Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue No. 12 - Evidence - December 7, 2016
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 7, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 11:33 a.m. to study 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 Jim Munson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome again to the Senate Human Rights Committee. We do have a special guest here with us today from Global Affairs Canada and the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion. We like to look at this committee as a conversation, not an inquisition.
First of all, though, a little bit of housekeeping. We delivered our Syrian refugees report yesterday on Syrian resettlement. We were very pleased with the coverage of it, which has been quite extensive. We feel we've added another chapter into the lives of those who are now living in our country, who are now our neighbours and new Canadians. It is very important.
I want to thank each individual senator for their contribution to this report. It was collaborative. Some innovative and new ideas were there for us. We certainly appreciate it very much, and we hope that the government listens to some of the recommendations we do have.
Senator Ataullahjan: I also wanted to take this opportunity to thank the library staff, the clerk and the staff in our three offices; Kelly, Vincent and Lisa. They worked tirelessly. I want to thank all of them for the team effort.
The Chair: Senator Omidvar and Senator Andreychuk also came back with some great ideas for the report, and that really helped make it a very collaborative, comprehensive work.
Senators, we put together a program of ideas for some time in February, dealing with new studies. Our first comprehensive study will be on human rights in Canada's prisons. That seems to be the overwhelming choice. We do have two other issues. We'll include Senator Omidvar's issue on women's prisons. That will be a part of this study. We will study the garment industry again as well. There is a third I can't recall at the moment. Anyway we'll start with human rights in Canadian prisons. It will be an extensive study, and it really is timely.
With that, we're going to give the floor to Senator Andreychuk. She would like to give a five-minute report on a visit, I understand, to the Human Rights Museum in Buenos Aires in Argentina.
Senator Andreychuk: I'm not going to go into the report. The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, as part of their study, visited Argentina. In Buenos Aires we met with human rights activists and the provincial equivalent to our parliamentary secretary in charge of human rights.
We visited ESMA, which was the largest school for the navy. This whole complex is in the middle of Buenos Aires, but it was used for many clandestine detentions and was one of the extermination centres used by the Argentinian military dictatorship between 1976 and 1983. The number of people who disappeared during this period, also known as the Dirty War, is estimated at between 15,000 and 30,000.
It took a long time for these cases to come forward because the victims and their families were traumatized. Most of them were processed and then taken by air and dropped into the sea. Some were jailed.
It took a long time to come forward. The Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo group started to look for the lost children. Some women had children in detention, and these children were adopted out. Some were just disappearances. The grandmothers' group became quite well known in Canada. Many groups here helped in that. When DNA came along, it helped even further.
The committee visited the site. It was extremely moving, because for so long, they couldn't come forward on cases. They're still handling cases now, because there is now a feeling that they can come forward as the democracies have developed.
I thought it was very interesting. It is such detail, and it affects the political situation so much in Argentina. It's important that our Human Rights Committee at least be aware of what our committee did. I think that kind of cross-referencing from one committee to the other is very valuable.
Senator Ataullahjan and Senator Ngo were on the trip. So having two steering committee members from Human Rights was extremely valuable.
We filed the fact-finding report with the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and I understand you've received your copies here for circulation and electronic circulation, simply to note that Argentina is coming out of a difficult political situation. It's marked by its history, but it is moving on, and the feedback in a general way is that they're now very committed to human rights both nationally and internationally. I think it's good information for this committee as a background on various issues of human rights.
I hope that other committees will feed in as they encounter such fundamental issues of human rights as the Argentinian people have.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. Everything does connect, and it's extremely important to have this information. Of course we recommend to Global Affairs Canada to read this report as well.
I neglected to mention a big thank you to our library analysts on the Syrian report, incredible work done. And, of course, we thank the communications team. I want to publicly thank you personally for your work and that of the communications team. Without you, we can't get it done.
I will ask the senators to introduce themselves, and then we will introduce the panel of witnesses and get on to the conversation with the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
Senator Andreychuk: Raynell Andreychuk, Saskatchewan.
Senator Ngo: Thanh Hai Ngo, Ontario.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Nancy Ruth, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, Ontario.
The Chair: And I'm Senator Munson from Ontario.
This morning we have with us, from Global Affairs Canada, Richard Arbeiter, Director General, Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion; Patricia Pena, Director General, Economic Development; Giuliana Natale, Director, Inclusion and Religious Freedom, Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion; and Pamela O'Donnell, Director and Deputy Head, Peace and Stabilization Operations Program. The acronym is PSOPs.
Mr. Arbeiter, I understand you have an opening statement. Thank you for being patient.
Richard Arbeiter, Director General, Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It is my pleasure to be here today to provide an update on the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion on behalf of Global Affairs Canada. My remarks will focus on the activities of the office to date. Ms. Pena and Ms. O'Donnell can elaborate on human rights-related programming, including in fragile and conflict-affected states, and Ms. Natale can speak to Canada's continued engagement on freedom of religion or belief.
I understand that the committee will have the opportunity to hear from Dr. Andrew Bennett, Canada's former Ambassador for Religious Freedom this afternoon. The new office builds upon the work of the former Office of Religious Freedom headed by Dr. Bennett. We benefited greatly from Dr. Bennett's advice as the new office was being established and are grateful to be able to continue to engage with him in our activities.
The office is accountable for developing and implementing Canada's international policies and advocacy efforts related to human rights, pluralism, respect for diversity, inclusion and democracy.
Recognizing the pivotal role that technology can play, the office includes an innovation team which looks at how emerging technologies and social media can be used to advance foreign policy in these areas.
Guided by direction from the Prime Minister, ministers and the government to engage with civil society, the office serves as a focal point for human rights, democracy, diversity and inclusion. In the past six months, the members of the team and I have undertaken outreach in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver and here in Ottawa.
We also plan to conduct outreach in Eastern Canada soon. We have consulted extensively with members of faith communities, the private sector, municipalities, provinces, universities, youth and other members of civil society to better understand their views on respect for diversity and inclusion, human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, and democracy abroad.
The office and my colleagues here today have been closely involved in the International Assistance Review consultations on governance and human rights, which generated some 900 submissions, and we have supported the Minister of International Trade's engagement with indigenous communities.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs hosted round tables on human rights in June, inclusive and accountable governance in September, and freedom of religion or belief in October. The office will continue to support the government's efforts to regularly and closely engage Canadians.
[Translation]
In delivering on the government's agenda, the new office is guided by three principle tenets. First, human rights start at home. The government has been clear that challenges continue to persist in Canada, and that efforts to openly and transparently tackle these issues are critical. While domestic efforts are outside the mandate of the office, there's a clear link to our international agenda. Minister Dion has repeatedly stressed that Canada is credible globally when it addresses human rights issues at home. The office is working to enhance Canada's adherence to its own international human rights obligations.
This includes potentially ratifying new treaties, such as the Optional Protocols to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The latter was announced on December 1 by Minister Dion and Carla Qualtrough, Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities.
The office also works closely with partner departments to ensure that Canada upholds its human rights obligations. Canada is required to submit reports on the implementation of the treaties it has ratified. Canada has also extended a standing invitation to UN Special Procedure mandate holders, who are independent experts mandated to report on human rights issues.
Canada recently welcomed the visit of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent in October and is preparing for the visit of the UN Working Group on Transnational Enterprises next May. This openness to scrutiny is crucial to ensure a healthy democracy. It also demonstrates Canada's strong support for the international human rights system.
Our second main principle is that Canada is working on strengthening the international human rights system. This system is comprised of a series of treaties and multilateral institutions, which have evolved over time and continue to evolve. Fundamentally, the system is based on an understanding that human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and inter-related.
Canada's overarching objective is to strengthen this system. To do so, Canada participates actively in the UN Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly's Third Committee, the key multilateral institutions mandated to consider human rights. This summer, Canada led a resolution on eliminating violence against women at the Human Rights Council. The resolution focused on preventing violence against Indigenous women and girls, the first of its kind to address this issue. At the General Assembly this fall, Canada successfully led the annual resolution on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The office also works to ensure Canadian representation in UN human rights bodies. Earlier this year, Canada was elected to the UN Commission on the Status of Women. In June, Vancouver-based lawyer Marcia Kran was elected to the UN Human Rights Committee, marking the first time in over a decade that Canada has had a member on this body.
[English]
The third tenet guiding our work is, of course, a drive to move the yardsticks. To cite a few examples of the office's recent work, Canada was among the first countries to sign on to the founding principles of the Equal Rights Coalition last July. This new intergovernmental coalition seeks to advance the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons.
Canada was also a founding member of the Freedom Online Coalition, which seeks to ensure protection of human rights online. The office works closely with Global Affairs Canada's Peace and Stabilization Operations Program to deliver human rights-related programming.
In September the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced a contribution of $1.5 million to Freedom House's Lifeline project, which provides emergency financial assistance to human rights defenders and civil society organizations under threat. The minister also announced a partnership with UNESCO and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on education in support of atrocity prevention, and a project with Equitas, a Canadian-based human rights non-governmental organization, to support reconciliation efforts among faith communities in Sri Lanka.
These initiatives build upon prior partnerships established by the former Office of Religious Freedom. They also complement the $15 million contribution to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights announced earlier this year.
The office has convened international counterparts to address human rights issues. We continue to actively co-chair the International Contact Group on Freedom of Religion or Belief with the United States. This group has already met twice since the establishment of the office, most recently at Canada House in London.
In September, Canada co-hosted, along with Israel, the United States and the European Union, a high-level forum on global anti-Semitism at the United Nations, which attracted some 400 participants. Also in September, the Minister of Foreign Affairs convened a high-level panel on the power of diversity and inclusion at the UN as well.
[Translation]
While I haven't captured everything, I hope this brief presentation provides a sense of the breadth of work undertaken by the new office to support the government's human rights agenda.
We look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Arbeiter. There is a lot of food for thought here, and it's very important for our committee.
Have you appeared before a house committee on this?
Mr. Arbeiter: We have not, no.
The Chair: So the Senate is leading again in listening to bureaucratic expertise on this issue. I think that's important. I'm glad we've given you the forum to do that because I think Canadians really have to understand the new comprehensive rights office within Global Affairs Canada, and we thank you for being here.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for being here this morning.
You speak about having done outreach with faith communities. Can you tell me which communities you've done outreach with?
Mr. Arbeiter: In the first instance we reached out to all of the members that had been working with the former Office of Religious Freedom, so a very broad range of different faith communities, all of whom were also included in the minister's round table.
I'll ask my colleague Giuliana to speak specifically to different groups that we reached out to.
Giuliana Natale, Director, Inclusion and Religious Freedom, Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion, Global Affairs Canada: To complement Mr. Arbeiter's response, we have outreached to the Sikh community in Canada, the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, the Christian and Catholic representatives of minorities in Iraq and Syria. We continue to outreach to the Coptic Christian community in Canada, and I should also note that they also continue to outreach to us. It's very much a two-way dialogue. Through their knowledge and expertise of situations in the respective countries in which they have constituencies, we are able to enhance our understanding of some of the dire threats to freedom of religion and belief that these communities face and then work through our embassies and our missions in these countries to advocate for and raise awareness of freedom of religion and belief.
Mr. Arbeiter: We've also reached out to the Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist communities and to secular humanists as well who are engaged on freedom of religion issues. That may not be an exhaustive list, but that's a first response to your question.
Senator Ataullahjan: So when you reach out to the Ahmadiyya community, why not the Sunni community and why not the Shia community? The Sunni community is having huge issues and human rights abuses in places like Iran. Why select a certain group? Why not reach out to all the Muslim communities?
Ms. Natale: Absolutely, we continue to expand our outreach activities, and we will be enhancing our network of communities to which we outreach.
Senator Ataullahjan: Are you including any of the religious leaders, imams, in this dialogue or not yet?
Ms. Natale: We are. We have outreached to, for example, Imam Metwally, who is the leader of the Ottawa Muslim Association. We have reached out to imams in Toronto and Mississauga as well, who are members of the former executive advisory council that had worked closely with the Office of Religious Freedom as well.
Senator Ataullahjan: Rohingya Muslims, I'm sure you're all aware, are the most persecuted people on the earth. We hear of rapes, torture, the killing of men and women and their homes being burned. What dialogue have you had? Have you engaged anyone? Have you raised the issue? What do you intend to do to follow up?
Mr. Arbeiter: Our role within the department is to provide a sense of what the international obligations are that states have to uphold, the international human rights obligations that they have. Our posts in the region and our geographic divisions are responsible for tracking the human rights situation in individual countries.
We have worked closely both with our new post in Myanmar and with our geographic division on the situation confronting the Rohingya people, and we have identified opportunities within multilateral fora, particularly at the Human Rights Council in Geneva but also at the UN General Assembly in New York, to ensure that that situation is actively addressed.
We have held numerous conversations with international partners on that particular issue, including with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and we will continue to do so.
Senator Ataullahjan: Has the minister personally had any conversations? I know you've engaged with partners. We hear the same thing. You engage with partners. You have conversations with like-minded countries. Have we raised this issue with Myanmar, as the previous foreign minister did?
Mr. Arbeiter: I regret that I am not in a position to answer specifically as to what the minister may have raised. I believe he visited Myanmar over the past few months, but we can return to the committee with a response on that question.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you.
Pamela O'Donnell, Director and Deputy Head, Peace and Stabilization Operations Program (PSOPs), Global Affairs Canada: Also in terms of programming, we have done programming in Myanmar from the Peace and Stabilization Operations Program, and it's focused on the peace process there. Within that peace process, the focus is definitely inclusion of all the different religious and ethnic groups and making sure they're a part of it, and we're working on a contribution that would allow us to sit on the board that manages that fund to support the peace process, which would give us more of a say. It would give the ambassador there a say in how they are reaching out, and that would give us an opportunity to influence.
Senator Ataullahjan: Maybe there is a different dialogue we need to have.
Mr. Arbeiter: My colleague informs me that indeed the minister raised with the president and with Aung San Suu Kyi human rights issues on his visit to Myanmar in April.
The Chair: Can you give us an idea of what that outreach looks like? You named 20-odd different organizations in this country. Do they call you, or do you call them? When you sit down, how does that conversation work and what are you trying to get at?
Mr. Arbeiter: As Ms. Natale pointed out, it's very much a two-way conversation. We are very interested in their perspectives on the situation confronting faith communities in different countries around the world. What are they hearing through their networks that can better inform our policy and our understanding of situations on the ground?
Sometimes when they reach out to us it's because they are, frankly, advised more quickly about what has happened, because of their family networks or their communities, and they want to ensure that we have a solid understanding of a particular situation facing a particular faith community in a different country.
Our outreach to them in the first instance, particularly around the announcement of the new office, was to present ourselves to try to get a sense from them as to what their priorities are for Canada internationally. What are the kinds of areas that they think we should be working on, whether it's through programming, financial support or advocacy? From their perspective, what works better? Is it better to have quiet diplomacy or better to have public statements? What do they think makes sense in the local context that they are most familiar with?
I referred to the different cities that we visited, and on each occasion we've tried to meet up with faith communities — both the ones that we know of, so those that were partnered with the former office, and new partners — to expand the network and the base from which we can derive additional information and ensure that we meet our mandate from the government to serve as a focal point for those faith communities.
In different cities it has meant different groups. It's not always 25 different groups necessarily in each place. We look at this as an iterative process, where we try to make ourselves available to Canadians who have concerns, but we continue to look for new partnerships and new sources of information and collaboration moving forward.
Ms. Natale: If I might add, as my colleague referred to earlier, the outreach has also included a round table convened by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, bringing together these faith communities and human rights activists to specifically discuss situations that they are aware of.
Senator Ngo: The government has been criticized for not taking a strong stance on international human rights on many occasions. That is partly because Canadians do not know which information they are acting on to advance human rights and promote democracy in the bilateral relationship. The government is expected to take action but encourage respect for human rights. So why is this information not public? And will your office help the government provide an overview of the action it has taken to encourage respect for human rights?
Mr. Arbeiter: The government has made a lot of public information available to date. There has been a series of statements on thematic issues, whether on freedom of religion or belief — including a couple of weeks ago on International Religious Freedom Day — on issues related to women's rights, children's rights, a whole series of human rights-related issues. The government has committed to being as transparent as possible, and we continue to support them in making that information available to Canadians.
In certain cases, as I alluded to earlier, the criterion that informs our advice to government is often "do no harm in local context.'' What I mean by that is ensuring that a public statement doesn't inadvertently further threaten or compromise the safety and security of the individual, organization or community.
That determination is often made locally on the advice of our heads of mission abroad, so they can get a sense, from their read of a particular situation and in coordination with international partners, what would help. Would it unnecessarily aggravate the situation to be public, or could it help? That determination is made on a case-by-case basis, typically on the assessment of the head of mission and the embassy or the high commission on the ground, in cooperation and consultation with those that track bilateral relationships for Canada and with my team and other teams across the department.
Senator Ngo: Why did Global Affairs or your office not provide yearly reports on human rights? Do you have that?
Mr. Arbeiter: To answer your question factually, there has not been a global report on human rights ever, to my knowledge.
Senator Ngo: What kind of advice do you give to Global Affairs about countries we have bilateral relationships with regarding human rights abuses in terms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, other international agreements on trade, and so on? How do you provide those?
Mr. Arbeiter: Thank you for that question as well. We try to ground our work in the international system, in the international architecture around human rights. Essentially, the treaties and conventions you're referring to, there are a series of international mechanisms that are intended to ensure compliance with state obligations in those treaties. One of them is the Universal Periodic Review, the UPR system, where every country needs to appear in Geneva every four to five years and receive recommendations from states about how to improve its human rights situation.
Canada, as a matter of policy, participates in every single review of every member state of the United Nations. Our recommendations are all publicly available. You can see them online. They are typically grounded in state obligations on human rights.
So a state has committed to do X. Our assessment is that the approach, to date, is deficient in meeting the state's obligation to protect an individual's or community's human rights; and our recommendation is to, therefore, do Y. It changes. It's very case specific. It's based on an assessment of that particular situation, but we do it universally and consistently.
We also use other mechanisms that are available to address human rights, multilaterally and bilaterally.
Multilaterally, outside of the Universal Periodic Review, as I mentioned earlier, Canada leads the resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran. That's something we've done for the past 14 years. That resolution is very specific. It has concrete recommendations for what the government can and should do to meet its international and domestic obligations according to its own domestic law for the people of Iran.
Bilaterally, sometimes it's quietly raising issues, because that may be more effective. Sometimes it's louder and it's through public statements that are intended to call states out on a violation of individual human rights. Sometimes it's through programming, as my colleague referred to earlier. It's trying to invest in local partners who have the knowledge on the ground and who can bring communities together, address specific issues related to women's rights, children's rights, LGBTI rights and indigenous peoples' rights, in a way that makes sense in that context.
My colleague can talk about our human rights programming in the context of our development assistance.
Patricia Pena, Director General, Economic Development, Global Affairs Canada: To add a bit more information about public reporting, we do have the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, known as the ODAAA. That has certain criteria within it, and it's to do with our development assistance. One of the criteria is to ensure that our assistance is consistent with international human rights standards. An annual report is published with reference to that act, which affirms that all the development assistance we're doing actually meets the criteria.
That's another piece of public information that is available. It doesn't go into the detail of individual projects — for instance, a project that might support a human rights commission or support youth or address gender violence issues — but it does provide an overview of the context of assistance in that space.
Senator Ngo: You say you don't have any report whatsoever. Do you have the intention to provide yearly reports on human rights violations? Because so far you say there are none.
Mr. Arbeiter: That is a question for the government as opposed to officials. It's government's choice as to what it reports on and how and with what frequency.
Senator Ngo: Your office is the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion. You should have that report in your office. Can we have that?
Mr. Arbeiter: Once again, our responsibility is to implement the direction of the government. It's the government's choice as to what specifically it publicly reports in the form of an annual report. It's the government's decision whether to put that information out on an annual basis, but I've noted your interest in that. It's really not my purview to comment on what the government will do.
The Chair: We'll ask that question to the minister. We'll have a chance to ask the minister; I think we have to be fair to the officials. Thank you, Senator Ngo.
Senator Andreychuk: I want to understand what you're doing now in your office. It seems that if there is a public statement, it does not come from your office; it will come from the minister. So your instructions are from the minister's office, the direction, is that correct? Then you transmit that direction to missions abroad, and you seem to say that you've reached out to some of the communities in Canada who might have some interests in those other countries. Am I getting the chain of command and how you work?
What I'm interested in is that we reach out to ordinary Canadians but that, more importantly, we reach out to people in the other communities. This seems to be a bureaucratic linkage, but are you relying solely on the missions to tell you what's going on on the ground or relying on any other group who might be in Canada? How do you link it to the actual people in these countries who may be subject to the abuses and the impending genocide, et cetera?
Mr. Arbeiter: Thank you for that question. When the minister announced the establishment of the office, he also referenced new performance commitments for all heads of mission to be active on human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, and to ensure that it was part of their performance management.
The government has also indicated that heads of mission will be encouraged to speak publicly and openly as often as possible.
In the first instance, on your question on statements and on publicly articulating Canada's concerns around a certain issue, it's not one answer. There are lots of occasions where statements, tweets, other ways to get messages into the local public domain will be undertaken by the head of mission in that local context that may be more useful. So there are loads of examples dating back from May when heads of mission have expressed themselves publicly, expressed concern or sometimes expressed Canada's satisfaction with a positive development. There are some positive developments on human rights, and it's as important to talk about those as well.
As to statements that have been issued here in Canada, often not just by the Minister of Foreign Affairs but by the Minister of Foreign Affairs alongside the Minister of International Development and the Minister of International Trade, it really depends on the subject matter of the statement. And statements made by the Prime Minister for that matter. So, for example, we are currently now in the 16 days to mark the elimination of violence against women. The Prime Minister issued a statement. Several ministers issued statements afterwards. We will work with our colleagues across the department and in other departments to help put those together for ministerial consideration, and those are a way to communicate, both domestically and internationally, Canada's concern around a particular human rights issue.
Senator Andreychuk: A follow-up question: We're contacted by the public. We're contacted by the public overseas, instant communications. We have networks. We work in parliamentary associations. Your answer troubles me because I really want to know Canada's position before I go on any international stage or before I respond. I'm getting this answer that I'm going to have to track all of the tweets of all the missions. I'm going to have to track all of the ministers, obviously with some emphasis on the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Trade.
How does someone get to know what's happening by Canada? One could argue that for previous governments, not just the previous one but two or three back, there would be a place you could go to get some answers. Can I phone you and find out what's happening in South Sudan right now and what Canada's position has been, what any official has said, which NGOs you have been in touch with, so that I can be sure that what I'm saying is supportive of what we're doing in human rights?
Mr. Arbeiter: I'll answer that question, but I neglected to answer your question about outreach locally to faith communities, as well as to faith communities in Canada. Let me just say that, when I referenced the new performance commitments for head of mission, that comes with an expectation that Canadian officials abroad will develop networks and maintain and expand their networks with faith communities in their countries of accreditation. Yes, we rely on those who know the local context, but certainly, when Canadian officials travel from Ottawa to countries abroad, they often have in their programs opportunities to engage with influential opinion makers, both in the human rights area and in other areas as well.
In terms of obtaining information about Canadian policy and position, there are parliamentary procedures for members of Parliament and senators to be briefed on issues of interest. Certainly, within parliamentary procedure, we're always available. We'll make ourselves available to provide information to you, whether it's a country-specific issue or a broader thematic issue.
But I do take the point that there's a lot of information out there, and it's hard. It comes from multiple sources. On the departmental website we have a section dedicated to human rights. The minister has blogged four times in the past three months on very specific issues. We are constantly trying to improve the availability and accessibility of information on that website so that you and other members of Parliament and Canadians writ large can easily find the information that they're seeking.
Senator Andreychuk: I guess, having to do all of that, you miss the opportunities because international crises occur overnight, and if you wait, you've lost an opportunity to have a positive impact. So that somewhat troubles me.
I guess my final question is, if I have an opportunity to comment on a country or an issue within a region, are you saying I should call your office and I'll get the answer? I want to know where to go to get a government response rather quickly. It isn't for the purpose of questioning the government. That may be part of it, but the other is to be sure that I know exactly what the government has done and that we're not speaking with too many voices out there that are needless.
Sometimes I'm going to oppose the government and say, "I think you've not done enough, et cetera,'' but, often, I want to say, "The government has done this, and what else should we do?'' Then it's a feedback, a two-way street, if we're going to do our job as parliamentarians.
Mr. Arbeiter: I don't want to misspeak, so we can follow up more explicitly. But part of the department is responsible for parliamentary affairs and provides, in discussion with the clerk of this committee and with others, information to other members of Parliament. That is typically the channel through which requests come to us, but we will come back to you with the specific name.
Senator Andreychuk: On the Human Rights Council, Human Rights Watch and many other organizations have been very critical of the makeup of the Human Rights Council, more perpetrators on the council than supporters.
What is Canada's position of working with the council and its makeup now and its particular emphasis on one country, Israel?
Mr. Arbeiter: The Human Rights Council, like all UN agencies and bodies, is reflective of the composition of the United Nations. As many of you will be aware, often regional groups put forward candidates that represent that particular regional group for a limited period of time.
Canada's position is that the Human Rights Council is the multilateral instrument mandated internationally to work on human rights issues, and so we have a keen interest in working through the council and with the council to the extent possible on a whole series of issues that are within our foreign policy interests.
Sometimes in terms of our own view, of course we would like there to be those that are more respectful of human rights issues on the council, but we don't control and we can never control who is going to be elected to the council. So we try to find ways to work with them, those who agree with us and those who do not agree with us, in the interests of ensuring that individual human rights in countries all over the world are better respected, better protected and better promoted.
Canada has consistently spoken out concretely and visibly against the isolation of Israel within the United Nations system, including at the Human Rights Council. We do not participate in deliberations that target Israel at the Human Rights Council under item 7. That has been and continues to be the policy of Canada on that particular issue.
Senator Omidvar: I'm interested in following up on your comments on the ambassadors. We have 136 spokespeople for human rights, religious freedoms and inclusion as opposed to a single ambassador. I'm still trying to figure out what's better. But I am curious about the meeting that was held of all heads of missions in Canada in June of 2016, where the Prime Minister said human rights have to be reported in real time by our heads of missions and that their performance assessment would take into account their performance, their actions and their advocacy on behalf of human rights.
Have these performance measures been put in place? How often are they done? Is it an annual performance review? Do you get a copy of those performance reviews? Do they inform your work? Since we have this new structure, it has to have a feedback loop to you.
Mr. Arbeiter: Yes, they have been put in place. They were put in place at the beginning of the fiscal year, the April and May timeline, and they cover till the end of March, so the typical fiscal year.
As you referred to the Prime Minister's expectation, they do put in writing an expectation that individual heads of missions will not only report on human rights situations but engage with partners on them.
They do account for local context, of course, because while the commitment is universal, it may mean different things in different places. Because, again, the drive behind this is impact and effectiveness as opposed to a blanket approach that covers all countries equally.
On most occasions the individual Canadian posted on the ground will be in touch with our office to get additional support. Recently, for example, our mission in Bangkok sponsored a lot of work around LGBTI issues in Thailand to get a little bit of a sense from us as to what is the international architecture around these issues, how can we help countries in that particular region think through these issues, and what are the kinds of partnership that we can do. We will provide that kind of support to them.
It may be different issues in different countries, where they will come to us and we try to serve as that kind of support base for information and for linkage. Sometimes it's important to link what is happening in the country with what's happening internationally, globally or multilaterally to try to find the synergies and to introduce different aspects of a particular issue.
In my opening remarks I referred to the fact that our team has an innovation hub that looks at the use of technology and social media to advance human rights issues. In that particular case, there are threats confronting LGBTI communities online that are different from somewhere else. Ensuring that they have the technical information about safety and security of individuals helps them do a better job on impact and effectiveness in that particular situation.
Ms. O'Donnell: I can give a practical example. I was the head of mission in Ecuador, where often human rights issues would come up. For example, we had engaged with indigenous women and done training on human rights for them, and it resulted in many of them knowing how they could apply for local governance positions, and they ran for local assemblies and things like that. They understood their rights and they started businesses. There were very positive benefits from a very small project under the Canada Fund for Local Initiatives.
Then we lobbied hard on things like freedom of expression, which was under threat. We gave positive feedback because they had brought in rules to recognize the rights of LGBTI communities to get the same recognition legally for couples. We would positively tweet and comment on those things to encourage them. Those are a few practical examples from my experience.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you very much. I like those examples. They provide context.
Because this is the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion, could you clarify whether your work is domestic or solely an international agenda? I'm a practical person, and I wonder if people in glass houses should throw stones.
Mr. Arbeiter: Our mandate is primarily international, but as the minister has said on multiple occasions, Canada is only credible abroad if we can point to what we're doing at home to address our own long-standing and emerging issues on human rights.
If you look back on some of the statements that the minister has made, both at the Human Rights Council and at the General Assembly, he starts from the premise of Canada is not perfect. We have major challenges, legacy issues and emerging issues. What we are doing is being open to scrutiny around those issues. That's why it's important for to us work within the international human rights system, whether it's the recent visit that I mentioned of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent to understand the particular challenges facing Canadians of African descent or it's on indigenous issues or on women's issues.
As the foreign ministry, while we don't have a mandate to work domestically we need absolutely to be informed by what is the situation of human rights in Canada. A lot of outreach that we've undertaken has been to better understand the human rights concerns of Canadians not only internationally but also domestically. What is the response within the system? How do we work with partner departments, whether it's the Department of Justice, the Department of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women Canada, Public Safety, which are typically responsible for implementing Canada's international human rights obligation domestically? How do we support them and work with them on the domestic front and the international front so that internationally we are far more credible?
We're not perfect; we're learning from it, we're open to scrutiny because scrutiny makes us better, and we're open not only to scrutiny internationally but also from domestic voices that may have a different view.
Senator Martin: My questions focus on the structure of your office. Would you tell me how many staff members are in your office?
Mr. Arbeiter: Thirty-six.
Senator Martin: Among the 36, would you tell me the breakdown of women and men and then ethnic diversity? Today I see the representation of women, but I'm curious, since you are an office looking at various important issues like what the diversity would be within your office.
Mr. Arbeiter: I don't have the stats at hand, but we will get back to you with the gender breakdown and the diversity representation.
Senator Martin: You mentioned the 16 Days of Activism against Gender Violence. We recently did another review on the GBA+. Would you comment on whether you apply that lens to everything you do?
Ms. Pena: We have a gender equality policy that applies to all the programming we support in international development assistance, and so that shapes every single project. We apply those considerations across the board.
Just to add to the points that were raised earlier, this is part of our bigger tool kit. We have an advocacy component, and we have the work of the missions abroad. Those missions are also responsible for this development programming, and so they're able to see how the projects develop to address particular issues.
As I mentioned earlier, because we do have the obligations under the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act to ensure human rights are respected, then we have a feedback loop on those issues through the work we're doing.
If, for example, we have a project that's working five years in support of a human rights commission in a country, and halfway through the project we start looking at the types of cases that are coming through because of the work of this project, then it's bringing to light new issues. Our embassy and our colleagues working abroad are then able to track those issues and advance them through their work, as exemplified by my colleague.
Senator Martin: You mentioned embassies. In terms of titles, such as "director general'' versus "ambassador,'' it feels like there's some sort of a step down, and I know other senators would feel this way.
Specifically, within your office, with the $50 million budget that was announced in May of 2016, how much has been disbursed to date and how have these funds been utilized? Could you give us a quick breakdown? I know you have 36 staff, and it would be good to know how the funds are being allocated.
Mr. Arbeiter: Sure.
Senator Andreychuk: Funds spent on programming.
Senator Martin: Yes. Perhaps it's something you would send to us in more detail. I think all the senators would like to know what went to programs, what is going to administrative costs, et cetera.
Mr. Arbeiter: Why don't we follow up in writing, to save time on that particular question?
Just to make it clear, the $15 million is not operating or administrative costs. The administrative cost is a little over $3 million, and that's outside and separate and apart from the $15 million that was referred to by the minister.
Senator Martin: Do you know how many staff were in the previous office?
Mr. Arbeiter: Yes. It was five.
Senator Martin: Oh, it went from five to 36. So we really want to know the facts and details on what is happening. Thank you.
The Chair: We have to give you the title of "ambassador.''
Mr. Arbeiter: I can comment on that question, if you like.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Thank you for your presentation. I understand that your office is relatively new and that you're determining how to implement the Prime Minister's direction. In your presentation, you said the direction is to engage with civil society.
I see that, to show people who you are and to hear what they have to say, you visit a number of cities. I'm originally from a francophone community in Manitoba, and I see that the face of Manitoba's francophonie has changed considerably in the past 15 years. The community has chosen to include and embrace diversity and has many stories to tell. It welcomes people from around the world and is proud of its diversity.
You visited cities such as Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver and Ottawa. However, I want to know whether you make an effort to reach communities that have changed, that have stories to tell and that still maintain strong ties to their countries of origin.
How does this guide your considerations and actions with regard to Canadians and people on the international scene?
Mr. Arbeiter: Thank you for your question. There's always a risk involved in having a list and limiting ourselves to the list we provided. For that reason, we're not necessarily able to make efforts to reach all these communities.
Canada is a very large country, and a great deal of work must be done. I took note of the need and opportunity to engage Manitoba's francophone community in particular. We'll try to do so soon. We're always looking for suggestions from the communities that should be involved in our efforts.
Senator Gagné: I want to specify that Manitoba has a francophone university, and that the Société franco-manitobaine has a francophone reception office. That's why we need to be able to include linguistic duality. It's a suggestion.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Ngo, I will let you have a question on the second round. I just want to make a couple of observations with regard to briefing parliamentary associations.
We do get briefings from Global Affairs Canada before we go on trips, but I think it should be mandatory that your office is included in those briefings so that, as Senator Andreychuk mentioned, we're up to date. Canada-Africa, for example, is going to Tunisia and Egypt. I would like to have an up-to-date briefing on human rights in both those countries, and I think for that to be included with the others in your department is extremely important for us to do our jobs, as Senator Andreychuk mentioned.
I'm glad to see that the government is getting up to date. As you say in your new report, it includes potentially ratifying new treaties such as the optional protocols to the Convention against Torture and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Ministers Qualtrough and Dion were there, and I was present for that announcement. The words "potentially ratifying'' stand out because this committee, four years ago, recommended ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The word "potentially'' gives you a bit of wriggle room, don't you think? What does "potentially'' mean?
Mr. Arbeiter: The obligations that stem from the ratification are obligations of both the federal government and the provinces and territories. The consultation process that was announced by Ministers Qualtrough and Dion referred to the start of the consultation with provinces and territories. While it is a federal jurisdiction for the treaties we ratify, we also want to be respectful to provincial and territorial partners who will be responsible, in part, for the implementation of the protocols should the government and others choose to ratify them. I hope that explains the situation.
The Chair: This is important for us, because this committee will start a study next year on prison monitoring. The convention is part of prison monitoring. We'd like to be into that conversation as well.
Senator Ngo, a short question and then we'll wrap up this panel.
Senator Ngo: I want to pick up on what you said before. You said that Global Affairs provided recommendations during the UPR process in Geneva in 2009 and that this information is public. But the details of these recommendations are not known to the general Canadian public at all. For example, Canada UPR recommendations to Vietnam in 2009 encouraged Vietnam to modify the legal process of Articles 79, 88 and 258 to comply with international obligations. So why is it not displayed for Canadians? Just because of the UPR in Geneva or that they publish it on their website or whatever you call it? Why not by the Canadian government? Because that's what we did.
Mr. Arbeiter: First off, all UPR sessions are webcast publicly. So any interested Canadian is welcome to watch, in real time, the recommendations from Canada and other countries to individual members that are before the UPR at that time.
In addition, the recommendations are publicly available through the UN system. I think your question is about Canada making it available as well, and I take note of your question.
Senator Ngo: What you say is ideal if everybody is interested in watching it on TV and so on, but for the ordinary Canadian, they don't do that. So, basically, I'm going to go to the website of the Canadian government and see that there's nothing there. That's what I'm asking.
My second short one: During the previous Office of Religious Freedom, the ambassador travelled across a number of countries abroad in order to promote religious freedom. Will your Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion take similar steps to promote human rights abroad?
Mr. Arbeiter: I may answer that in two parts. First, as I referred to earlier, all Canadian heads of mission have within their performance management agreements an expectation that they work not only on human rights but, in particular, on freedom of religion. To our knowledge, we are the only country that has a performance commitment for all ambassadors, irrespective of their country or countries of accreditation, to work on that particular issue. That means they will be actively engaged on that in their day-to-day work.
That innovation or that inclusion in performance management agreements was noted by our partners in the International Contact Group on Freedom of Religion or Belief as a best practice that others should emulate.
In addition to that, I and members of our team, when we travel internationally, will seek out opportunities to work on human rights issues, including freedom of religion or belief. As was said a little bit earlier, the minister also raises these issues consistently in his travel abroad.
The Chair: Thank you for that. Thank you very much, Mr. Arbeiter, to you and your team. As you can see, we have a strong interest in your office and how it works. We're pleased that you were able to present the case to our Senate Human Rights Committee. As they say, we'll be back, and I'm sure you will be back. We certainly appreciate this information, and we thank you for the work that you do.
We have Mr. Bennett to appear before us now in our second session on this particular discussion we're having on the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion at Global Affairs Canada. We just heard from the team that is now involved in this office. We're delighted. We'll have 45 minutes, if that's enough time, to listen to Andrew P.W. Bennett, who is Senior Fellow, Cardus. Mr. Bennett was also the Canadian Ambassador for Religious Freedom.
Mr. Bennett, I understand you have an opening statement, and of course we'll have a good conversation. I'm sure you were intrigued with the previous conversation. Welcome to our committee.
Andrew P.W. Bennett, Senior Fellow, Cardus: I'm honoured to be invited to appear before the committee and to offer my perspectives on Canada's approach to the promotion of human rights overseas. I have an approximately 10-minute opening statement, with your permission, Mr. Chair.
I'm appearing before the committee today as Senior Fellow at Cardus, Canada's largest and leading faith-based think tank. As will be known to the committee, I previously served as Canada's Ambassador for Religious Freedom, and in that capacity I headed the Office of Religious Freedom at Global Affairs Canada from February 2013 until March of this year.
In appearing before you today, I'd like to offer some of my insights on the Office of Religious Freedom and, in particular, how it met its mandate. In light of my experience, I'd like to offer my views on various approaches now being taken by the government on advancing religious freedom abroad within its broader human rights policy.
In February 2013, I was appointed by the previous government to a three-year appointment as Canada's Ambassador for Religious Freedom. This was not a partisan appointment. I entered this position from within the federal public service.
The mandate I was asked to execute was to promote and defend religious freedom internationally as a core element of Canada's principled foreign policy. I did this through leading an office of five to seven dedicated public servants who committed themselves to advancing this mandate.
The office had no domestic mandate, and I observed this distinction in my work.
During the years of the office's activities, Canada became recognized as a leader in the advancement of religious freedom in a world where, according to the Pew Research Center, 74 per cent of the global population live in countries with either high or very high levels of government restrictions on religious freedom and/or social hostilities violating religious freedom.
Canada's leadership was recognized by our allies in the United States and the United Kingdom, among others, and within the United Nations, including by the UN Special Rapporteur on religious freedom.
Increasingly since the closing of the office in March 2016, these allies are wondering why there has been a diminishment in the focus on religious freedom, especially when Canada had been a global leader in defending those facing often brutal religious persecution, whether Christians and Yazidis at the hands of ISIS, Shia Muslims in Pakistan, Sunni Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, Tibetan Buddhists in China or Jehovah's Witnesses and Pentecostals in Russia.
My experience within the presently named Department of Global Affairs Canada was generally a positive one, and I had the support of my colleagues in executing this mandate.
At no time did I experience undue political direction from the minister's office. Rather, I was able to function within the normal reporting relationship of the department under the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, and I and my team benefited from generally good working relations with our fellow public service colleagues.
I and my team advanced our mandate through a broad array of policy, advocacy and programming activities. Much of this is already on the public record through announcements made by the office, in the departmental evaluation and audit of the office completed earlier this year, and in previous testimony I at times gave to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. But let me very briefly summarize some of our activities.
Under the office's Religious Freedom Fund, which represented $4.25 million of our annual $5 million envelope, we sponsored over 20 projects that supported activities, addressed some of the root causes of religious persecution and also helped those directly persecuted in over a dozen countries. We introduced training for Canadian diplomats on religious freedom and the role of religion in international affairs, a necessary component of our work.
We engaged our allies in defending religious freedom internationally through the United Nations, such as the Human Rights Council, through the Special Rapporteur on religious freedom and also through the Third Committee of the General Assembly, and through a unique initiative that the Office of Religious Freedom brought forward, and that is the International Contact Group on Freedom of Religion or Belief, which brought together over 20 like-minded governments committed to advancing religious freedom.
These were not just our traditional like-minded governments. We also reached out to other countries such as Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Cameroon, Senegal and Indonesia, who demonstrated a desire to improve the status of religious freedom in the world.
We also had extensive — I in particular — interactions with governments and faith communities in countries where religious freedom was being threatened and continues to be threatened, and I was able to call political leaders and faith leaders to account for their actions or, in many cases, their inaction.
In advancing this mandate, we always did so in the broader human rights context, recognizing that freedom of religion is necessarily linked and bound together with other fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association. However, freedom of religion needs to be affirmed as a distinct freedom.
Take the case of Raif Badawi, the human rights blogger in Saudi Arabia. Many of you will be familiar with the case. He was found guilty of effectively defaming Islam and was sentenced to 10 years in prison and lashings. When that came about, we brought that to the attention of the minister, and we engaged with the Saudi ambassador and the Saudi government.
Many people saw that as a question of freedom of speech, that Mr. Badawi's freedom of speech was being threatened, which indeed it was, but it was his freedom to speak about Islam and his freedom to speak about faith, about secular attitudes and about liberalism. In order to have his freedom of speech he had to first formulate what he wanted to speak about, so in that sense his freedom of religion was being violated — his freedom to speak as a more secular Muslim.
Freedom of religion, as indicated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in many other documents, is often placed as a first freedom, or we might say a foundational freedom. Why is this? I would argue that it comprehends that without recognizing the metaphysical need present in each of us to contemplate who am I, who am I in relationship to you, who am I in relationship to the world in which I live, and who am I in relation to God or to a particular philosophy I choose to follow, without recognizing that metaphysical need embedded within freedom of religion, we cannot then move on to give utterance to our beliefs — freedom of speech — gather with others to share those beliefs — freedom of assembly — or form groups of our fellow human beings who share similar beliefs so as to advance the common good.
To argue that the Government of Canada should not give priority to freedom of religion when that freedom is so gravely threatened in our world today is an untenable position. To prioritize freedom of religion is not to deny attention to the advancement of other human rights.
In Canada, for example, we have a Minister of Status of Women who heads a department that recognizes that more needs to be done to advance greater equality for women in the workplace, on corporate boards, in skilled trades and a number of other areas. Prioritizing the advancement of equality for women does not mean that we are giving short shrift to the advancement of legal rights, freedom of speech or freedom of assembly in our country. At different times in history certain human rights need to be brought to the fore and actively and persuasively championed when they're most being threatened. Think about the civil and legal rights of African-Americans in the United States in 1960s. It was right that those were prioritized at that time in order to give African-Americans their due civil and legal rights.
During the three years in which the Office of Religious Freedom was active, we had many successes in advancing religious freedom, but there were also occasions where we could have done much more, and I could have spoken out more forcefully, such as against the horrendous violations of religious freedom of Falun Gong practitioners and of Tibetan Buddhists by the Chinese government and the abject failure of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to provide for the freedom of religion of the tens of thousands of Christians living and working in the kingdom and the ongoing restrictions against Shia Muslims such as evidenced by the tragic case of Nimr al-Nimr. While recognizing the need to serve the minister and the foreign policy of our country, I could have said much more.
To link the defence of religious freedom, an internationally recognized human right that is entrenched in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as our own Charter, and that has its roots in Western civilization back to the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, with the ill-defined and thoroughly vague concept of inclusion, as some in our society have done, is confusing in the minds of many members of faith communities and undermines a clear articulation of the need to protect those in the world who are persecuted for the faith they profess.
Too often as Canadians, and often along with many Americans and Europeans, we have bought into a post-enlightenment myth that religion is a purely private matter, and that religious faith and ideas should find little or no expression in the public square, let alone in foreign policy or public policy.
This is a false understanding of the separation of church and state, a constitutional doctrine not present in this country though often people cite it. While we thankfully have a secular government, we do not have a secular society. Rather, Canada, like many other nations, is made up of a diverse array of faith communities that actively participate in the life of their country.
Too often we confuse religious freedom with freedom of speech or freedom of association or define it through the limiting concept of freedom of worship. Such a view is historically inaccurate, and it is entirely out of step with the very public role of religion in the vast majority of the world today.
In many of the countries in which our diplomats serve, religion and religious faith do not find expression simply in a perceived cultural discourse; rather, religious faith guides the social, political, cultural and even economic lives of billions of our fellow human beings. To not understand this role of religion is to perpetuate a very serious diplomatic blind spot. In other words, as Canada engages the world, we need to get religion, so to speak, and appreciate the role of religion; otherwise, we will never understand and we will not be able to fully engage people in a truly inclusive way, recognizing their inherent human dignity — a dignity that finds expression frequently and often in their religious faith.
It is my sincere hope that the Government of Canada and our foreign service will undertake further efforts in diplomatic training, advocacy and enhanced programming on religious freedom and religion in international affairs so that Canadians, especially the majority who profess a religious belief, can continue to be well served and so that Canada's voice as a defender of human rights and of the religiously persecuted remains a strong and confident one.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bennett. We appreciate your being here.
I will start with the vice-chair, Senator Ataullahjan.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you, Dr. Bennett. It's nice to see you again. I think the last time we met was when we were discussing the issue of the Rohingya Muslims, and I thank you for the work you did on that.
Your budget was $5 million. The new office has $15 million, and yet you seem to have done more with that $5 million. In all fairness, the office is new and they are kind of finding their feet.
I would like to ask you about the work you did. What were some of your biggest challenges and successes?
Mr. Bennett: Let me start with the successes. We were able, I think, to raise the profile of religious freedom as a core human right that needed to be advanced. When the office was established in 2013, really only two or three other countries were actively engaged in this area: the foreign policy of the United States, which also had an Office of International Religious Freedom; the United Kingdom, which at that time had a Minister of State within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on religious freedom; and then the Norwegians had an office of human rights with an ambassador that was dedicated to doing work on religious freedom.
During the three years the office was in place, we regularly actively engaged — through the UN, as I said, and through various interactions with our missions abroad and through my own personal interactions with various countries — on the need for us to come together to do more, because we were seeing in the news every day what was happening in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Nigeria — many parts of the world where religious freedom was being gravely threatened.
Through the support that the government gave to this priority, and the ability of our office to speak openly and freely about this in the foreign policy space, one of our greatest successes was being able to bring a larger number of countries on board to champion this.
Now you have within the European Union a special envoy dedicated to the promotion of freedom of religion or belief. Outside the European Union, you have a growing number of countries within the international contact group that are committed to advancing this. We have had a very successful transition from one UN special rapporteur to a new special rapporteur, Dr. Shaheed, who is highly effective in this regard, particularly noted for his human rights work in Iran.
I would say that a significant challenge that we faced, and that continues to be faced, is relative ignorance of religion amongst foreign policy practitioners and, generally speaking, the public service.
All of us have received more or less a similar formation through our school system and our universities. That formation has, over the decades, diminished the role of religion in our society and has not been able to be conversant in terms of what role religion plays. As a result, we haven't been as well formed and as well trained to engage religion when we're overseas in countries where it plays a dominant role, as many of you will know, based on your own travels and your own work.
So I do not fault the lack of formation, but I do fault not doing anything about it and not ramping up formation of our diplomats and generally our public servants on the role of religious faith.
We embarked on two years of training. The first year we had training through the Canadian Foreign Service Institute. We had one day of training where we talked about religious freedom. It was oversubscribed by colleagues. The second year we had a two-day training program, which again was oversubscribed by colleagues, and we expanded it to talk about religious freedom and religion in international affairs.
Those are just two that I would say are interlinked in terms of a success and a challenge, but there are many I could think about.
Senator Ataullahjan: My understanding is you are saying there's ignorance of religion. Do you think there should be some sort of religious training? I always ask about cultural sensitivities, especially when you go overseas; what is presumed to be okay in one culture might not be okay in another culture.
Are you saying the civil servants and bureaucrats should have some sort of religious training, just to understand what they are dealing with?
Mr. Bennett: Yes, absolutely. We need to ensure, for example, that when we have diplomats going abroad, they understand the distinction not simply between, say, Sunni and Shia Islam, but that, for example, within Sunni Islam there are many different legal schools that need to be appreciated because they vary from country to country, and some are stronger in certain countries. We need to ensure an appreciation of the diversity within Shia Islam between Twelver Shia and Ismaili Muslims, what they believe.
It is the same thing with Christians. Often we think we have a good knowledge of Christianity in our society, but often it's not that robust. So someone might be posted in the Middle East and suddenly encounter these ancient Christian churches that you don't know about. You don't know how to engage them. You don't know their history. You don't know what the difference is between a Maronite and a Melkite, or a Syriac Orthodox and a Syriac Catholic.
That sort of basic knowledge is very important, not simply because it allows you to engage, but it would allow our foreign service personnel to be highly effective in this area.
Canada, obviously because of our own diversity, multiculturalism and multi-faith society, has tremendous sources at hand that can support this type of training. I've advocated for this in the past, and I would continue to advocate in the future.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you, Dr. Bennett. I want to thank you for the work you did for the Government of Canada and Canadians. My feedback about your job was not through you or from Canadian sources, but when I travel abroad, that you engaged on issues that others had not yet dealt with. I've been on a mission, so I know what it's like; you have a lot of priorities. You came in at the right time, when in fact I think you said that we lack some history about foreign policy.
Foreign policy has changed so much. I think we looked at a lot of our foreign policy in certain countries as a development concept. We then moved into more of a foreign policy concept. We're now getting much more complex as we have to deal with many countries, and religion plays a part in it where I don't think it was factored in.
In fairness to the Department of Foreign Affairs — or Global Affairs, as it's called now — it's an evolution that we have taken that has led to where they are and that appetite to understand when you go into another country not what we think but what do they think and how do we engage them. I think you did an admiral job in that.
Some of your success was the fact that you were separate, you were an ambassador, you could take this on, and you had some scope. Whereas the foreign minister had the task of balancing many competing human rights, you had a dedicated purpose and you could highlight that, and then the government could balance against it.
My concern is that now, when we move back into more of a departmental approach, we will lose that emphasis, but we'll also lose the balance that changes day by day, and that's the minister's job to do.
Mr. Bennett: I think that's a valid observation. Ambassadors are a unique sort of beast. At times, to be able to give priority to particular issues such as religious freedom — or whether it's Arctic issues, the environment, land mines — it's sometimes good to sort of have an asymmetrical approach, let's call it, where you can find different ways to give priority and greater visibility to a particular issue.
Many countries do this. Certainly the United States does it in abundance. When I used to go to Washington I'd have to take several days because I would have four or five different interlocutors that I would need to engage that represented sort of what I had under my various hats.
But many other countries do this as well — the Netherlands, France, Germany — where there are particular priorities that are set by the government, and they use various mechanisms. It could be an ambassador. It could be a special envoy. It could be a number of different things that seek to advance that particular foreign policy goal.
Based on my own experience, I find that to be a very useful tool and a very useful approach, and it can help to identify a particular country as a leader in a field, such as the Ottawa landmines treaty. Canada played a leading role in that. We've played a leading role in peacekeeping. We've played a leading role in a whole range of areas where we saw a need, and the government responded by focusing activities.
Again, focusing your activities in a particular area doesn't mean you're diminishing focus elsewhere, but at different times there are particular needs in the world. For a country like Canada that has a particular history, a particular makeup in terms of, again, a multicultural, multi-faith society, often we have the ability to speak into that space that other countries don't.
I know from engaging with my American and my British colleagues in the past on many other issues, they found that in having Canada there as a voice, Canada was able to speak more freely because there wasn't maybe some of the additional baggage that they had in certain parts of the world. I certainly found that. And the Americans relied on us to be able to speak in different ways to different countries.
I and the current U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, David Saperstein, did a joint mission to Myanmar under the auspices of the international contact group, and the United States was able to use their countries-of-particular-concern approach, where they label certain countries for their violations of religious freedom. There are certain sanctions that come with that. Canada doesn't have that approach. Some might argue that we should. I never believed that that was a good approach because, in not having that sort of carrot-and-stick approach, Canada could speak about, for example, concepts such as shared citizenship, that if the Burmese and the Myanmar government want to continue to develop economically, politically, socially, you have to recognize that all of these diverse faith groups are citizens of Myanmar and need to be granted their full freedom of religion so that they can fully participate in the society. That often helped to balance maybe a stronger voice from other countries.
Senator Ngo: Nice to meet you again. We met in New York.
My question is a very easy one: What obstacles did you face as Canada's first Ambassador for Religious Freedom, and what do you think are your biggest challenges for ensuring that freedom of religion is respected throughout the world?
Mr. Bennett: There are many different ways to answer that question. I think that at times within the department, again as a result of a lack of awareness of the importance of religion in certain international contexts, there was an unwillingness to speak about religion or to acknowledge that it was the issue. So at times there were challenging conversations to be had between my office and various other parts of the department. Those conversations were largely educational in scope, reaching out to our colleagues to say, "This is why there is a security crisis in Iraq right now.'' This was after the fall of Mosul and Qaraqosh. There's a crisis, a humanitarian crisis, because these people, Yazidis, Christians, Mandeans, Shia Muslims, Sunni Muslims who refuse to accept ISIS — The problem is there because of religious persecution. What we're seeing are the humanitarian effects of that: forced migration, executions, enslavement of women and girls. Those are all a product of religious persecution. To be able to understand why that is happening and why these massive migrations are taking place, one has to understand the history of a place. One has to understand what the dynamics are between these different groups. So we worked very hard to try to break down some of the barriers that existed, but three years was not enough. I know there's an awareness in the department. Certainly, my former colleagues, whom you just met with in the previous panel, are aware of this, but there's a need for diligence in this regard.
I would say that there are no specific blocks that were ever thrown up to me in my work. I was never specifically told, "Ambassador, you can't do that.'' There are times when different aspects of our foreign policy had to be balanced, and I had to appreciate that. Was that frustrating at times? Of course. My own conscience often called me to say something, but I realized that I had to speak as the ambassador and serve the minister.
But very rarely was my conscience ever completely challenged. But I think sometimes, when engaging as diplomats, occasionally conscience is put to the side, and this is a particular challenge.
Senator Ngo: You travelled around the world, mostly to promote. What area, what region, represented the biggest challenge for you to promote that religious freedom?
Mr. Bennett: I would say there is sort of a spectrum of countries. There were countries where we could engage openly and talk frankly about religious freedom, such as Nigeria, where the government is willing to have conversations. They were willing to work with us in terms of programming. Indonesia would be another example where there was a recognition of some of the challenges for, particularly, minority communities in that country. We had a very good project with an Indonesian human rights NGO, and they went to different parts of the archipelago, documented violations of religious freedom and informed us and also informed the Indonesian government so that we could engage actively on those questions.
On the extreme end, you had countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and China where there is no discussion. There's no discussion to be had. I had one meeting with the Chinese ambassador when I was ambassador, and that was the only meeting I had.
I met with His Holiness the Dalai Lama in 2014 in Washington, and the decision was taken by the department that there should be a press release and a photo release and so forth. The Chinese did not respond well to that meeting.
Saudi Arabia is unwilling to discuss religious freedom. There is effectively no dialogue there and certainly no dialogue on the case of Raif Badawi. I was told by Saudi authorities that I was interfering in Saudi legal proceedings.
In the middle are probably a majority of countries that we engaged, where there are grave issues with religious freedom, such as in Pakistan, where I had very good, cordial meetings with Pakistani government officials in the late winter of 2014, when I was in both Islamabad and Lahore. Very cordial meetings. They listened. They understood the points that we had concerning persecution of Ahmadiyya Muslims, Shia Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Sikhs, so forth, and they gave us assurances that more would be done to try to address this area of persecution. But Pakistan is still in a very serious state.
Turkey was another example where it was very hard to have conversations with officials. Further to a point that was made in the previous panel, I was in Turkey in September of 2013, and I met with the Diyanet, the religious affairs ministry within Turkey, in Ankara. I raised a number of questions, the rights of different communities to have their seized properties returned to them, including Syriac Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic Christians, the Jewish community, Orthodox Christians, and a number of other issues. I was responded to — remember this is September 2013 — by Turkish officials, who said, "Thank you, Ambassador Bennett, for bringing these questions to our attention. Maybe we can come and help you with Quebec.'' At that time, the Quebec Charter of Values was being debated in the province. So we do have to be conscious of our own house and our own challenges that we have in Canada around human rights and religious freedom when we then go abroad to engage countries.
But there is a major difference. In countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, there is no institutional capacity or willingness to engage matters of religious freedom, whereas in Canada, when we recognize there are challenges we face in our society around human rights, there's an open discussion, an open debate; groups have recourse to Parliament, to the courts, to various institutions, and we're able to have a robust public debate on how we can better improve the rights of different individuals and communities in our country. So it is apples and oranges in some respects.
Senator Ngo: How about Vietnam? Did you have any chance?
Mr. Bennett: I was never able to get to Vietnam, unfortunately, but that was on my list for the late autumn of 2015.
The Chair: I certainly understand China, having lived there for five years in the late 1980s. Billy Graham came. They were nervous then; they are nervous now.
Just before we get to Senator Martin and Senator Omidvar, there is a lot of admiration for the work that you have done. Do you think this country should have a rethink on the profile of having an ambassador of human rights, freedoms and inclusion? You were the ambassador on religious freedoms; the position now is director general. Would that make a difference to Canada's image to the rest of the world?
Mr. Bennett: Again, as I said, Mr. Chair, the role of ambassador in many different contexts can provide a very powerful platform to advocate on behalf of different aspects of Canada's foreign policy.
As I stated in my remarks, I think we need to give some thought as to how we advance particular human rights overseas, such as religious freedom, which is still under threat. So I would leave it to senators' own deduction as to how best the government can do that.
Senator Martin: Thank you so much, Dr. Bennett. I think I last had a chance to be at an event with you at the National Prayer Breakfast and a forum around that. Today, as then, your insights are really enlightening and important for our discussion on the study.
I really want to understand what may have happened in the transition from the end of your term to what exists now. Even though it was a three-year appointment, issues and initiatives don't end neatly within that term. Would you be able to speak to the transition between your work and what is happening now? Have you had a pretty good engagement with the new team? In your three years of serving as ambassador, some of the insights you share today — I've written them down — and strategies would be very important for Canada going forward, to have greater impact in the world.
Would you be able to speak a little bit about the transition between the ending of the Office of Religious Freedom and what we have now?
Mr. Bennett: Certainly. Thank you for the question, senator.
When it became abundantly clear that the mandate of the office would not be renewed, when it came to an end in March 31, 2016, there were internal discussions within the department that I was privy to, and I made a commitment at that time, regardless of what my future held, whether it was in the department or another part of the government or outside the government, to remain and support the transition to whatever new structure the government decided to put in place.
When Mr. Arbeiter and then Ms. Natale came on board to work on religious freedom, Mr. Arbeiter was my counterpart; he was the director general. My rank was essentially director general, so we worked around the management table for a number of years. We had a very good relationship to begin with.
The new office, as it's been called, is really just the previously existing human rights bureau with another division inserted into it on inclusion and religious freedom.
That was the fundamental change that took place. The activities of the human rights bureau that was already in place, which was a parallel bureau to the Office of Religious Freedom, continued on. Mr. Arbeiter continued on as director general, and then Ms. Natale took on the role as director for inclusion and religious freedom.
So it was in that context that I remained on until the beginning of June of 2016. I worked with Ms. Natale once the government made the official announcement in May of what the new structure would be. I committed to travelling with her across the country. We went to Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver to meet with different faith communities. I introduced her to my network of contacts and allowed her to engage with them. We went down to Washington, where I co-chaired with Ambassador Saperstein the last meeting, certainly in my capacity as ambassador or as being responsible for the file, of the international contact group at the state department; and I introduced Ms. Natale at that time to Ambassador Saperstein and the staff in the Office of International Religious Freedom.
That also involved ongoing briefings on our programmatic activities, our policy work and our advocacy work, so Ms. Natale and Mr. Arbeiter were brought up to speed on everything that we'd done. That was fully in place.
Unfortunately, I was never afforded the opportunity to brief the minister on the work of the Office of Religious Freedom.
Senator Martin: The next question is my concern about the ability for this new, bigger office to have that kind of laser-focused approach, when you talk about how you wore many hats and you had to meet with several interlocutors. I see a certain advantage in what you were able to do before. It's sometimes just a sliver between these two parts that cannot quite overlap unless somebody fills that gap, and I see how you were able to do that and insert yourself in those places. This observation is the fact that when I asked about the employees and just the general diversity within the office, in a larger space it's a lot harder to get that overall hold on every detail versus what you were able to do, so that strategy of really focusing.
Will it still be possible under the new structure with certain strategies that they could use in the way that you had done it, or are we going to potentially lose that ability to really focus in on very specific areas where Canada could be?
Mr. Bennett: I wouldn't want to comment now, being outside of government, on the machinery of government and how they structure bureaus and divisions; nor would I want to opine on how they're currently delivering on the mandate they have been handed by the minister. But there are always opportunities to amplify certain aspects of a given mandate.
Based on my own experience, given that I had responsibility for engaging foreign governments on religious freedom, although there was no domestic mandate, there was a domestic overlay, and I was able to engage with different religious communities in the country, many of whom are in recent diaspora situations, to better understand what is happening overseas.
I also served as Canada's head of delegation to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which gave me a great opportunity to do work on Holocaust remembrance and education and so forth. That allowed me to interweave that line of thought and area of activity into questions around the genocide taking place currently in Iraq against Yazidis and Christians and to have a framework to address a lot of those questions.
One of the initiatives that I launched as ambassador was on the request of the Jewish community, actually. There was concern expressed amongst the Jewish community internationally and domestically about the persecution of Christians taking place in Iraq and Syria.
I reached out into the community that I knew through my work on Holocaust education and discovered that while there is a very good relationship, for example, with the Catholic Church and with different Protestant denominations, they didn't know new-to-Canada Eastern Christian churches coming from the Middle East. So I launched a dialogue between the Jewish community and the Middle Eastern Christians on how they could best address some of these challenges.
Within any given structure there are many ways to advance particular priorities. Obviously, I'm bound by a year of staying fairly arm's length from engaging my former colleagues on this matter, but I still take a keen interest.
Senator Martin: It's good that they have that experience.
You spoke of Christian persecution. Did you raise that issue in India, the treatment of Christians in India? Did that come up?
Mr. Bennett: It came up in internal conversations within the department. Again, a trip to India was in the planning stages as one of a number of trips toward the end of the office's mandate. Certainly the situation of persecution not only of Christians but also of Buddhists in some parts of the country overlaps with caste issues where you have a growing number of members of scheduled castes who convert to Christianity and Buddhism and even to Islam who then face persecution not only for their conversion but also based on caste sensitivities. The issue in India is a very complicated one. That's the nature of India. But it's something I continue to take an interest in, and I'm sure that within the department they're having discussions around that issue.
The Chair: We have about eight minutes. Senator, you take your time.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you. I appreciate that. I'm a new senator. I have not had the pleasure of sitting around the table like my colleagues have. In fact, many of the questions I wanted to ask have been asked already.
For those of us who have lived in situations of religious persecution and intolerance, as I have in Iran with my connection to the Baha'i community, I wonder if casting human rights abuses narrowly through the lens of religion misses a bigger human rights context. In my experience, organized religion and religious institutions often aspire to political power, and therefore, instead of becoming part of the solution — you know what I'm talking about, Iran and Iraq. When you talked about all of those, I don't necessarily see it as religious intolerance alone. I see it as a bigger issue of human rights violations and the exercise of political power.
I think that this new office — I forget the long title, human rights, inclusion — takes a broader framework that allows us to look at human rights in a way that is possibly more relevant in a very complex situation.
Can I get your comments on that?
Mr. Bennett: I'd like to reaffirm that when the Office of Religious Freedom was in place, we were in an active dialogue on a daily basis with the human rights bureau that Mr. Arbeiter headed up and continues to head up. We always sought to integrate that. But your point is a very valid one. There are many cases where there's religious persecution taking place where there are other types of violations happening. There are other types of persecution taking place. It can be related to a particular ethnicity; it can be related to gender. I'll give you a very concrete example.
In the case of the Central African Republic, there was over the last number of years pretty horrific violence between so-called Christian militias and so-called Muslim militias, violence that was so extreme that the local leading imam in Bangui took refuge in the home in the bishop in Bangui. He provided sanctuary for the imam, and they talked about their experience.
In the Central African Republic there was pressure from a number of different quarters, not just in government but outside government from different human rights organizations, to call this a religious persecution taking place.
But when you looked at what was actually happening on the ground, it was much more about the land rights, about entrenched tribal rivalries, about a whole range of things, but religion was being instrumentalized to present it as a religious conflict. If we had gone in there as the Office of Religious Freedom as some recommended and talked about violations, of this being a religious persecution, it would have been a bad idea, because it would have drawn attention to it as a religious situation, which it was not fundamentally.
I remember meeting with the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Douala in Cameroon, who regularly travelled to Bangui; he was here in Ottawa. I remember I said, "Your Grace, some people say this is a religious persecution. Is it religious persecution?'' And he said, "Absolutely not. These militias are using religion to persecute people for a whole range of other reasons.''
Now, that example, obviously, proves the point that you're making, senator, which I think is a very valid one. We always sought to understand the broad complexity of issues, but I think for a long time, as I said in my remarks, there has been unwillingness to talk about religion and to talk about both the positive and the negative aspects of religion. For example, just the inability at times for people to distinguish between Islam and Islamism, between Islam as a faith, practised faithfully by hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world, and Islamism, a political agenda that uses Islam in various ways to advance certain goals.
You're right. We have to be very savvy to these distinctions, but at the same time to recognize that when there is clearly religious persecution taking place, we call it that and we respond accordingly.
Senator Omidvar: There is a rise of ethnic nationalism all over the world as we are witnessing it and its connection to religion. Let me give India as an example. If you had a list of countries of concern, would India be on it because of this trend?
Mr. Bennett: It would be in the top five. I met a vice-president of the BJP at a Wilton Park event in the U.K. about a year and a half ago where he publicly, in front of many different national representatives and government representatives, said India is a Hindu nation and that these other faiths don't have a presence there historically.
It's a challenge.
The Chair: Dr. Bennett, I will echo what Senator Andreychuk just whispered to me, saying this is one of the better sessions we've had in the Human Rights Committee, with which I will wholeheartedly agree, because you have given us incredible insights again into freedoms around the world and human rights around the world.
On behalf of this committee, I sincerely want to thank you for what you have done for our country and for the department and for portraying the image of Canada as a caring country, trying to bridge gaps in a very complex world. I want to wish you well in your new work with Cardus. We thank you very much for what you have done for our country.
Mr. Bennett: Thank you very much, senator. That means a great deal to me.
(The committee adjourned.)