meetings and that the report would be shared with the states responsible for reviewing Canada's compliance. Indeed, a fairly comprehensive report was drafted. I have it here. Unfortunately, we were unable to submit it to this committee because we do not have it in both official languages because we did not have the resources to have it translated.
The Chair: If I could interrupt, anyone can come before the committees in the Senate — for that matter in Parliament — and choose in which language they wish to present. It is our obligation afterwards to translate it into the other official language. We would very much appreciate receiving it. You can do it bilingually or in English or in French. I certainly want that on the record. We are to offer the services in both languages and are to respond equally in both languages, but any citizen can come forward in their chosen language.
Ms. Farha: This is very good news. I will pass the report along to you.
The Chair: You can table it with the clerk.
Ms. Farha: Sure. I look forward to the translated version.
What happened with this report was that three members of the NGO ad hoc steering committee — Mr. Neve, Bruce Porter from the Social Rights Advocacy Centre and myself — went to Geneva without government resources. We met with over 50 states to discuss some of the issues represented in this report. We believe all of this did have a positive influence on the UPR Process. That is what the meetings accomplished.
Let me turn now to what the cross-Canada meetings did not accomplish. These meetings were not consultations and in no way did they inform the Government of Canada's reporting to the UN Human Rights Council. The federal government representatives in attendance at these meetings were not decision makers and in some instances were, at best, junior bureaucrats. Very few provincial or territorial government representatives attended. There was no dialogue or constructive discussion between civil society and the government representatives. The government representatives generally played a listening and note taking role. There was no actual interaction or discussions.
This failure to consult with NGOs was critiqued in the UPR by a number of states, including the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Portugal, Norway, Denmark, Hungary, Ecuador and Mexico. The Government of Canada responded during the UPR by committing "to engaging with civil society and holding further consultations in follow-up to the UPR.''
Since the review, we have heard not much in terms of what that will look like between February and June, which is the most important period under this review. June, as you know, is when Canada will make its public declaration of its decisions about which recommendations it will accept and which it will deny.
You heard earlier this evening that the government intends to have this website where NGOs can make submissions across the country about which recommendations they think should or should not be accepted. There will then be these two meetings at the end of April.
What was sort of mentioned is that the Ottawa meetings for mainstream organizations would really only be for national organizations because there is no travel fund associated with that meeting. Because Canada is a federal state, you can imagine that the national organizations cannot always address the issues that are relevant and come up under the UPR. Often the provincially-based organizations are the most important to hear from because they deal with a lot of social and economic rights issues such as education, housing, health and so on.
When we look at what is being offered in this very important time period, I do not think under any estimation we could call it consultation. Even with those two Ottawa meetings, there have been no guarantees that there will be high level officials at those meetings, people with decision-making powers. It is not clear what will come of those meetings. It is another chance for us to indicate what we think might be some good implementation measures. NGOs have generated many documents to date. Mr. Neve referred to some of the recommendations that have come from those documents. I am not sure that we need another opportunity such as that.
It seems to me that there is a lack of creativity at this point. There is a lack of genuine and authentic engagement and consultation with civil society. Despite comments made earlier that this aspect of the UPR is important to government, that is not the sense that NGOs are getting across the country.
It would have been easy and feasible for the government to have come up with something more creative between February and June that would have genuinely engaged NGOs. I am happy to speak to that later if we have time.
Civil society is not concerned with consultations for consultation's sake. We have to look at the domestic implementation of international human rights obligations as more than simply the development of mechanisms and structures. We have to ensure that those mechanisms and structures are accountable and accessible to the rights holders for whom they are established. It is not that NGOs simply like to be consulted because we like to come to meetings. Our rights are at stake and the way we can ensure that our rights are realized is by being invited into the mechanisms.
There are a variety of things that we need. We need effective remedies for rights violations through courts and tribunals. We need political accountability through committees like this one. We need NGOs to be able to participate in international and other mechanisms.
My last point is with respect to one of our concerns about the implementation gap that Mr. Neve referenced. We are concerned that some of the issues raised in the UPR will be ignored as they have been under the UN treaty monitoring body system. In particular, UN bodies have noted that the persistence of extensive poverty, homelessness and hunger — in light of Canada's affluence — constitutes human rights violations and need human rights responses. Without proper consultation with civil society and proper implementation mechanisms, the UPR recommendations, which mirror those of the treaty monitoring bodies, will suffer the same fate as all the recommendations already sitting on shelves and not being implemented.
We propose that this committee recommend a concrete strategy for consultation with civil society and parliamentary engagement in the critical decision of which recommendations to accept and how they should be implemented.
The Chair: Thank you. You certainly kept our attention, so you do not have to worry about being the last presenter.
Senator Jaffer: I have many questions, but will ask a few and then wait for the second round. I have a question for Mr. Neve.
In your submission, you speak about the implementation of Canada's international human rights obligations. You indicate that there is a need for a transparent publicly-accessible system to oversee implementation of international human rights. What do you mean? What would you like to see?
Mr. Neve: There are a number of different ways in which we could achieve that. We need something that is not secretive as a starting point. We need something that brings governments together in this country on a regular basis, because almost all human rights issues such as economic, social and cultural rights and many civil and political rights as well, touch on both federal and provincial areas of jurisdiction. Therefore, they need a coordinated approach if there is to be any meaningful to implementation. We also need to have sufficient political weight to ensure real decisions can be made.
We are not given access to what is being discussed in the continuing committee. Through friendships, some of us can occasionally ferret out a bit of a sense of what is being discussed. However, a number of issues simply languish within that committee because no one has the political authority to call the question and have it move forward. This is very troubling.
More expert minds other than mine are the ones who need to be engaged in thinking about what that process needs to look like. They need to examine some of the best models we have in Canada on how to make federalism work. We have lots of expertise on both sides of that equation. There are probably models we would want to avoid and models which, perhaps, point the way forward.
More than anything, we need a group of people to commit to working that through. That just does not seem to have been the case.
Senator Jaffer: You made a recommendation on corporate social responsibility. We have many Canadian companies working in the Congo and Talisman is working in Sudan. There was no recommendation on this. Can you explain more about this so we can look at it?
Mr. Neve: In our submission to the UPR, we made a lot of recommendations. Amnesty International works across a wide range of human rights issues. Many of the recommendations were addressed. Some were raised by a number of other countries and some seemed to slip through the cracks. We were disappointed that no one pressed the issue of Canada improving its approach to corporate social responsibility. We feel there is a need for Canada to develop binding national standards that will start to apply to the human rights conduct of Canadian companies abroad.
We were disappointed with the announcement we heard last week on this question from the government. It came two years after a remarkable national round table process had brought together industry, civil society and academia, leading to a very strong consensus report. Unfortunately, that has not been taken up by government. A weaker model has been adopted.
Senator Poy: My question is for Mr. Neve. Do you think we should establish a department of human rights and have a minister to take this on with the right type of staff to work on this issue?
Mr. Neve: I think there are some very exciting prospects in that proposal. Many countries around the world have a structure along those lines. Sometimes it is a ministerial post and sometimes it is an ambassadorial post. However, someone is given clear and senior authority within government for human rights issues.
There is added complexity in federal states, but taking action to respond to human rights recommendations is real work in all countries. It can be very complex and politically contentious. It needs champions and people who have authority, expertise and resources with the ability to be able to see the big picture and bring everything together.
Unfortunately, we have tended to take a silo approach to human rights issues for far too long in Canada. Those silos can exist amongst governments or even with government departments not coming together. Something at a more senior level which would accomplish that would be a great advance.
Senator Poy: Mr. Beauregard, in your submission, you mentioned that there were attacks on human rights defenders. Can you expand on that, please?
[Translation]
France-Isabelle Langlois, Assistant Director, Programs, Rights and Democracy: Last December, there was a study on Colombia. To that end, Rights and Democracy facilitated the participation of two aboriginal Colombian partners who are women fighting for aboriginal human rights in Colombia. With our help, they were able to meet with several foreign missions, including the Canadian one. During the plenary meeting, several states repeated the statements, criticisms and recommendations of these two women.
One of them is a very well known human rights defender in Colombia as well as a political personality. On her return to Columbia, her husband was driving to the airport to meet her when he was murdered. This murder was quite likely related to the role played by his spouse in Geneva.
So, it is very important to think of civil society, of the states and all of those who take part in the follow-up process because it is the security of persons and organizations that is at stake.
[English]
Senator Poy: Did you say her husband was assassinated or she was?
Ms. Langlois: She was not. Her husband was.
Senator Poy: Thank you. In the submission, did you mean that Canada does not contribute to the UN trust funds to help? I did not get the last part of it, though it spoke about contribution to a UN trust fund.
Mr. Beauregard: We understand that the contribution of Canada to this trust fund is under consideration.
Senator Poy: How long has it been under consideration?
Mr. Beauregard: I do not know.
Senator Poy: Thank you.
The Chair: For clarification, are you talking about the special fund for the UPR process?
Mr. Beauregard: Yes.
The Chair: I ask that because there are other trust funds.
Mr. Beauregard: There are two others.
The Chair: You are talking about the new special fund. Do we have any information on that? We should have asked the government officials but you might know: What countries have contributed and to what amount? It would be helpful if you have that and can provide it later.
Mr. Beauregard: We will try to do that.
Senator Goldstein: Thank you for coming and being so helpful and so clearly knowledgeable in your respective fields.
Mr. Neve, I have watched you for many years with increasing jealousy because you are a paragon in the human rights field. I aspire to be two and a half per cent of what you are.
Mr. Neve: Thank you very much.
Senator Goldstein: I have a number of questions which are more, perhaps, concerns than questions.
I would like to start with you, Ms. Farha, if I may. I noted that, towards the ends of your remarks, you were seeking an availability of remedies for rights violations through the courts. However, those remedies already exist in Canada, both through the courts and through human rights tribunals in all of the provinces and territories, in addition to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
Were you concerned that those bodies are not functioning as effectively as you would like them to and what sort of recommendations would you make to enhance their functions if that is your concern? Let us be clear about this: What recommendations would you make to have them function better given the fact that the federal government can do nothing about provincial human rights tribunals.
Collateral to that question, when you were talking about remedies for rights violation, were you emphasizing areas of housing and homelessness or were you talking about human rights, generically?
Ms. Farha: Thank you for that question. I should say I am a lawyer —
Senator Goldstein: We forgive you.
Ms. Farha: I regard our courts and tribunal systems very highly. Therefore, no, I was not saying that they are not operating in a good way or that I have a problem with the way in which they are operating. My comments about access to remedies were specific to the area of economic and social rights.
While it is true that we have courts and tribunals across the country where you could bring claims to non- discrimination or equality that might be relevant, there is no place in the country where, let us say, a woman who is in receipt of social assistance and who is having a really hard time paying her rent can go and claim that her social assistance entitlement is too low. There is no place to claim the right to an adequate standard of living, for example. There is no place to claim the right to adequate housing.
She could go to a tribunal — let us say a human rights tribunal — and argue that it is discriminatory that she has such a low social assistance entitlement. Alternately, she could go to a court and argue that section 15, the equality rights principle, or section 7 is violated because she does not have access to a high enough entitlement.
The treaty monitoring bodies have been clear on two things with Canada: One, we need a system that could recognize social and economic rights more fully. That could happen, for example, if the Canadian Human Rights Act recognized social and economic rights in its provisions. There was a big study on the Canadian Human Rights Act and the panel headed by Justice La Forest that studied it said very clearly that groups around the country are advocating that. Justice La Forest himself agreed that was a good thing to consider. Of course, that study has been put on a shelf somewhere and nothing is happening.
Another thing that the treaty monitoring bodies have been concerned with is, when the Government of Canada goes to court, it argues quite strongly that social and economic rights cannot be litigated through our courts and they are not justiciable rights. Therefore, in that way, people do not have access to effective remedies when they are trying to get the remedy from government and the government says they are not justiciable rights.
Senator Goldstein: That is exactly the point. Therefore, it is not a function of the inability of courts or human rights tribunals to function adequately. It is more a function of definition of rights and inclusion, I would assume from your perspective and the perspective of many of us as well. It is an issue of fundamental economic and socio-economic rights, which we do not, at the moment, have as having been elevated to a human right protected, for instance, by the Charter.
Would you not agree that there are very few countries that have elevated socio-economic rights to a human right?
Ms. Farha: This is an interesting conversation. I think there quite a few countries have elevated social and economic rights to a human right; all of the countries that have signed and ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Culture Rights, including Canada.
However, if you are asking whether these rights being litigated and if they are justiciable in other jurisdictions, the answer is that they are. I can name them, if you would like: Brazil, Germany, South Africa, even India in some respects, et cetera. Many Latin American countries are also in that list.
Now there has been an important development internationally: There is now an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. An optional protocol is an individual complaint mechanism which indicates that, at the international level, it is now been recognized that these rights are equal with civil and political rights and are justiciable at the international level. Whether Canada ratifies that is another question.
Senator Goldstein: We will wait and see about that. I do not want to take more time on this aspect.
This is directed to all of you but predominantly Mr. Neve: Are you concerned that, when the report on Canada ultimately comes out — and there is no doubt it will be critical of certain areas, and that is perfectly acceptable — that report would then be used by more serious human rights abusers to point to Canada and say, "Go after them first; leave us alone; we are developing''? That happened, for instance, with Iran a number of years ago, with its black book of how terrible Canada is. "Do not look at me,'' said Iran. "Do not look at what we do to the Baha'i. Look at what you do to your Aboriginals.''
Mr. Neve: Iran continues to do that every fall when Canada, as a very welcome initiative, brings the resolution before the General Assembly.
As much as I wish we could remove politics from the UN human rights system, if we ever do get there, it will be decades from now. We are faced with the reality that politics will in a multitude of different ways continue to enter into how the debates happen and the use that countries make of the materials.
Canada's best way forward in trying to resist and push back against those sorts of inappropriate political uses of the human rights system is to never model it ourselves, and to continue to build alliances with other like-minded countries in the UN system that will continue to see it our way. In the past, that generally meant the EU and perhaps a little bit beyond, but that grouping has grown. We have a number of Latin American friends who are willing to stand up in principled ways for those approaches. There are some from within Africa as well now, a little less predictably. We will get there very slowly.
Along the way, you are right, there will continue to be efforts made by countries such as Iran to misuse the system. It is important that Canada be able to hold its head high and point the finger back and say, "Look, we have done everything the UN has asked us to do. That is what we are asking of you as well.''
Senator Goldstein: That is fair comment.
Perhaps I should have asked our previous panel to deal with this. It was brought to my attention by one of my brilliant researchers that the consultation process with respect to the UPR seems to treat the federal government on the one hand and the provincial governments and territories on the other as two complete solitudes. One of the roles we have as senators is to represent the interests of the provinces whence we come. Would you agree this is not an appropriate paradigm?
Mr. Neve: We have not seen it.
Senator Goldstein: The provinces sit here, the federal government sits here, and ne'er the twain shall meet.
Mr. Neve: I am not familiar with the details of that model. It seems to reflect the wider concern about inadequate and sometimes nonexistent coordination amongst the federal, provincial and territorial governments with respect to human rights. Whether it is about the approach taken to sitting down and consulting with indigenous organizations and civil society groups or the broader issues around implementation, we need a system that brings those governments together in a meaningful way so that we do not have two solitudes or separate silos.
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: Compared to other countries, Canada is ranked rather highly. If I compare Canadian aboriginal peoples to aboriginal peoples in other countries, Canada does better than many as far as human rights protection is concerned. What do NGOs do to promote Canada's reputation at the international level?
Furthermore, about consultation, I suppose we may agree that there are many synonyms for consultation, such as information session or dialogue, but do you believe that consultation means that there has to be a consensus with the groups that are consulted? I believe it is important to be clear about that.
My third question is for Mr. Neve. Your organization supports one initiative of Canadian aboriginal women, the Sisters in Spirit campaign, and, since we still have in Canada some band councils that refuse to grant rights to their citizens, what is your position on band councils that still discriminate against some of their citizens?
[English]
Mr. Neve: Amnesty International has been very active on the question of violence and discrimination against indigenous women in Canada. We have our own report that was issued about five years ago, Stolen Sisters, and have worked very closely with a number of organizations, particularly the Native Women's Association of Canada. We certainly have been supporters more broadly of the need to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to ensure that there is full protection for indigenous peoples and certainly for indigenous women, and we will continue to be so.
With regard to what we do to promote Canada's reputation on the world stage, we applaud, acknowledge and commend Canada when appropriate and we express concern and push for improvements when necessary. This is going back a little in history, but I can think of, for instance, the initiatives around the International Criminal Court. Amnesty International and human rights organizations across the country publicly in a multitude of different ways applauded Canada. We continue to do so. With respect to the very issue we are talking about here today, the UPR; In my opening comments I highlighted that Canada was a champion of that process in 2005 and 2006, in the midst of what was not an easy debate within the UN. You can imagine there were a number of countries that did not want to see this UPR established, or, if it was established, wanted it from the outset to be as weak as possible. The Canadian government was an eloquent and forceful champion at the time and we very much commended them for that.
I do not want to leave you with the view that we are only a negative voice. We are a critical voice, and criticism means, yes, pointing to shortcomings when necessary, but it also certainly means commending accomplishments when appropriate.
Ms. Farha: On that question, we do have to remember that under the UPR, Canada is being reviewed unto itself. Canada is not being compared to Chad, Tanzania or Thailand. Canada is being reviewed in terms of its resources, its wealth, its democracy. It is those standards that are used to measure Canada. In a resource-rich country, even in the face of an economic crisis, it is fair game to question poverty and homelessness, particularly of Aboriginal peoples. It is understood internationally that it is fair game to go after those areas. You cannot compare Canada to Chad because Canada's wealth so much surpasses that of Chad.
You also asked about consultation and I am not sure I fully understood. Does it mean consensus? I would say no. There is a diversity of voices across this country. Presumably the Government of Canada wants to hear from that diversity and would not expect consensus, but maybe I have misunderstood your question.
Mr. Neve: On that point, Senator Brazeau, you would know that in an indigenous context the word "consultation'' has a very different, specific and legally important meaning, which in this broader notion of civil society "consultations'' does not apply. I would totally agree. I do not think civil society groups mean that for the government to have a meaningful consultation process with us, at the end of the day they have to agree with us.
We need to feel we have had a timely, open, accessible and meaningful dialogue, that it has not been just a monologue, and that, at the end of the day, we understand and can have access to the results. It does not mean that our views will be incorporated in everything that we see.
[Translation]
Mr. Beauregard: I would like to make a clarification: Rights and Democracy is not an NGO but a federal corporation with a special structure that was created through an Act of Parliament. We are not involved in promoting Canada's human rights record but we make use of Canadian resources, the Canadian experience and Canada's engagement to promote democracy and human rights outside of Canada. In that way, we promote what is best in Canada's record.
Senator Pépin: Mr. Neve, you stated — and it is an interesting comment — that governments should indicate which recommendations they accept. So, if I understand correctly, most of the time governments do not commit themselves and, at the end of the day, nobody knows which recommendations they have accepted.
[English]
Mr. Neve: This was an overall concern about the UPR, not specifically with respect to Canada. We have noted that in a number of the reviews that have happened, we have been concerned that, at the end of the day, the report is finalized and adopted by the UN Human Rights Council, but it is still not clear which recommendations the government concerned has specifically accepted and which it has rejected.
We are not expecting that kind of ambiguity from Canada. We are expecting there will be clarity; we would be worried if there was not. In an overall sense, we think countries need to be much more resourceful in ensuring that when reports are adopted — and it is the countries that adopt them by vote at the Human Rights Council — that they do not let other governments get away with that kind of vagueness. Four years later, when that country is being reviewed again, if there is not clarity around which recommendations are part of that report and which ones are not, then the follow-up will be impaired.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: In your report for 2007, Amnesty International Canada stated that Canadian laws and practices relating to anti-terrorism are not in agreement with our human rights obligations. Your organization has expressed criticisms about the security certificates issued under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Has that situation being corrected?
[English]
Mr. Neve: We have seen a lot of action in that regard in the last couple of years. We had the Supreme Court of Canada decision in 2007 which clearly overturned the previous system and made it clear this it was unfair and did not meet the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We then had a one-year exercise of waiting for the government's response, which was not to change the fundamentals of the system but to add a new player. A new player called a "special advocate'' would be appointed who would be given access to the secret evidence but, having been given access to the secret evidence, would then not be able to communicate any more with the individual concerned.
In our view, that does not solve the problem. We had recommended that there are a number of ways to use the existing process of an individual's representation by his or her own lawyer, combined with undertakings and assurances of confidentiality that lawyers give all the time in other kinds of court proceedings. These undertakings would bar that lawyer from disclosing the specifics of some information to his or her client but would allow the solicitor-client relationship to continue. That is fundamental in the midst of any legal process. However, the special advocate model is what was adopted. Those proceedings are now under way. All of the security certificate cases are before the courts right now with special advocates involved, and there are all sorts of legal challenges coming forward. One assumes that, sadly, ultimately, the issue will again end up at the Supreme Court of Canada. We will see what the court says then. We are still very concerned.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: Last year, Amnesty International Canada stated that Canada should create an independent body to receive complaints from Canadian women detained in federal institutions. Do you believe that this is still relevant today?
[English]
Mr. Neve: That recommendation is a perfect example of the kinds of recommendations that come back to Canada from the international level, disappear into the Canadian system and seem to go nowhere. This particular recommendation has real history in Canada. You are likely aware of this, but it goes back to the work of Ms. Arbour, when she oversaw the commission that looked into the abuses at the Kingston women's prison. She is the first one who made the recommendation. Many others have highlighted it since; UN bodies have highlighted it; the Canadian Human Rights Commission highlighted it in a recent report; and, Amnesty International Canada has endorsed it.
It has now been 15 years or more since the work of Ms. Arbour, and we are not there yet. More to the point, we still do not have any clarity as to why we are not there. It is a very good example of why we need a better, more accountable and transparent approach to ensuring implementation of these important recommendations. At the very least, we should have answers to the question: If not, why not?
Senator Jaffer: I have a question for Ms. Farha. I do not know if you were in the room when the government said they would do further consultation before presenting their report. What kind of consultation would you like them to do?
Ms. Farha: I will be frank and say that, at this point, between now and June, there is little time to do any real consultation. I do not think it is possible, to be honest.
Post-June, it is possible, assuming they accept some recommendations that NGOs feel are worthy of working on with the government, and, presumably, they will. There are many different things that they could do to more fully engage.
One of the things we were asking the government to do just between February and June — but this could go on — is to help facilitate meetings between NGOs and senior level bureaucrats, as well as people on the parliamentary side, at the provincial and territorial level as well as federally. It is very difficult for us to access the people, the decision-makers that we need to access and try to influence. All of us feel that we would like to have constructive conversation.
I think it might have been the chair who suggested that sometimes there is a bit of adversarial nature between NGOs and government. I do not think that is what NGOs, in fact, want. We want constructive conversations and feel we are working on things.
Canada is an incredible country and I found, going across the country meeting with all these NGOs, that we have an incredible resource in this country. I have travelled around the world and done international human rights and met NGOs from around the world and the quality of thinkers in this country, both on the government side and on the NGO side is incredible. However, there is not a real meeting of minds yet, and I think that could happen and be facilitated by the federal government.
We need resources.
The Chair: We are run out of time, but I will put a question that I have pondered in the old Human Rights Commission and in the Human Rights Council.
Canada is very open in comparison to many other countries and so we do have a dialogue. It may not be as constructive as one might wish. We carry on the dialogue in many different ways, through the press, with each other, in conferences, and so on.
It would be interesting to hear back from Rights and Democracy, Amnesty International Canada and your organization or any other NGOs. How do we make it more productive within Canada as a consultation and dialogue, but, more importantly, how do we ensure that that dialogue we have is positive internationally?
Country after country relishes and waits for statements by NGOs such as, Canada is not doing something, and they wave it around. It is not doing it in comparison of what it could be doing as opposed to a world standard. They leave the impression in many countries that we are worse than we are.
It seems to me that in the international field, we want to move the yardsticks ahead. If a country is at point A, we want them to be better next year and better the year after that. That is the yardstick. Canada should be measured in the same way. Too often, the detractors of Canada simply want to protect their own, less-than-stellar performances. They will point out that, "Canada does not give any rights to women.'' Those broad statements are translated back through diplomacy and political will and are very hard to rebut.
We must develop a dialogue nationally and internationally that is more transparent for Canada but in the international context. I worry that the people who need the rights most are those who rarely have an opportunity to dialogue at all. They are either being commented upon by the opposition or the government of the day or NGOs or groupings of it or foreign countries. I know the UN has wrestled often to get the information and education to the people who really need it so they can speak for themselves. All of us are filters for those people in the last analysis. We should ensure that we are proper and honest filters.
I hope that we can continue the dialogue. We are not going away. We will have periodic reviews. We thank you for contributing to the body of knowledge that we have as we raise the questions we will wrestle with as we monitor the Human Rights Council, in particular the UPR process. Thank you all.
Senators, the steering committee meets on many issues. I am relying on my deputy chair to translate and get feedback from her members and I am doing the same with ours. We have put a proposal forward on how we can handle the study of the subject matter of Bill C-10. If your side could meet with Senator Jaffer, she will tell you how we propose to get your feedback so that the steering committee can continue along that line, or perhaps have to alter it in some way. I undertake to meet with my members on that.
In the next couple of weeks, we will try to finish up any and all witnesses, depending on witness availability, for the Public Service Commission study that we are involved in and in the council study with a view to wrapping those up.
Also, on the sexual exploitation, we have asked our researchers to envision the last draft of Senator Dallaire's proposal and what it would look like as a plan of action for a final decision.
(The committee adjourned.)