---

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights

Issue 1 - Evidence, May 7, 2001

---

OTTAWA, Monday, May 7, 2001

The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 5:15 p.m. to consider future business of the committee.

Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Today we will begin with the organizational work. It has become apparent that time is one of the difficulties that we will deal with. We should also discuss the expectations of this committee. We should obtain an order of reference from the Senate and the tentative budget for witnesses, et cetera. We will deal with those items.

Monday meetings pose difficulties for some committee members, so we may discuss alternative days. During the last meeting some of the members indicated that under no circum stances will the leadership allow us to consider meeting Tuesdays, Wednesdays or any time Thursday until after the Senate rises. Thus, one possible alternative could be Thursday, when the Senate rises. I suggested that sometimes the meeting could start as late as 8:00 p.m.

Senator Oliver has just made a good point. Some of us try to return to our homes for the weekends, which means that some senators fly home on Thursday nights. However, I am prepared to attend, and I am certain that other senators could accommodate us as well. Therefore, one possible day and time is Thursday, when the Senate rises.

An alternative suggestion is to convene on Mondays. However, since most of the meeting slots are estimated to be between one and one-half hours, it seems counter productive to come in for just one meeting.

The suggestion that seems to catch everyone's imagination is to sit every third or fourth week. We could sit for a substantial length of time, and hear many witnesses or hold a productive debate. In that way, we could avoid the logistical problems.It is now open now to discussion.

The Foreign Affairs Committee just implemented a block of time system that has worked well. We could set up that same system and meet from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., with lunch brought in for a one-hour break. We could accomplish a great deal if we were to convene in such a way and that could be on Mondays, every three or four weeks. Senator Ferretti Barth has suggested that that is difficult for her and she suggested a full evening on Mondays, but no earlier than 6:00 p.m. I am ready for other comments about the timing.

Senator Oliver: I prefer Senator Ferretti Barth's suggestion of Mondays from 6:00 p.m. until to 9:00 p.m.

Senator Ferretti Barth: We arrive in town, from our ridings, feeling fresh and open for discussion. Mondays would be good, because, if necessary, we could extend the meeting to more than two hours and stay until nine o'clock.

Senator Oliver: A three-hour meeting gives the people arriving from the West a better chance to make it.

Senator Beaudoin: When you said Monday do you mean the whole day?

Senator Oliver: No, we are suggesting Monday evening.

Senator Beaudoin: Did you mention 9:00 a.m. on Mondays?

The Chairman: Yes, but not every Monday. We could convene every third week and for a substantial length of time.

Senator Beaudoin: Substantial means Monday morning.

The Chairman: Okay, how about Monday afternoon?

[Translation]

Senator Ferretti Barth: I received a note from the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administra tion asking me to pay almost $1,000 because my hotel expenses were over budget. I paid. If we have to attend a committee meeting on Monday morning, I have to be here on Sunday night. This means two extra nights in my hotel room that are considered personal expenses since the Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration is not willing to cover it. I presently spend three days a week in Ottawa on Senate business. Thus, two nights are covered, but if I keep my hotel room for three or four nights, it is only partly covered. The rest is considered personal expenses.

[English]

Senator Beaudoin: Have we discarded Thursdays? I do not have a problem with Thursdays at any time, except in the afternoon. Is that a possibility?

Senator Wilson: I think it is a possibility. The only problem is that it could be as late as 8:00 p.m. I would be in favour of every third Monday, maybe from noon until 9:00 p.m.

The Chairman: Or perhaps from 2:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. The problem with Monday evening is that we sometimes sit Monday night. We are not advised of that until the week before. When we have witnesses we would have to cancel them. That could be a problem.

Senator Oliver: I did not hear what he said.

Senator Beaudoin: I would not object to Mondays from 1:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. It does not matter to me. The whole day Monday is not good for me because I teach then.

Senator Oliver: Do you teach on Monday evening?

Senator Beaudoin: Yes.

The Chairman: Because we have translation, could we have one senator speak at a time?

Senator Beaudoin: Is it possible to meet on Monday for four or five hours in the afternoon?

The Chairman: That is certainly possible.

Senator Beaudoin: It could be productive.

Senator Wilson: Not every week.

The Chairman: No, every third week or so. We will, obviously, not satisfy all senators. Having canvassed Senator Watt, Senator Poy, and Senator Finestone for their opinions, and including the rest of us, it would seem that we cannot agree on a day and time. Someone will find it difficult to accommodate. I am trying to have a little round table on this, and the steering committee will have to deal with it. I am not certain that we will come to a consensus.

As I understand it from speaking to Senator Finestone, who spoke to Senator Carstairs, they were a taken aback that we would even question moving from Monday. Second, it had not occurred to them that Thursdays could be an option. The meeting time, however, would have to be when the Senate rises, which is sometimes very late. Convening on Monday night could conflict with the Senate sitting. The suggestion favoured by most is a lengthy meeting on Mondays.

Senator Wilson: That is the alternative that I would suggest.

Senator Beaudoin: If we sit every three weeks, for five hours, on Mondays, I would agree with that provided that it is in the afternoon. At night would be more difficult for me.

The Chairman: We know that it would be a problem for Senator Ferretti Barth.

Senator Oliver: Would that be a problem every week?

[Translation]

Senator Ferretti Barth: I suggested coming on Mondays at 6:00 p.m. or, as the Chair just said, every third Monday of the month. Otherwise, we would have to sit two or three times a month. What can I do? On Thursday night, after the Senate rises, I can stay till midnight, but on Friday, I have my television program. This is a commitment I have had for eleven years. I do not want to be financially penalized this year because I have to stay in Ottawa an extra night.

[English]

The Chairman: If no one has anything else to say, I think the way to proceed is to have the steering committee put forward two proposals. We know the various problems, and we will see where the majority numbers come forward.

Senator Oliver: May I suggest that all senators provide their optimum times for meetings on Mondays and Thursdays, and submit that information to Senator Andreychuk before she prepares the proposal?

The Chairman: It would have to be Thursdays, when the Senate rises.

Senator Oliver: What about Mondays and Thursdays? Those are the only two days, and we should have that information so that we can put forward the two proposals.

Senator Kinsella: On Mondays, it must be before 8:00 p.m., because, for example, Senate will probably sit the next couple of Mondays beginning at 8:00 p.m.

Senator Wilson: It appears to me that every member will not be able to make every meeting. That has happened before.

Senator Kinsella: If we could meet for four hours on Mondays, between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., it would allow people to travel on Monday mornings or people from Toronto could take the three p.m. flight.

The Chairman: We do not have members from Toronto on this committee.

Senator Wilson: I can come at any time.

The Chairman: For example, 4:00 p.m. means that I have to travel on Sunday night. I will make that commitment. It does not matter to Senator Watt, because he has to fly on Sunday anyway.

Senator Oliver: There is a solution. We could have the meetings up North on Monday mornings.

The Chairman: Is there a tendency to say that we would not meet every week, but that we would have a substantial block of time every third or fourth week?

Senator Oliver: Agreed.

Senator Kinsella: Great idea.

The Chairman: That time frame should be noted. We have an agreement that the steering committee will look at a block of time every third week, more or less. We will put out a schedule and canvass the best possible time, given the constraints that the leadership has put on us.

Senator Beaudoin: When you say every three weeks, what are the implications for the month of January and the summer months?

The Chairman: There would be none in those months.

Senator Beaudoin: No sittings?

The Chairman: The next couple of months will be difficult, because we are just starting up. It is a question of accommodating witnesses, et cetera. I am not too preoccupied with May or June. I want to put out a schedule that will coincide with the parliamentary schedule for the fall, at least. In that way, you will know exactly which days we will convene and you can plan ahead.

Senator Beaudoin: Is it the parliamentary calendar?

The Chairman: Exactly. If they then cancel us, which they sometimes do, or bring us back early, we will suffer that, as all committees do. However, we will stick to the parliamentary calendar and we will put it out then.

Senator Oliver: You have suggested that you will not do anything in the months of May or June. I would hope that we could hear from people such as Warren Allmand, Ed Broadbent and others.

The Chairman: I am sorry if that is what I implied, because I did not mean that. I meant that I will not be too rigid about trying to set every third or fourth Monday, because we have only two more months in the session. I am hopeful that we will sit and accomplish something in May and June, but it will not be as fine-tuned as it will be in the fall. That is the point that I tried to make.

Senator Oliver: I would like to see us begin with a witness such as Warren Allmand or Ed Broadbent to paint an overview based on their experiences. I would like them to talk about human rights in Canada and in the world to highlight some of the issues for us. We had an excellent presentation in the Committee of the Whole the other day but there are others we should hear in this committee. That would be my suggestion.

Senator Wilson: I would like to hear from Mr. Broadbent or Warren Allmand and maybe Peter Leuprecht from Montreal. These people are individuals with international and domestic experience. Perhaps we could bring in the others a little later. I am concerned about setting up a broad canvas so that we do not limit ourselves. I do not want to have to rely solely on case studies.

The Chairman: I want to finish this portion of today's meeting. Do we have a consensus that the steering committee will canvass the members and bring back a proposal? Will we allow the steering committee to set the time? If you are willing to go that far, I would appreciate it.

Senator Wilson: Do you know everyone's preferred time? Can't you set it?

The Chairman: No, because Senator Poy and Senator Finestone said that they prefer Mondays and they want a block of time, but we did not discuss the option of Monday evenings.

Senator Oliver: My suggestion is that you ask people to give you their times and once you have them, you can set the day and time.

The Chairman: Based on that canvas, will you give the steering committee the authority to set the time?

Senator Beaudoin: There is one factor that we did not speak of. It refers to when the Senate sits on Monday night which happens from time to time.

The Chairman: We have already discussed that.

Senator Oliver: Senator Kinsella just said that it will happen within the next three weeks; we will meet at 8:00 p.m. on Monday.

The Chairman: I heard that we must be finished by 8:00 p.m. on Monday. Therefore, the time block must be earlier than that. The steering committee will make the decision, then, after everyone has been canvassed.

Senator Wilson: If you have a revolt, you will have to deal with it.

The Chairman: That is right.

[Translation]

Senator Ferretti Barth: I do not feel very comfortable with this. If we only sit every third Monday of the month, the time period from one meeting to the next may be too long.

[English]

Perhaps, if you want to make a suggestion, you will have to wait possibly three weeks before the committee meets again

[Translation]

I think it is really important that we meet every week. I am confident we can accomplish a lot if we sit every Monday from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. If a majority of members prefer a block of time every third week, I will go along, but I really think that our meetings should not be that much apart.

[English]

Senator Kinsella: We will leave it in the hands of the steering committee to decide.

On another topic, could the research staff of this committee do a documentation gathering and circulate them to the members? I would like to have a copy of Canada's most recent submission to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations that is responsible for the implementation of the economic, social and cultural rights covenant. That is one document that I would like to have circulated. It is the latest report of Canada under ECOSOC. If there are commentaries by the Human Rights Committee on that report, we would like to have those as well.

The second document would be the latest report submitted by Canada to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations that enforces the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Again, if there are commentaries by the Human Rights Committee, we will want those as well.

Third, we would also like to obtain the summary documents of activities from the European Commission of Human Rights.

The Chairman: Which commission do you mean? The Council of Europe?

Senator Kinsella: It is the European Convention of Human Rights, which has a European Commission of Human Rights. There is another council called the European Social Council, which administers the European Social Charter. Either the commission or the secretariat of the Council of Europe can make those documents available.

Any summary documents that are available from the Human Rights Commission of the Organization of American States would also be appreciated.

We already have the domestic report from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which, by the way, I thought was an excellent committee of the whole.

The Chairman: That is a good lead into what I wanted to talk about. That is how we will proceed, if we can ever set our meeting day and time. I am told by the clerk that we should try to structure some terms of reference and a plan of action, before we adjourn in June. Much of that preparatory work can be done before we adjourn. To help us with the terms of reference, I have considered calling a number of witnesses to update us. We need to obtain information from people such as the Director of Human Rights at DFAIT. The Department of Justice has an international section, a local section and a national section on the Charter and other human rights issues.

Professor Toope, former Dean of the Faculty of Law at McGill University, came to discuss some of the dilemmas involved in human rights issues. His overview could be very helpful. Perhaps we could obtain the paper or call him to attend.

Dean Leuprecht, who, in 1999, succeeded Professor Toope as Dean of Faculty of Law at McGill University, worked on structuring human rights issues within the Department of Justice. In fact, he was the one called upon to try to deal with this mandate. He would be helpful. Senator Oliver mentioned that Warren Allmand and Ed Broadbent would also be helpful.

I will put my personal preference on the table. It seems to me that if this committee is to have any validity, it has to tie its mandate to what Parliament can do. We need to determine how we can move the machinery - the systems and the human rights issues - further in both a national and global way. However, we must, at the same time, tie that to the parliamentary process. It seems to me that we should choose to work on an area of national concern as one plan of action.Another plan of action could be to work on the interface of national and international human rights. The third plan could be of an international scope. At the end of all the experts' presentations we could determine one area that we want to work on and develop three areas for our plan of action. We could finish the paperwork and the background work. We all have some experience and expertise in the area of human rights. We are also all interested in the issues. We need to bring all the papers together so that we have the summer to read them.

I would like to hear from all members as to whether that kind of structure suits them. Senator Finestone and I have spoken, and she is in agreement.

I am less concerned about which areas we study than the need to study the interface of the international and national. We cannot proceed without obtaining an order of reference. I am guided by the table and we should ask for a general order of reference to study human rights. I would then say to senators that we need this general reference so that we can empanel witnesses to help us structure our terms of reference and our work plan. It would be a short, broad and general meeting for the next couple months.

Our clerk suggested that we report no later than October 31, 2001. My target would be no later than the end of June, if possible. However, we always need that "stretch." If we put a deadline of October 31, I have no problem with that, but I am hopeful that we could complete the first portion more quickly than that.

That is the kind of outline that Senator Finestone and I discussed, and now it is open to the members for further discussion.

Senator Beaudoin: There is one point that worries me and it is the influence that international law and international treaties has on our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have a few Supreme Court decisions that deal with it, but they are a bit timid. I have one proposition to make and that is we study the influence of international law.Even further than that I think we have to study the influence of international treaties on our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This, to me, is of the greatest interest. We have some 400 cases on the Charter of Rights, and most of them are internal. However, the scope should be wider than that, and I would like to see international law involved. That is my proposition.

The Chairman: We should obtain Professor Toope's paper to the parliamentary human rights group, because that is exactly the point he touched on. It would be very interesting to see whether you agree with his assessment of some of those cases.

Senator Wilson: Those papers are on the way. They are being sent to my office.

Senator Kinsella: I certainly endorse the proposed terms of reference, which I would hope we would vote on this evening. Thus, this would be an order of reference given by the Senate this week.

I like what you said, chair, about the interface of this committee in terms of Parliament and what we can do in Parliament. I believe that the most important thing we can do is interface with the federal, provincial and territorial committees responsible for human rights in Canada. This is not a well-known organization, but it is the most important. This is about the machinery of government that is in place. It is the outgrowth of a federal, provincial and territorial ministers' conference for the ministers who are responsible for human rights law in Canada.

The lead federal minister is the Minister of Canadian Heritage, not the Minister of Justice. When they hold the ministerial meetings, the federal government is represented by the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and sometimes, the Minister of Human Resources Development. However, the lead minister is the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Sometimes it is the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Labour. Sometimes there is a special minister that the provinces designate for human rights. That ministerial conference meets quite rarely. I believe that the last meeting might have been 10 years ago.

However, the continuing committee is made up of officials and is called, technically, the Federal Provincial Territorial Committee of Officials Responsible for Human Rights Law in Canada, which meets regularly. It is chaired by the senior official from Heritage Canada. That committee carried out the negotiations across Canada, studying the two international covenants, and reached agreement with all the provinces. That allowed Canada to deposit the instrument of ratification. That committee has been studying, for over 10 years now, the Inter-American Convention of Human Rights, but no agreement has been reached.

That committee is a committee of the bureaucracy both federal and provincial. I should think that it would be helpful to have those officials appear before us at the earliest possible moment, because they can show us the work that they are actually doing. Of course, Parliament provides the oversight, so we need to ask them what they are doing also. They meet about twice each year and the next meeting should be in early June.

Senator Wilson: It is in Whitehorse.

Senator Kinsella: Is it?

The Chairman: It is on Monday in Whitehorse.

Senator Kinsella: They are in Canada. The most important ministry in terms of machinery of government is the Department of Canadian Heritage. They coordinate the preparation of the reports with the provincial and federal departments. I should think that a briefing from them would be invaluable and profitable for us.

Senator Oliver: That is an excellent idea.

The Chairman: Yes, it is.

Senator Wilson: I agree with most of what was just said by senators, in particular the comments by Senator Kinsella.

When I hosted a conference of NGOs on human rights two years ago, we became aware of the bureaucrats who have the input into Canada's report. I pursued them avidly. They would not meet with the NGOs, but they met with me alone. The meeting is in Whitehorse.

I support your suggestion.

We must understand the provincial input because when Canada goes to the UN, the federal government says that it is a provincial matter, so nothing happens. We need to understand that.

We are senators drawn from various regions and provinces, which gives double impetus to Senator Kinsella's suggestion. I know what Ontario does. I don't know what other provinces do. However, they block a lot of stuff at the provincial level.

Senator Oliver: Really?

Senator Wilson: Yes. I would be very interested if over the summer the research people could give us a chart of which conventions and treaties are coming up for review in the next year. I do hope that our subject matter is current. For example, how does the South African conference on anti-racism dovetail with the covenant that we signed? There are many things that we could study. I am making a pitch that, for goodness sake, let us be current in what we are doing.

The Chairman: When I was human rights permanent representative, it was difficult to determine what we had signed. There are approximately 4,000 international agreements.

You can track them quite easily on the trade side. They know exactly what they have signed. In all other areas, it is difficult to find which agreements exist.

I made a statement in the Senate in September 2000 stating that the United Nations has collected all of its agreements and covenants from the ILO, WHO, and human rights into one booklet. We all should have a copy of it. This was the first time that the UN could say just how many covenants fall under their auspices. I would like the Department of Justice and Heritage Department to inform us how they handle the tracking of covenants and explain the machinery of how the Canadian government looks at human rights.

I strongly suspect, having been on the covenant of the children committee to which you, Senator Kinsella, was not meeting often. They dealt with the covenant on children in its preliminary state. Everyone was in agreement with what the federal government was saying. Their next meetings were not on that issue.

We were in a position to sign it, yet provinces were saying that they have not been consulted. The federal government was saying that they had been consulted and showed what had been agreed upon. The provinces claimed that the time had elapsed, and, as a result, no longer felt bound by it.

I think that there is much we can look at. We need to listen to at all the witnesses that we want to bring together. I propose that we have a steering committee. The names of some potential witnesses were submitted today. How many more can we hear from? We could determine who we would hear from and that could help us to determine our mandate.

Senator Wilson: We need a road map of what is coming up next. The one on women impacts almost every other covenant including the American Convention on Human Rights and the debate about abortion.

I would not like that we hastily decide one thing or the other until we get the map.

The Chairman: That explains the caution of our clerk. I said that by the end of June we should know where we are going. He said that we should give ourselves to the end of October to be up to speed.

Senator Wilson: I have asked if there is any coordination of the provincial reports. I was told that it is not allowed. The provinces send in the reports. The reports are assembled and forwarded. It is mishmash. There is no coordination in Canada's response.

Senator Oliver: This committee has the power to call those reports.

Senator Kinsella: This is the official committee.

The Chairman: In fairness, we should hear out the officials to determine how it works and determine the impediments. I see our role as making suggestions and recommendations to improve the systematic application of attention to human rights.

Senator Oliver: I want to speak to the order of reference draft before us. When I was chairman of a committee, I presented an order of reference in the Senate that was as open, vague and broad as the one before us. I was criticized. It was noted that the order of reference was too vague and surely my committee had some idea of what it wanted to study.

A plan this wide open does not show much sense of focus. I do not care what it says. I am alerting you that we may be subject to criticism because of its vagueness. The stated purpose is far too broad.

My second comment is that I hope this committee will look at human rights in trade. Canadian politicians repeatedly ask, during debates in the House of Commons and Senate, what will be done in other countries in relation to human rights violations and trade. This issue has come up concerning China and other countries. However, it does not matter which country is the topic of debate, or which party is addressing it. The point is that the subject is always broached. Up to this point no one has yet mentioned Sudan. That country should be on our radar screen because it is more than topical.

Finally, every Senate committee should have reference to the development of good public policy for Canada. I am not saying anything different from Senator Kinsella and our chair. To do a study for the sake of doing one or because it is interesting or intriguing, is one thing. However, we should hope that our recommendations, after hearing witness and doing the study, influence the Government of Canada into making better public policy. I hope that we would not lose sight of that.

The Chairman: The Foreign Affairs Committee grappled with human rights and trade in their Asia-Pacific study.

Senator Oliver: I recognize that.

The Chairman: There is interplay with the codes of conduct that governments and businesses should have, and how they are interrelated.

Senator Oliver: Even Senator Stewart did not agree.

The Chairman: We did agree in the end. We spent much time on the topic, and we agreed in broad generalities. It was not helpful beyond the statement that human rights and trade are part of foreign policy. Prior to that, we did not state that they were part of foreign policy. These are all good suggestions.

Senator Oliver: Senator Finestone, we have met for an hour and have decided that there is not much for us to discuss. Therefore, we are not so sure that we really need a committee.

Senator Finestone: I take the opportunity to first apologize for being late. Before the committee time had been set my staff organized a briefing with 15 people from different departments. I tried to change the briefing but it was not possible.

Have you entered discussion on the concerns of our other colleague, Senator Poy?

The Chairman: We have spent most of our time wrestling down meeting times. I will try to convey what was said. The preference tends toward having a block of time. The steering committee must wrestle this down. I will you bring up to date. Some members must leave so I do not want to go over it now. However, it looks like Monday is the preferred day. We need to decide whether it will be 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. or 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. We should canvas each member specifically and ask that each give a first choice and an alternate choice. You and I can discuss that.

The second topic that I did not touch upon was the one that you and I had discussed concerning Senator Poy being the third member of the steering committee. Would like to move that now? It would be appropriate.

Senator Finestone: I so move, that Senator Poy be the third member of the steering committee. I hope that I have approval and support.

The Chairman: We have agreed to that.

Senator Finestone: I am glad that Senator Kinsella is here. Perhaps he could clarify the plans. I have asked whether the blocks of time that we were discussing could be facilitated given the problem with the clerks and research and library staff. I was told that this committee and the Defence Committee would be struck given two conditions.

The first condition is that the committee would sit on Mondays or Fridays. Otherwise, it would create a problem of availability of appropriate staff. I noted that two of the members can not come on Mondays because of their airline schedules. Senator Watt's plane does not arrive in time. There is no way for him to get here. There is a possibility that he will have to be replaced if the committee chooses to meet on Monday.

I asked Senator Watt if there was a way that he could leave Ottawa on Friday so that we could meet on Thursday evenings. I was informed that that Senate could sit until 6:00 p.m. or later. Is that accurate?

There was not much enthusiasm for a move to Thursday evenings. Regardless of whether it goes to the executive committee, I would presume that the Conservative Party would feel the same way.

The Chairman: Senator Finestone, I made your case for you. Our case is that it must be Monday or Friday, with a possibility of Thursday. I am mindful that some members need to leave. We have been given the mandate to deal with that.

We are now talking about a preliminary order of reference which has a broad reference to study human rights. In this way, we could initiate calling witnesses to narrow the terms of reference of our study. We have gone around the table identifying certain officials and witnesses from whom we wish to hear. I can bring you up to date on that. There have been some excellent suggestions and there seems to be agreement about whom we should call to get the ball rolling.

Senator Kinsella: I want to pick up where Senator Oliver left off in terms of the wording of this proposed order of reference. I think that he is quite correct in warning us to be more specific. If we added after the word and, inter alia to review the machinery of government which deals with Canadian international human rights obligations, it would make the order of reference more specific.

Senator Oliver: I like it.

The Chairman: I would question the meaning of international. Could we not say human rights because you want to call Warren Allmand, et cetera. Do you want to deal only with national issues or international as well?

Senator Oliver: International as well.

Senator Beaudoin: The last point would be with Canada human rights.

Senator Finestone: International.

The Chairman: Could we put international/national?

Senator Kinsella: Or leave out the word international.

The Chairman: I like international/national.

Senator Beaudoin: I think that international should be there.

The Chairman: It is important to advise the Senate that we are seeking this reference to enable ourselves to come up to speed.

I began by saying that it is important that this committee focus on being parliamentarians and therefore, in that capacity, try to determine what way Parliament is able to further the cause of human rights. Senator Oliver picked up on that and said that the focus should be on public policy development. We should be making recommendations on improvements to public policy. That is the focus that I would speak to. Then we could get down to a plan of action.

Senator Finestone: On a point of information to Senator Oliver and everyone else, we want to be careful that the Foreign Affairs Committee does not think that we are trying to step on their toes. I wonder if this is an incentive for them to raise the hackles on the back of their necks. Do we need to be more specific?

I am sorry to keep referring to you, Senator Kinsella, but I know that you had many negotiations in this committee. Was that part of the discussion? Was there concern that we might look at something that moved into the mandate of the other committees?

Senator Kinsella: I do not think that it will. We have the vice-chairman of that committee here. She could speak to it.

The Chairman: Foreign Affairs has spoken with me. The Foreign Affairs Committee will have no problem with this committee because there is so much to be done. We should keep the information flowing to ensure that we do not encroach on the mandate of Foreign Affairs.

One member of Foreign Affairs did note that there is some overlap. Neither the leadership nor the other members of that committee have that concern. I have been able to discuss it with the member who recognized the overlap. I do not believe that we should be preoccupied with that concern.

Senator Finestone: That is fine. I just wanted to ensure there would not be a problem.

[Translation]

Senator Ferretti Barth: Since the committee sits that late in the year and listening to other senators' concerns, I have to admit that I agree with them. I am wondering if we should not focus on domestic rather than international issues. We have many problems to consider, like physical and mental disability, access to services and employment, racism and visible minorities, women and children in poverty and living conditions of our First Nations.

Senator Finestone introduced a bill on the right to privacy that I consider very important. International issues are complex and I think we should concentrate on our nation's problems first.

[English]

Senator Wilson: My understanding is that many people are mentioned in Canada's international obligations and in the report that the UN sends back to Canada. I refer to people with disabilities, people in poverty and aboriginal peoples. It is important to keep the international dimension in our mandate in order to look more closely at our own domestic situation.

If you begin with domestic issues you will never get to the topic of our international obligations. Senator Kinsella has phrased it nicely. We should canvas Canada's international and national human rights obligations.

Senator Oliver: We should request those documents as well.

The Chairman: We all recognize that many international obligations are of national concern.

[Translation]

Senator Finestone: Senator Ferretti Barth, you are right to be concerned with these matters which affect all Canadians.

When we are criticized by the UN, UNESCO and others, when we go from first to thirtieth place among the best countries of the world because in some cases too many of our women and children live in poverty, this is bad. When we talk about single-parent women, once again, we do not rank very high. At the international level, Canada is badly criticized for its treatment of Native people. I cannot say they are serious, but they are right. This is how you question human rights issues. These are matters that concern Canada. Canada has a responsibility to answer these questions. The government receives questionnaires that it com pletes and sends back, but no one looks at the answers.

Senator Ferretti Barth: The committee should look at them.

Senator Finestone: But no one has a mandate to dot it. This is why it was considered to be a good idea in the field of human rights, particularly in the areas you just mentioned. It is bad for Canada and its reputation. We could look at the reports sent to the UN and other international fora and get some information from witnesses. This includes the areas of immigration, refugees and citizenship. Work could be done on both the domestic and the international level. We have to closely watch what happens here while keeping an eye on what is taking place elsewhere. How can some poorer countries be more advanced than we are?

Senator Kinsella: I fully agree with Senator Ferretti Barth that Canadian human rights issues are important. However, as Senator Finestone just said, international agreements define the standards to be applied. For example, we have in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly in section 15, a rule about discriminating against people with disabilities. Why? Because when the Charter was drafted in 1980, it was the International Year for Disabled Persons. There is a direct link between international human rights issues and everyday life in Canada. Take, for example, Senator Finestone's valuable work on privacy. Our Charter does not explicitly protect privacy, but international agreements do. We use international instruments for the benefit of Canadians.

I agree with the point you are making about the importance of human rights in Canada, but we can use international standards and criteria to promote these rights. There is a compromise to be made here.

Senator Beaudoin: I want to get back to this point because the UN badly criticized Canada after the Lovelace case. It was terrible. The Supreme Court published its decision - a very poor one, in my opinion - in the Labelle case.

Canada has the best constitution in the world, particularly in the area of equality of men and women. Section 28 is the best provision on equality of men and women not only in Canada but in the whole world. Why don't we have that equality yet? I want to work on both fronts at the same time. We simply cannot separate domestic from international, or we will be criticized again just as we were because of the Lovelace case. It would be wrong to focus only on domestic matters, because we would always have problems. We would never have time for interna tional law. We must consider both.

[English]

We must study both at the same time.

The Chairman: We must remember that human rights are just that, human rights. They are neither national nor international issues. My dignity, my need for freedom of expression, is mine. It is not defined as national or international. The problem is that we have responsibilities and machinery that fall into the categories of national and international. Therefore, we need to continue to study how they work together, and how we can improve one or the other or both.

It may be that national things must be changed to improve the lot of women. Sometimes you can go internationally to work together, collegially, to push for change that affects Canadians. It is a dynamic that moves. It is not one or the other, but both at the same time.

Senator Wilson: There are seven issues before the UN in which they have said that Canada is not fulfilling its international obligations. The Lovelace case is an example.

Senator Finestone: Would you explain the Lovelace case, please?

Senator Kinsella: I am able to explain because I wrote the case!

The Lovelace case dealt with the problem of section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act. The act stated that if an Indian woman married a non-Indian she would loose her status. If her twin brother married a Swede, the Swede became an Indian. It was pure sex discrimination. As Senator Beaudoin said, that case went to the Supreme Court of Canada. The standard used was the Canadian Bill of Rights. The court decided five votes to four votes that it was acceptable if the Parliament wished it.

Sandra Lovelace was from the Kespek nation living up the Saint John River valley in New Brunswick. She had married an American air force pilot at Limestone, Maine and had moved to California.The marriage broke down, and she returned to her nation where her grandfather had been the chief. She was told that she was no longer an Indian and could not move on to the reserve.

We wrote a complaint with some students. It is referred to as a communication. It was written under the optional protocol in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It was declared admissible.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee found Canada to be in breach of our international obligation, not because of sex discrimination but because of section 28 of the covenant. That section states that everyone has a right to live in their minority community and speak their language, et cetera.

Prime Minister Trudeau was quite delighted that Canada was brought onto the carpet. He had told me that he had not been able to make any progress with the native brotherhood. They were caught up with the citizenship stuff. Canada having been condemned. The Prime Minister said that the law needed to be changed so that Canada would not be considered a pariah in the international community.

Bill C-31 was introduced and passed. Indian women began to enjoy human rights.

Senator Beaudoin: The first amendment was designed to give equality to the women in the Aboriginal community.

The Chairman: That remains an issue to this day.

Senator Wilson: Heritage rights do not go to the daughters.

Senator Beaudoin: No.

Senator Finestone: The rights go to daughters but not to granddaughters. I took Bill C-31 through the House of Commons.

Senator Wilson: As I was saying, the Lovelace case is only one of seven.

Senator Beaudoin: It is the worst.

Senator Wilson: No. The most recent of which I have much correspondence is the question of funding of Ontario Catholic schools. All the other religious communities are now requesting funding. There are seven cases.

It occurs to me that among the upcoming witnesses we should have someone who could represent the provincial Human Rights Commissions. They have their act together. I have been at several symposia where the provinces are beginning to compare what they do. It would be important for all of us to understand their relationship to this human rights issue.

The Chairman: They have concerns that we shouldunderstand.

Senator Kinsella: Would we not want to invite a witness from the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies?

The Chairman: Are we gaining consensus that we have a full plate and need to bring ourselves up to speed. We have a reference that we need to pass. Is there a mover, or do we need to read it again as it was amended?

Senator Oliver: I move, as amended.

Mr. Till Heyde, Clerk of the Committee: It will state: "The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights be authorized to examine issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations and the committee report to the Senate no later than October 31, 2001."

The Chairman: Do we have agreement?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Incidentally, I would suggest that the steering committee meet this week, now that we have Senator Poy and Senator Finestone. I would ask all members to submit any other suggestions for witnesses in this phase. We have some excellent ideas. We would appreciate any other suggestions as to who else might be helpful in providing us with information, knowledge or suggestions on how this parliamentary committee could go about its work. That would be most helpful.

We have a small budget that we are required to pass. Has it been circulated?

Mr. Heyde: You must vote on it for the situation of consideration of legislation.

The Chairman: We must vote on the budget. Witnesses that we would call to Ottawa would receive reimbursement. The committee does not contemplate travelling.

Senator Beaudoin: Who will pay?

The Chairman: The committees branch pays for witnesses of committees, so we do not need money for that. If we do foresee expenses, we will need to develop a budget.

Mr. Heyde: There are two processes for budgets in the Senate. If the special study to which you have agreed is approved by the Senate, I would bring together a new budget after the order of reference is approved. The budget before you is only for use if legislation is referred to the committee. For example, we could order dinner if committee needed to meet in the evening to examine a bill. It is a small budget.

Senator Finestone: Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Given the hours that are being discussed for committee meetings, it is most likely going to be an evening meeting. You will certainly need to provide food. I do not know how you will purchase food for committee meetings of some frequency in the evening on a $4,000 budget.

The Chairman: No, the budget before us is if legislation were to be brought before us. We first obtain the reference. We then decide the meeting time slot. After that, we approach the Internal Economy Committee. That is the process. We cannot ask for the budget before we get the reference.

Senator Beaudoin: Will we be brought legislation?

The Chairman: No, but every standing committee is obliged to put something like this forward.

Senator Beaudoin: Perhaps, we will never have legislation.

The Chairman: Of course. It is a standard procedure. It is contemplated that the work would be apportioned out. We could receive legislation. We must be ready to move immediately. Hence, this is Internal Economy Committee giving us advice to do it this way.

Senator Wilson: I so move.

The Chairman: Are we in agreement?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Do we have any other business that we want to discuss?

Senator Finestone: There was a question regarding Friday. If Friday became the meeting day who would pay for our lodging on Thursday night? I would claim that that is covered within the monies already available to parliamentarians. We are to be available from Monday to Friday. We have a per diem that covers our Thursday night lodging. Is that not accurate?

The Chairman: Yes. Every standing committee and every special committee works on those rules.

As I say, I hope that the committee will have some tolerance with the steering committee in the next month or two. It would have been nice to start this committee when there was much more time.

I am hearing that the House of Commons may end earlier than currently scheduled. We are being told that the Senate will be receiving a large amount of legislation, much of it controversial. As we know, that last period of time prior to summer is always the most frenetic period in the Senate. We will need to do the best that we can on this committee. Hopefully, the steering committee will establish terms of reference and a plan over the summer. We will complete some work. We will forward some documents to you in order that we can begin to explore the issues and not just procedural matters next fall.

Thank you.

The committee adjourned.

---