Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 1 - Evidence - March 15, 2010
OTTAWA, Monday, March 15, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 5:05 p.m., pursuant to rule 88 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
Adam Thompson, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair. I am prepared to receive nominations to that effect.
[English]
Senator Andreychuk: I nominate Senator Johnson.
Mr. Thompson: Are there any other nominations? Seeing none, I will put the question. It is moved by the Honourable Senator Andreychuk:
That the Honourable Senator Johnson do take the chair of this committee.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Thompson: I declare the motion carried and invite Senator Johnson to take the chair.
Senator Johnson (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Greetings, friends, and members of the committee. I am new; some of you are not. Senator Andreychuk and Senator Brazeau have been on this committee. Senator Baker, you have not been on this committee.
Senator Baker: I was on it once.
The Chair: Yes, in another life. Senator Nancy Ruth, you have been on the committee.
Senator Mitchell: I was for a short time.
The Chair: Senators Kochhar, Zimmer and Jaffer are not here. They are also on the committee.
We will begin today, colleagues, with the election of the deputy chair. Do I have a motion for nomination for the deputy chair?
Senator Mitchell: I nominate Senator Jaffer.
The Chair: It was moved that the Honourable Senator Jaffer be deputy chair of this committee. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
We then move on to Item 3 concerning the subcommittee. The motion reads:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair, deputy chair, and one other member of the committee, to be designated after the usual consultation; and
That the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses, and to schedule hearings.
Senator Brazeau: I so move.
The Chair: Thank you. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Item 4 is a motion to publish the committee's proceedings.
Senator Zimmer: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Zimmer:
That the committee publish its proceedings: and
That the chair be authorized to set the number of printed copies to meet demand.
Is it agreed? Senator Andreychuk?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Item 5 concerns authorization to hold meetings and to receive evidence when quorum is not present.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Nancy Ruth:
That, pursuant to rule 89, the chair be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the publication of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that a member of the committee from both the government and the opposition be present.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Next is the financial report.
Senator Mitchell: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Mitchell:
That the committee adopt the draft first report, prepared in accordance with rule 104.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Next is research staff.
Senator Baker: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Baker:
That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign analysts to the committee;
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee; and
That the chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analysis, summaries and draft reports.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Next is the authority to commit funds and certify accounts.
Senator Andreychuk: I so move.
The Chair: That is moved by the Honourable Senator Andreychuk.
All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Next is travel.
Senator Mitchell: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Mitchell:
That the committee empower the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to designate, as required, one or more members of the committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the committee.
All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Item 10 concerns the designation of members travelling on committee business.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Nancy Ruth:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to:
1) determine whether any member of the committee is on ``official business'' for the purposes of paragraph 8 (3)(a) of the Senators Attendance Policy published in the Journals of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 1998; and
2) consider any member of the committee to be on ``official business'' if that member is: (a) attending an event or meeting related to the work of the committee; or (b) making a presentation related to the work of the committee; and
That the subcommittee report at the earliest opportunity any decisions taken with respect to the designation of members of the committee travelling on committee business.
All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Travelling and living expenses of witnesses is next.
Senator Andreychuk: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Andreychuk:
That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witness expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for one witness from any one organization and payment will take place upon application, but that the chair be authorized to approve expenses for a second witness should there be exceptional circumstances.
All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Finally, communications.
Senator Zimmer: I so move.
The Chair: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Zimmer:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to direct communications officers assigned to the committee in the development of communications plans, where appropriate; and to request the services of the Senate Communications Directorate for the purposes of their development and implementation;
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow coverage of electronic media of the committee's public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings at its discretion.
Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The thirteenth item concerns our time slot for regular meetings. Our scheduled time slot is on Monday from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. Do we all agree on 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.? We will begin at 4 p.m.
Is there other business? Senator Andreychuk.
Senator Andreychuk: I have two points. The first is that some consultations have taken place for the third member of the steering committee, which is the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Do you want to proceed with that today?
The Chair: I think we should proceed with that today.
Senator Andreychuk: Otherwise, we will not have a steering committee.
The Chair: The first two members of the subcommittee are the chair and deputy chair, and the third member is Senator Brazeau. All that need be done it to announce it, I believe.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Did you know that, senator?
Senator Brazeau: It is news to me.
Senator Andreychuk: It is news to me too. I thought it was me.
Senator Nancy Ruth: It is news to me too.
The Chair: I am sorry, it is Senator Andreychuk.
Senator Andreychuk: We look alike.
I wish the new chair well in this position. The Human Rights Committee is extremely important. Some of the work we have done perhaps does not get attention in the political arena on the Hill as often as it should, but it does get the attention of those within the human rights field, both internationally and nationally.
We have many unfinished studies. It is important that we move on them and complete them before new members consider new work.
I want to thank all the members of the Senate who have been supportive of the work we have done. I particularly want to thank the researchers. We have had many researchers from many topics trying to work together and get all the studies done. I want to put on the record how valuable their work has been to the committee. I also want to thank the clerk, who knows the Rules of the Senate and committees better than the other clerks I have worked with. That is not to diminish the other clerks but to recognize our clerk's particular expertise. Just knowing that you are there to turn to and, in your quiet way, tell the chair, ``No, this is the way you have to do it,'' very subtly, has been extremely important. Senator Johnson, you can probably do no wrong in your position with these people at your side. I look forward to working with you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Andreychuk. I look forward to working with all of you. I have never been a member of this committee. It is a good way to wrap up 20 years in the Senate.
Is there any other business? We will have a steering committee meeting on Thursday where we will review the various tasks we have ahead of us. The clerk and the researcher have briefed me on the studies that are underway and what must be completed. We will discuss that next week. Do we need a budget?
Mr. Thompson: Senator, the rule 104 report that was approved as part of Item 6 is the financial report. It is a report on what was spent in the last session. It is not a proposed new budget.
Senator Andreychuk: Will it be filed?
Mr. Thompson: It will be tabled in the Senate, yes.
The Chair: I should ask, Senator Andreychuk, if there is anything else you would like to share with this committee at this time? You are the veteran and did such a superb job for years.
Senator Andreychuk: We have a number of studies under way. A number of them are ongoing. We have an omnibus reference, and ours was on the international machinery. I think we want to continue to monitor that. We want to continue to monitor the Public Service Commission in the broader sense in that it is not just the Public Service Commission but all employees.
We have two studies that are ready at drafting or reporting stage. One is on the Universal Periodic Review and the Human Rights Council. It was at the point of a report and recommendations. It had been disseminated. Senator Jaffer indicated that she thought it needed a bit more work and it was sent back to Mr. Walker. There was a prorogation, so I could not meet with him. I suggested maybe a non-meeting with a non-report and non-members but, in the end, we did not meet. We need to finish that report.
There is a drafted report on employment equity, which is part of that public service study, and it needs to be reviewed by the chair and steering committee to see whether it is in shape for the committee to comment and approve.
We started the sexual exploitation study. We had finished with the witnesses, as I understand, in Ottawa, and there was a question of whether we would go across the country to have more hearings.
The other study was on Resolution 1325. We had completed the witnesses in Ottawa. Some were not available. Obviously, in every committee, you have to cut it off somewhere. I think we were at the point of cutting off the witnesses and looking at an on-the-ground assessment in Africa, specifically Liberia and Sierra Leone.
With prorogation, we could not proceed in March. It is up to the new committee and the steering committee to determine how to complete that work.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Especially if there is no budget for travel.
Senator Andreychuk: Yes, and that is the question.
There were two points of view about the sexual exploitation study. The job that needed to be done nationally was to bring the witnesses here and to collate that information, because it is known from province to province. Provincial knowledge was there, and it was for us to pull it together. One point of view was that perhaps we could travel and rehear these witnesses across Canada.
We are at the point of determining determine whether it is necessary to do the national travel to complete that work or whether the essence of what we were trying to do could be done with the witnesses and all the documents that were filed here — in other words, all the reports and studies that had been done on sexual exploitation in Canada.
The Chair: I am told, Senator Andreychuk, that there might not be money for that or for the other trips. We may report fully back on that next week. In the meantime, I am told it may not be possible.
Senator Andreychuk: If we can get all the reports done by June, then it would be a question of where this committee wants to go from there.
The Chair: My feeling is exactly the same, especially with Resolution 1325 and the sexual exploitation. June will certainly be, as I discussed with the researchers, the time limit on that study. There is a very great interest in us having a fresh start in the fall.
Senator Nancy Ruth: There may be a great interest in us having a fresh start, but if we are not rigorous in finishing these studies, there is no point in doing them at all.
Senator Zimmer: Senator Andreychuk, are you saying that we cannot use the material we gathered before the prorogation? Do we have to go back and do it again or we can use that material?
Senator Andreychuk: The point is we could have completed part of the report and taken the travel as planned; neither occurred. We must prepare those reports for the drafting stage. They need to come here so that members can comment on the content of the material.
Senator Zimmer: Thank you.
Senator Andreychuk: That is the situation today; where they go from here is subject to discussion.
Senator Mitchell: I have two items to discuss. First, are you saying that there is no chance of travel? I know your whip has made a point that he does not want travel but that is not the decision of the Internal Economy Committee.
The Chair: This will be reviewed at steering and we will tell you next Monday. However, that is the message I am getting.
Senator Mitchell: I think we make a huge error if we succumb to that. One of the things the Senate is known for is its tremendous committee work. We have done, and long before me, tremendous committee work. I think credibility is gained because you do responsible travel.
The Chair: To which area are you referring on the travel?
Senator Mitchell: Across the country and, in this case, to —
The Chair: Which particular study?
Senator Mitchell: Resolution 1325 and sexual exploitation.
Senator Andreychuk: Resolution 1325 was overseas; sexual exploitation was a national study.
Senator Mitchell: These are hugely important topics.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Resolution 1325 was the study I wanted and my focus was never overseas. My focus for Resolution 1325 was on what is it Canada is doing to implement these things in its work, wherever it is. I do not know that we have to go overseas, so I will not die if we do not get the money to go. It is okay with me. I am more concerned about the sexual exploitation study.
Senator Mitchell: It seems to me, among many other things, there is much to be gained by going abroad because it is generally an issue that bites abroad. It has not occurred as much within Canada that we have had to make that kind of application.
If it is just coming from the whip, the whip does not make this decision for committees, but that might be a moot point given it is something going to the Internal Economy Committee and your people on it.
My first point follows up from what Senator Andreychuk said, that we are not particularly well known as a committee in Canada but we have a bit impact internationally. It raises the issue of how we communicate. What we are trying to do, for example, on the Environment Committee is to develop a very strong communications policy. There are many features of that. I know that this committee and its leadership has done press conferences and met with editorial boards and so on and that is part of it. It needs to be part of everything we do.
Another part is the whole issue of electronic media. We have a wonderful opportunity to do it inexpensively, actually; to communicate not only one way where we tell people what we have done, but in the process of doing studies to solicit input through websites and that kind of thing.
The interparliamentary website is almost impossible to find. When you find it, it is absolutely disorganized, and not just ours but all of them. It is completely without stimulation of interest particularly. You read the titles of the studies. It is title No. 4, study No. 4, study No. 5. It is so basically, fundamentally bad that we need to start, I think, as committees, not just ours but others, to put a real push on it. The people who are responsible for it have been saying would you please put some push on it because no one is saying we do not like it, but that is because we are all over 32 years of age, and most of us are older than that and we do not use it. However, if we want to encourage people to understand what we are doing and if we want to address this issue we have to make some changes. We hear so often that Canadian youth are not interested in the political process. It is the very same group that makes most use of the Internet. In fact, our site is so bad that people will be annoyed at trying to use it.
If we can start to develop with the communications people a strong communications policy that is two ways, we solicit ideas and input, we do online town hall meetings, whatever, and we communicate with it, we will begin to push the frontiers of this effort.
Senator Andreychuk: We are very well known in Canada within the human rights community, with lawyers, with judges, all those within the human rights constituency. We are less known for our reports. What I meant was, when our leadership talks about the seminal report on, they go back to a 1970s report while there are more recent reports. I think we have to continually tell our leadership in the Senate about the need for this committee.
Senator Mitchell: You are not disagreeing with me; you are just opening other features.
Senator Andreychuk: I am not disagreeing with the way we should go further.
The Chair: I agree with you. Communicating is the major reason to get it out there. Even when I went to look at human rights on the site, when I was told I was going to chair this committee, it was hard to find what was going on in the last six months. I could find studies from 2002 and 1997. It was really awkward. I had a firsthand experience. I agree with you. We will talk about that as well; talk to them about that.
Senator Baker, do you have any comments?
Senator Baker: No. I am just fascinated with this discussion.
The Chair: Well, you are very knowledgeable. It will be an interesting group.
Our wonderful clerk has announced to me that we should receive a motion to reinstate the previous rules of reference.
Senator Andreychuk: I also move that we reinstate all motions. Can we do it that way? We do not need the drafts in front of us?
The Chair: Yes, you can.
Senator Andreychuk: I will move that, so we can clean those up and finish them properly as quickly as possible.
The Chair: So moved by Senator Andreychuk. All agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any further comments?
Senator Nancy Ruth: Chair, I want to support Senator Mitchell's comments about the sexual exploitation study. This study focuses on adolescents, and many of them Aboriginal. Some kids choose to go into that business and some are trafficked into it. It is a hugely complicated social mess. I do not know if it is a mess, but it is very difficult to get any kind of handle on it. You can read about it but I cannot help thinking a couple of trips to a couple of towns and watching and seeing might help the reality of looking at all the social determinants that go into the problem. The problem is not just trafficking; it is huge.
Senator Andreychuk: Some excellent studies have looked at all those social determinants. The child commissioner in Saskatchewan has done a basic report on this subject. The Aboriginal groups throughout Western Canada have studied it, some funded with federal monies, some funded provincially.
The point is, as many of the groups that fed back to us said, the problem is known. The recommendations are there. What is it we could pull out of there that would actually start an implementation that is more meaningful than it is today? That is, I think, a synthesis of the evidence we have received to this point.
Senator Nancy Ruth: That brings me to another concern that I have not had a chance to share with you.
It makes me wonder why we are doing the study.
Senator Andreychuk: It is to bring the national perspective.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Perhaps. There is one thing I would like to see implemented everywhere within the Senate committee structure. If a committee decides on an area of study, I suggest that we bring in experts in that field and ask them who would be value-added if the Senate did a study on A or B, so that we get some expert knowledge and it broadens us beyond our own little bubble. I would like to do that, wherever we go next.
Senator Mitchell: I support that idea. I know that the Defence Committee has a certain reputation, but it has always, as long as I have been on it, had two or three contracted experts. Given the current money circumstances, I suspect that would be difficult to do, but the Defence Committee had a retired general, a retired member of CSIS and a current member of the RCMP seconded. A current military person from whatever force was always seconded, and that expert provided strong input to senators, who have great knowledge in many ways but perhaps not in all ways and certainly not in all perspectives. It is a great idea to consider following that example.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Mitchell. When we meet at the steering committee, we will consider these views and report back, especially on the fact of being able also to bring witnesses here, if need be. There is the whole thing of timing and where we are at right now, and it is already the middle of March. We have to present budgets. We have to take that into account, especially as we wish to wind a few things up by June.
Having said that, does anyone have any other comments?
Senator Zimmer?
Senator Zimmer: I am new. I am listening.
The Chair: Do all committee members have a booklet entitled An Introduction to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights? I am sure all members will read this booklet before the next meeting.
I guess we will discuss at the steering meeting about eating, too. Is this committee used to having dinners when it meets?
Senator Andreychuk: We did have dinners. The problem was that we never quite got a consensus on the time, so we kept moving our committee from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., then 8 p.m., and at one time until 9:30 p.m. Some members wanted to eat at 3:30 p.m, while others did not. Then we went to eating at the end, which meant the food was left because everyone seemed to charge off. I do not think we ever resolved what we should do.
The Chair: Perhaps we will bring back a recommendation.
Senator Andreychuk: I think committee members can decide when to eat.
The Chair: We will bring you back a recommendation next week and see if it is necessary to bring in food for a couple of hours. A significant high tea is maybe the most we will get.
Mr. Thompson, is there anything else you want to tell us? Mr. Walker, do you have any comments?
Julian Walker, Researcher, Library of Parliament: We do have more introductory materials to give to the members who would like them, as an introduction to human rights.
The Chair: Our researcher informs me there are more materials available on human rights matters. These materials are available upon request. They will give you more bedtime reading.
Are there any further comments before we close the meeting? It is the earliest meeting you will have this year.
Thank you, Senator Zimmer.
(The committee adjourned.)