SHUR Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

SOUS-COMITÉ DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 17, 1999

• 1540

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): I call to order the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

We've all been anxiously waiting to get this show on the road, so to speak. What I think we will do is I'm going to propose an agenda meeting soon after Easter to approve a work plan. I know that many of you have requests from different groups wishing to appear before the committee, and we should probably have an agenda meeting to work this out.

Minister Axworthy suggests that the department would appreciate work on human security in Africa. I've asked Jim Lee to prepare a proposal, and perhaps we can look at that at that time as well. I think we all have different ideas on what we want to deal with on the committee, but I think after having met with the minister we're very likely to get a great deal of cooperation if we... Not that we won't get it otherwise, but I think the sign and the suggestion was out there that the government would like to have a study on Africa and human security.

The Department of Foreign Affairs has held annual consultations with NGOs in preparation for the UN Commission on Human Rights. The consultations were held in Ottawa two weeks ago. I think everyone has a copy of the minister's speech. Today we have the department here.

Adèle Dion, welcome. We're looking forward to this meeting.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): We were told that Kerry Buck would be accompanying Madam Dion.

The Chair: I am told that she has had a family emergency and wasn't able to be here today.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Okay, thanks. Give her our best.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Dion.

Ms. Adèle Dion (Acting Director General, Global and Human Issues Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It's a real pleasure to be here today and meet again with a group of familiar faces who are very interested in the subject matter.

The consultations, as you indicated, took place a couple of weeks ago. There were about 250 people present, representing over a hundred Canadian non-governmental organizations. And that was in spite of the weather that day, which included snow, rain, and fog. It was a bit of a challenge. We felt quite flattered that we had such a large turnout.

The two-day session began with an opening statement by Minister Axworthy, which has been circulated. That was followed by a statement from the Network on International Human Rights. In general, there was a good degree of convergence between the Department of Foreign Affairs and human rights NGOs on the international agenda and priorities that Canada should be pursuing. However, there are always differences of opinion on approaches, strategies, and perhaps most importantly the timetable for achieving our objectives. This, combined with some points of disagreement, ensures a very lively discussion every year.

The agenda for the consultations is discussed and agreed on by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the NGO network prior to the consultations, including resolving questions such as the country situations and the thematic issues that will be discussed; the length of individual interventions; lead speakers on each item; and topics for smaller, more focused round table discussions.

• 1545

At the conclusion of the consultations, both sides report back to their respective organizations, NGO representatives to their full membership and Department of Foreign Affairs officials to their senior managers, ministers, and our posts overseas.

On the government side, the recommendations, suggestions, and concerns raised during the consultations influence not only the policy positions and objectives for our participation in Geneva at the Commission on Human Rights, but also international human rights policy more generally, both bilaterally and multilaterally. My division at the Department of Foreign Affairs, the human rights division, also reports back to the NGO community on the outcomes of the commission, the objectives that were achieved, and the progress that was made on various agenda items. This happens in May, immediately following the conclusion of the Commission on Human Rights.

What perhaps I might do is just touch briefly on the highlights of the two days, and then perhaps we could invite questions.

The first day is dedicated to discussion of specific country situations. The countries discussed are of two kinds: those that are on the agenda of the Commission on Human Rights, and a number of other countries, which are identified and agreed to jointly between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the NGO network. This of course is always a delicate balancing act, because there are a large number of concerns and priorities, and it's difficult to maintain an agenda we can get through with the existing time constraints.

In each instance, for each situation on the agenda, there is a lead speaker, either on the NGO side or on the Department of Foreign Affairs side. Again, who leads on which items is decided before the consultations begin. This year there were smaller, what we call round table events, but which might also be called break-outs or smaller working sessions on two country situations: the situation in the Great Lakes region of Africa—of course that's Rwanda, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of Congo—and a second session on Mexico.

The second day of the consultations we had a round table discussion on religious freedom and religious intolerance. The second day of the consultations in general is dedicated to discussion of thematic human rights issues as they appear on the commission's agenda. I won't go through the whole list. If there are specific items of interest, I'd be happy to speak to them.

In general, the priority issues for Canada are reform of the work of the commission and its mechanisms to promote greater efficiency and effectiveness; freedom of opinion and expression—and this includes as well freedom of the media and issues surrounding human rights and the Internet; impunity; violence against women and the integration of the human rights of women into the work of the UN; religious freedom and religious intolerance; rights of the child; rights of indigenous peoples; human rights defenders, by which we mean NGOs, non-state actors who are promoting and protecting human rights; and finally, this year a new agenda item, preparation for a world conference on racism, which will take place in 2001.

• 1550

Just very briefly, on the commission itself, the UN Commission on Human Rights takes place this year in Geneva from March 22 to April 30. Canada is an active player on most of the commission agenda items and is regarded as a leader in shaping the work of the commission. We make a concerted effort, in addition to working with our western group colleagues, to build bridges with developing countries and countries from other regional groups.

The main objectives for this year's commission are to promote development of effective UN mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights and to press for the fullest possible use of those mechanisms to address problems worldwide. To this end, the main priority for Canada this year will be institutional reform of the commission itself. We will use as the starting point for our discussions at the commission a review of the work of the commission and a report with recommendations that was submitted by last year's bureau—the bureau being the small management committee that actually manages the work of the commission. Canada will take the lead on five resolutions and deliver up to seven statements on a variety of human rights concerns and technical issues.

International and national NGOs participate actively throughout the commission in CHR debates as official observers with speaking and floor-lobbying privileges in their own right. Many Canadian NGOs have such independent status and closely monitor the actions taken by Canada, including reporting back daily to their organizations and their members here in Canada. The official Canadian delegation has traditionally worked very closely and in close partnership with Canadian NGOs. We get together daily for briefing strategy sessions. We also tend to encourage NGOs to assist us in lobbying for our objectives, including lobbying on Canadian texts of resolutions such as freedom of opinion and expression and violence against women—these being two resolutions we actually draft and take the lead in negotiating.

We have found over a number of years that this very effective cooperation between Canadian NGOs and officials on the delegation is a real asset in terms of achieving our objectives and increasing understanding and awareness generally of what we're trying to achieve.

Perhaps I'll stop there. I would be happy to answer any questions on specific items.

The Chair: Madam Debien, did you have a question?

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Yes.

[English]

The Chair: I don't have a list here.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: Madame Dion, thank you for being with us today. You've described for us the process and mechanisms that have been implemented as a follow-up of the consultations by the Department with the NGOs before the next session of the Human Rights Commission which will be held in Geneva in a few days.

• 1555

You've indicated to us the Minister's agenda, i.e. his objectives and priorities which he described in his speech. Madame Speaker, I would have liked if we had invited a representative of an NGO. Could we do so at a later date? We have the Minister's point of view and it would also be interesting to have the NGOs' opinion as well after the consultations with the Minister. Madame Dion indicated to us very clearly that there were methodological and strategic differences in terms of deadlines. It may not be her mandate or her role, but could she give us an idea of those differences between the Ministry and the NGOs?

[English]

Ms. Adèle Dion: Those are excellent questions.

In brief, we find there is very little disagreement on the broad objectives of what we are trying to achieve, i.e., improvement for a respect of human rights in individual countries, or further advancement of thematic objectives such as freedom of opinion or expression. However, there can be differences of opinion regarding what approaches should be taken to achieve those objectives.

Generally, of course, our non-governmental colleagues are very persuasive in arguing that we should be moving much more quickly than we are. I would say that is the most important difference overall. Non-governmental organizations are always urging us to do more, more quickly, and to be more, shall I say, aggressive—or perhaps “proactive” would be a better word—in our approach.

On our side, we say we're limited in how quickly we can move by the necessity for the outcome to be negotiated. We cannot do it all on our own. We have to build a consensus with other countries, and that takes time. In the process of building a consensus, compromises have to be made. That generally results in being able to move less quickly than perhaps we or our NGO colleagues would like. I've been involved in these discussions for six years now, and I would say that usually is the number one difference in opinion, without fail, in any agenda item that comes up for discussion.

There also tend to be differences in terms of strategies that might be used to achieve the objectives. Differences in strategy usually tend to be around what is discussed publicly in open sessions as opposed to what is negotiated in smaller groups behind closed doors, where NGOs cannot participate.

I think those are probably the main two. The other ones tend to be more specific to specific issues. An example might be the new UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. It was adopted at the General Assembly on December 10, 1998. The non-governmental community would very much like to see a special rapporteur on human rights defenders at this year's commission. We have some serious concerns about being able to achieve a special rapporteur that quickly. Again, it's not because we don't think it's a good idea. We think it's a very good idea, but we just don't believe we would be able to obtain the agreement of other member countries of the commission to appoint such a mechanism such a short time after the declaration was adopted. So that's an example of the kinds of issues that very much spark a great deal of discussion.

• 1600

The Chair: Thank you.

I think one of the things I've always noticed is that when you're negotiating with different countries that have different levels of respect for human rights, human rights become a matter of convenience. If it's a right that inconveniences them or perhaps interferes with their political agenda, it's pretty tough getting countries to agree on these issues. I think we can all agree that human rights is a very frustrating field to be in.

As to your question about having the NGOs appear, I think we all have a nice long list of NGOs that would like to appear. We can address that right after Easter as well, in our agenda meeting, if that's all right with committee members.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a number of questions.

On behalf of all members of the committee, I do want to just take this opportunity to welcome the students from the Forum for Young Canadians who are joining us today. I believe we have students from across Canada here, and it's welcome to see their interest.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Svend Robinson: You're seeing something rare, a meeting of the Subcommittee on Human Rights. I'm pleased that the chair has indicated that we are going to try to breathe some life into this committee. This is only our second meeting in many months, so I strongly urge that we do activate the committee and that we have an agenda meeting at the earliest possible time.

I'm delighted to see Madame Dion here. She's a real veteran in this field. I think this is a profoundly important dialogue that we have. Certainly I agree with Madame Debien that before the Human Rights Commission meets in Geneva—and this is for next year, of course—it's essential that we meet with representatives of the network, for example, as well as the department. The previous practice of this committee was to meet with the head of the Canadian delegation both before the commission and then following the commission to get a report. I think Madame Dion would agree that this would be a useful practice for the committee. I believe it's Ross Hynes who is once again chairing the committee or is head of Canada's delegation this year.

I have a procedural question, and then a couple of substantive questions. I wonder whether Madame Dion could forward to the committee a list of the members who participated, both from the department and from the NGOs. I believe there's a briefing book that's put together as well for the consultations. Could that also be forwarded to the committee at the earliest possible time? I believe you also mentioned that there's a report that's done afterwards. Maybe we could receive a copy of the report. Is it possible to forward all of those to the committee?

Ms. Adèle Dion: The report that is given to the NGOs in May is not a written report. It's more of an oral report. Several years ago, we did prepare a fairly comprehensive written report, but we've had to stop doing that because of resource restrictions. What we have done for the last few years is appear at the network's main meeting, provide fairly comprehensive oral reports, and answer any questions on specifics, of course.

• 1605

Mr. Svend Robinson: But the other materials you will forward to the committee?

Ms. Adèle Dion: Yes, I'd be happy to. Perhaps I should also just mention that I think the Library of Parliament has already received copies of the briefing books, but we can certainly make them available to the committee.

The Chair: Something else that might be another suggestion is to have Mr. Hynes appear before the committee after the meetings, along with the NGOs. We could have a round table so that we could have a forum to determine what each side thought had occurred.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That makes a lot of sense.

Is there no report that's done immediately following the consultations by the department, summarizing the different representations and so on?

Ms. Adèle Dion: We report to the minister, but there is no general report that is prepared. Individual geographic divisions report on their sections of the consultations.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Perhaps you could look into the possibility of making available to us, as well as to the minister, the summary of the report on the consultations. Could you do that?

Ms. Adèle Dion: I can't promise that, but I can certainly raise it with the minister.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Good.

I have a couple of substantive issues. I'm wondering about Mexico. Canada has been deafeningly silent on Mexico at the Commission on Human Rights. I read with care the statements that our delegation has made and there is not a word on Mexico. I know a number of NGOs—and Madame Dion will be well aware of this—have raised this as a concern: that Canada should be far more active and vocal on Mexico.

Amnesty International recently tabled a report that starts out by documenting a very serious deterioration in the human rights situation in Mexico. I wonder if Madame Dion could indicate whether or not Canada is in fact going to finally show some leadership and speak out on the human rights situation in Mexico. I was in Chiapas late last year, and certainly the situation there is very tense.

Maybe I'll just put my questions, and then Madame Dion can respond to them.

Mexico is the first question.

The second question is with respect to the bilateral human rights dialogue with China. In 1997, much to the profound disappointment of many of us, Canada decided not to co-sponsor a resolution on China at the Commission on Human Rights. Instead, we moved to this bilateral human rights dialogue with China. Earlier this year, a number of major NGOs called on Canada to suspend that in view of the appalling sham trials that had been taking place—and again, Ms. Dion is well aware of this—for a number of dissidents in China. They were sentenced to thirteen years, eleven years in prison. A major labour activist was sentenced to ten years following a three-hour trial.

The day before yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that Canada is reviewing our bilateral relationship with Cuba as a result of a trial that took place there for four individuals. Certainly, there were a number of serious human rights concerns raised in the circumstances of that trial, bearing in mind that Cuba is under a state of siege—effectively, almost one of war—by the United States.

I want to ask Madame Dion how the department responds to this call to suspend the bilateral human rights dialogue. Particularly, how does Madame Dion clarify the apparent double standard? We are reviewing our human rights relationship with Cuba as a result of a trial, yet when what are certainly very serious abuses of human rights are taking place in China, in Tibet, we don't review that dialogue.

Ms. Adèle Dion: First, on Mexico, perhaps I should preface my remarks by saying we have not yet received our final instructions from the minister on our position before the Commission on Human Rights. The process is that we have the consultations, we report back to the minister, we then make a series of recommendations—which are currently before him—and he then gives us direction on these various issues. I certainly am not in a position today to put words into the mouth of my minister on what we may or may not do on Mexico.

• 1610

Mr. Svend Robinson: But that's a political decision.

Ms. Adèle Dion: Exactly, but I've certainly taken note of your comments and your very serious concerns, and I will certainly bring them back to my colleagues in the department, as well as to my senior managers and the minister. I would just add in parentheses that the Amnesty International report is indeed very troubling, and we have been looking at it very carefully. Certainly, it's very complete, and there's a lot of very useful information in it.

With regard to China and the human rights dialogue with China, I think I can say without fear of contradiction, and certainly to no one's surprise here, that the discussion around China was one of the liveliest at the consultations. China is a very important country for Canada. As you very well know, Mr. Robinson, there are over one million Canadians of Chinese origin who live in Canada, and there are a whole range of very important shared agenda items that we have with the Chinese: not only human rights but environment, security concerns, regional security concerns, and many others.

The decision that was taken in 1997 to not co-sponsor the draft resolution at the Commission on Human Rights was taken by the minister, the Prime Minister and cabinet, of course. I would just say that, as we had forecast, the draft resolution in 1997 never did come to the floor of the commission. It attracted very weak co-sponsorship, and consideration of the resolution was defeated by China in a procedural no-action motion. Since that time, there has been no draft resolution presented for consideration by the commission. We are now two working days before the beginning of this year's commission, and there is certainly no indication that a draft resolution might appear.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And Canada isn't taking any steps on that.

Ms. Adèle Dion: To the best of my knowledge, there is no indication that a draft resolution will appear.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I asked specifically if Canada is going to do anything on that.

Ms. Adèle Dion: Again, I can't prejudge my minister and the government, but I'm not aware that there's any change in Canada's position on that as of today.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd also like to welcome the young people who are in this room with us and who are concerned about the issue of human rights. I think it is a very important issue, and it is in the hands of you young people to ensure that Canada and Canadians do what is right in this area.

I know Mr. Robinson has been pushing on some issues here that I feel are political questions that have been addressed to you. I'll constrain my remarks really to the acknowledgement that I think we all make: that human rights implications have implications for foreign policy.

• 1615

I think you identified for us some areas of focus, but I know there are some new areas within the traditional focus areas for us. I'd like to ask if you can speak to those new areas. Where are the partnerships on these new areas focused? How do you see that work being advanced during the session in Geneva?

I'd also like to ask how we can maximize or influence and do the necessary protection and prevention. How do we get our partners moving with us in the direction in which we have identified?

Ms. Adèle Dion: Thank you. One of the newer areas we are involved in and will be very active in at the commission this year is the whole area of impunity. We introduced a new resolution on this subject last year, essentially calling for greater attention to bringing human rights violators to justice and before the courts.

Of course, since the last commission we've had the negotiations in Rome on the statute to create the International Criminal Court. So this has given additional impetus to the resolution on impunity. This year we're hoping to attract much broader co-sponsorship and begin to put in language that is a bit stronger and somewhat similar to what can be found in the statute that was agreed to in Rome.

This is an area where we have a very close partnership with Canadian NGOs. They have been pushing the government for several years to take an initiative related to impunity. So when Minister Axworthy announced last year we would be doing this, there was enthusiasm amongst our NGO partners to work together on this initiative. So that's one area. It certainly fits in very much with our long-term agenda, but it's somewhat new for us.

The other area we're going to give additional focus to this year is religious freedom and religious intolerance. Again, this is for a number of reasons. The High Commissioner for Human Rights takes a keen interest in this issue and participated in a conference last September in Oslo, which saw the adoption of something called the Oslo Declaration, calling for a broad coalition of non-governmental actors to work together to address some really serious concerns surrounding freedom of religion.

The minister has certainly indicated to us that it should be a priority to work more closely with the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion and in very close partnership with not only Norway but both our national and international NGO partners, to try to build momentum and encourage the special rapporteur to take a higher profile and make stronger recommendations in addressing some very serious concerns in that whole area.

• 1620

There is also the issue of the rights of the child. The rights of the child have always been a priority for Canada, but at the moment we have what might be called emerging situations, particularly with regard to war-affected children and child soldiers.

In those specific areas we will be pushing for stronger language in the resolution and higher awareness of the root causes and some of the real issues surrounding children; how children are not only endangered, but what happens to them when they are injured after they stop being child soldiers; how they get rehabilitated into society and all those kinds of questions.

Also, this year for the very first time at the Commission on Human Rights there will be a half-day special dialogue on the rights of the child and issues surrounding children. So we are very much looking forward to that. There will be senior representatives of UNICEF, the special representative of the Secretary General, Olara Otunnu, and experts from the High Commission for Refugees. We hope this will not only enhance awareness of the issue but stimulate a good discussion and perhaps lead to stronger and more progressive language in the resolution itself.

Finally, I would just touch very briefly on the World Conference on Racism. There has always been an agenda item on racism at the commission, but the initiative for the world conference is something relatively new. The resolution mandating a world conference was adopted last year, and this year the first week of the commission will see a parallel working group to discuss and hopefully agree on what the parameters of the conference will be. We very much hope it will be forward-looking and the conference will produce some recommendations for not only redress and prevention, but also ways to avoid similar situations in the future; get at the root causes rather than simply addressing existing problems, although that's obviously very important as well.

So those are all areas that are new, where we will be very much working in partnership and where we certainly see heightened priority, in terms of not only our work for the next six weeks, but, depending on the outcomes of the commission, for the rest of the year in terms of international human rights.

How do we get governments moving in our direction? That's an excellent question and it's why partnerships with NGOs, parliamentarians, and others are so important. We have to use all the possible adherents we have to advocate for strong positions and convince other countries that the way to address serious situations is constructively and through the effective use of UN mechanisms.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Thank you very much. I'm delighted to be here and I am delighted to see all the young people around the room.

Madame Dion, with the expertise she has, was a student like you one day. She had a vision and now she's in the process of realizing it. I hope she'll be a good role model for you, as I hope some of the parliamentarians around this table will be too.

• 1625

I look forward to seeing you tonight.

Madame Dion, as someone who has watched you and the group of eight Canadian negotiators I know, I have a great sense of confidence that Canada's position will be put forward with a great deal of skill and finesse. I well appreciate the conundrum you face as you have to work in in-camera sessions. But I think the committee should know, and young people here should know, that Canada is a unique country, because at the end of a negotiating session and before they move into the next session, they meet with the NGOs to go over the process, the goal reached, and the stumbling blocks.

If I'm making any exaggerations or if things have changed, please correct me, but I feel I have to be a witness to what I know. I can tell you that the NGOs listen with great care to the negotiators, who come back to report following a session and give some of what they would consider directions, although sometimes they seem like marching orders. But they enable a real exchange between the negotiators who can explain where the blocks are, because depending on the countries and the continents, there are very different points of view that are cultural, religious, and economic.

I am just curious, Madame Dion, whether there is any specific newer area, outside of the fact that we've now moved into really looking at the International Criminal Court and are looking for the countries to support that move in greater numbers, so you can have a ratification of that particular court and move into action.

In light of Canada's great interest, having just finished a complete study on the rights of the child in divorce and custody and access, in those two areas in particular is there anything new that's coming in? Does Canada have a unique position? Are there any particular new drafts that the NGOs went over with you, or you went over with the NGOs, that are of major concern, outside of the Amnesty International, which is always a difficult case and has great importance? I recognize what Mr. Robinson said.

There are other aspects to the daily lives we need to move on in order to ensure human development and human security. I'm sure that is a major concern, and it is a major concern of the government here. So where are we with anything that's particularly new or newer language?

Second, I was at a conference today with the Minister of Foreign Affairs that is looking at discrimination based on race. It's who you are, not where you live, or internecine war within a given territory. I thought there were some very interesting discussions, particularly about the Baja, that would be worthwhile looking at before you leave, because the Baja example is of extreme concern.

Ms. Adèle Dion: Thank you.

Perhaps beginning with the last question first, we are very interested in taking a further look at the whole area of race, ethnicity, freedom of religion, and intolerance. Certainly this is the second discussion that—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Is this new language you're going to look at?

Ms. Adèle Dion: We're waiting to see what the outcomes of today's discussions will be. Then we will talk to the special rapporteur for religious freedom in Geneva when we arrive.

We would like to see new language, but it's such a complex subject. Before we put forward anything formally, we want to get the considered opinion of the special rapporteur and also talk to our like-minded partners, such as Norway, Ireland, and others who have traditionally focused on this area.

• 1630

So it's a very complex area, but with the World Conference on Racism in 2001 and the series of conferences and meetings that will proceed, we feel it will be very important to be well prepared and well informed, and that's why, for instance, the meeting is taking place today.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: On the question of supposed cults such as the Church of Scientology, which is being extremely badly treated in Germany right now—I saw diagrams, posters, and postcards—whether we agree that they are a cult or not, I find it very worrisome to see the rise of new stereotypes and real Der Stürmer types of material, the discrimination against their rights to access to higher education at university, the firing of professors who have been involved, and evidently the mea culpa from some of the politicians in the German government.

So I'd like to know if at some point we have looked at that, and if we as Canadians have taken a position on the Church of Scientology.

Ms. Adèle Dion: Yes, we've actually looked at it quite closely. We've raised it on a number of occasions with the German government and officials, and it is something we're monitoring quite closely, not only on a bilateral basis, but the UN special rapporteur has visited and he has expressed concern and issued some recommendations.

It's of course a very difficult question for the German government, because they have some strong opposing views within government on how the matter should be addressed. But it certainly is something we're monitoring very closely, as we are other similar expressions of intolerance toward fundamental religions that seem to be popping up more and more recently than they have in the past.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: ...as an example.

Ms. Adèle Dion: Yes.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: When our delegation was there, and the chair was with us, we met with the Jehovah's Witnesses. They are having a dreadful time in Russia, and the legislation that was put forward in Russia to curtail cult churches has trapped the Jehovah's Witnesses in a very difficult position. I know the ambassador was spoken to in Russia, but can you tell me what the next step has been? Has there been any further follow-up on the Jehovah's Witness case?

Ms. Adèle Dion: I know that our ambassador in Moscow made a formal démarche to the foreign ministry just recently. Again, it's a situation that troubles us greatly because we have many Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada of Russian origin. We expect it's going to be taken up by the high commissioner—I'm sorry I can't remember his title. He's a Council of Europe mechanism, and it's a person by the name of Max van der Stoel. He's the High Commissioner on National Minorities, and he is a very, very prestigious person in his own right, and a very important mechanism. He's following this whole situation quite closely, because there is a great deal of concern. He will be reporting to the Council of Europe, the European Commission, and his report will also be available to us at the UN.

The Chair: I'm sorry, but the one thing that I think is fairly obvious is that it's easier to go after and make comments to Russia and other countries, newly emerging democracies; however, for us to go after Germany, and France, which is also giving the Jehovah's Witnesses a hard time, is I suppose much more delicate. Those of us who are interested in human rights... do we think perhaps there is a regression, in spite of the emerging democracies in the world?

• 1635

Ms. Adèle Dion: With regard specifically to racism and religious intolerance, my personal opinion, if I can offer one, is that it might be too early to detect a trend. There have been, in the last year or 18 months, some very, very troubling situations that seem to be popping up in both emerging democracies and in countries such as Germany and France. But it's difficult to say whether these are responses to local conditions or are fairly isolated, or if in fact it's part of a larger trend. The larger trend is certainly what the Commission on Human Rights is going to be watching for this year.

What we will certainly be expecting in terms of an assessment from our human rights mechanisms—the special rapporteur on racism and the special rapporteur on religious intolerance—is that kind of advice from them.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

We've all had our 10-minute rounds. Can we go with five now, please?

Madame Debien.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: Madame Dion, you said in your presentation that Canada would sponsor two resolutions this year at the Commission. I was probably absent-minded, but I did not quite understand the issues these resolutions would be dealing with.

You also said that Canada would make seven statements or that there would be seven presentations on different issues and I would like you to tell us about these issues.

And before, you talked about major issues for the Department that are part of the Commission's agenda, namely the protection of the human rights defenders; you mentioned that it would be difficult to submit a resolution to that effect, for any country that would take to lead on that resolution would not get the necessary support to have it adopted.

Since human rights defenders are countries and governments' conscience, countries that imprison or kill human rights defenders will certainly not approve such a resolution.

NGOs ask Canada to play a more proactive role in terms of human rights at the Human Rights Commission in Geneva. Would it not be a good example of a proactive role or an example of interest if Canada sponsored, or at least put the question on the agenda of the Commission, even if it does not have the necessary support? This is an important issue because if one cannot even, at the Commission, talk about the protection or defence of human rights, one might as well close the door of the Commission.

[English]

Ms. Adèle Dion: Yes, absolutely. I'm certainly in agreement with that. Perhaps I wasn't terribly clear. There will definitely be a resolution on human rights defenders at the commission this year, and—

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: I completely misunderstood. I am sorry.

[English]

Ms. Adèle Dion: —it's a resolution that is drafted by Norway. Norway is a very close partner with Canada, and we most definitely will be co-sponsoring the resolution. What we will do is push as hard as we can for strong language, and we hope we will be able to get language that suggests that countries consider a special rapporteur, so that next year we can drop some of the countries considered and call on countries.

• 1640

So you're absolutely right. It's a very important part of the commission's work. Given our partnership with NGOs, it's something that is a priority for us, as well as for Canadian NGOs.

Also, it's an agenda item that we work very collaboratively with not only Canadian NGOs but others at the commission. We frequently find—and this as well responds to something Mrs. Finestone and Mrs. Augustine were mentioning earlier—that our NGO colleagues are most effective lobbyists and advocates on many of these issues.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: So they know their way around like nobody else.

Ms. Adèle Dion: Absolutely. And they have more time to do the lobbying on the floor, because we're caught in the negotiations and they're out there being effective and getting good work done. So, yes, that's very important.

Regarding the statements we'll be making, we will be making a statement on the situation of human rights in occupied territories. Then we will be making a statement on country situations, which is usually our major statement where we express concern about the situation in specific, individual countries.

We will be giving a statement on violence against women and the integration of the human rights of women across the UN. We will be intervening in the special dialogue on children, but because it's meant to be a dialogue and discussion, it won't be a formal statement. We'll be giving a statement on the work on the human rights of indigenous peoples.

The chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission will give a statement on national institutions. Finally, we'll be giving a statement on the technical working of the commission.

The Chair: Could I just have a clarification? You were talking about giving a statement on occupied territories. Are you going to do that country by country, or is it just going to be a general statement?

Ms. Adèle Dion: Yes, it's a general statement. It comes up very early on the commission's agenda. The actual title of the agenda item is “Violation of Human Rights in the Occupied Arab Territories Including Palestine”. It's a general statement.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: I'd like Madame Dion to answer my question. What are the two resolutions that will be sponsored by Canada?

[English]

Ms. Adèle Dion: Actually, there are five.

The Chair: We'll have to do that quickly.

Ms. Adèle Dion: Okay. They are Rwanda, freedom of opinion, impunity, violence against women, and the draft declaration on indigenous people.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, please.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Madame Beaumier.

We're going to be making a statement on violence against women. I wonder if Madame Dion could assure the committee that the absolutely appalling situation of women in Afghanistan at the hands of the Taliban regime is going to be highlighted in that statement on violence against women.

The second question is on new or emerging human rights areas. Ms. Dion mentioned a number of those, and I'm glad to hear that Canada is showing leadership on them. I wonder whether Canada is prepared to show leadership on the fundamental human rights issue of discrimination at the international level on the basis of sexual orientation. I know that Canada has worked in a number of international fora. I believe in Beijing, for example, Ms. Finestone was one of those who showed leadership on this issue.

The situation is still very, very difficult for many gay and lesbian people internationally, with torture, murder, and imprisonment. We all know the tragedy of Matthew Shepherd and others. I wonder whether Canada is prepared to show some leadership. Is EGALE one of the participants in the NGO consultations?

Ms. Adèle Dion: Yes.

• 1645

Mr. Svend Robinson: I wonder if Madame Dion could indicate what Canada is prepared to do to show some leadership on this important issue. And I recognize it is an emerging issue. Perhaps we could convene a meeting of like-minded countries to talk about how United Nations mechanisms might be put in place to focus more on this human rights issue.

Around the consultations themselves, what financial support is offered by Foreign Affairs to NGOs to assist them in participating in these consultations? There have been more and more cutbacks in resources for many of the NGOs. At the same time as we talk about the importance of civil society, we see cutbacks in funding to many of these NGOs. What resources are available?

I've also raised another issue privately with Madame Dion beforehand. I wonder if she could take back a suggestion that perhaps there would be a little bit more transparency in the consultations to the extent that members of Parliament from the subcommittee who were interested in observing the session of the consultations, but not participating in the dialogue, might be able to do so.

Ms. Adèle Dion: Thank you.

The answer to your first question is yes.

On the question of leadership on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, as Mrs. Finestone knows, we fought quite a difficult battle on that in Beijing.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: It was very difficult.

Ms. Adèle Dion: We continue to raise it in all negotiations on relevant resolutions, particularly those that are legally based, because we feel an important first step is to get legal recognition for it within the UN.

Frankly, we have met with very limited success because there's a lot of opposition to this concept from other regional groups. We keep trying and we will keep trying. We certainly continue to push as well in negotiations on other new draft instruments, optional protocols, because, again, we feel that if we could make the breakthrough in terms of a legal instrument, that would go a long way to lessening the resistance in other areas.

On the question of financial support from Foreign Affairs to assist NGOs, we have never offered financial support to NGOs to participate in the human rights consultation. In the first instance, Foreign Affairs has very few sources of program funding and in the policy area we have none at all. It's a major difficulty.

Equally, we attract about 250 representatives each year. Our view is that it would be terribly difficult to decide in a fair and equal manner who would be funded and who wouldn't. So in the first instance we simply don't have the funding, and in the second instance we have taken the route to have a broad, inclusive consultation as opposed to a more exclusive, less well-attended, and less broad invitation list.

Finally, on your suggestion about parliamentarians observing, yes, I will take that back to the minister, to the department, and also to the NGOs.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I just have an observation to make.

Mr. Robinson, let me suggest to you that to try to make a decision on how you're going to select the NGOs that are going to go versus those that have permanent seats at the United Nations as observers is a huge headache. I can tell you that in trying to do that—

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm not suggesting there be funding for the NGOs to go to Geneva.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: What were you suggesting?

• 1650

Mr. Svend Robinson: This would assist them in participating in the consultations that take place in Ottawa. It's particularly a challenge, say, for NGOs from British Columbia and areas outside Ottawa to actually be able to come.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I misunderstood.

The Chair: That's part of doing business. That happens not just with NGOs but also with every other organization. It costs more for a company from B.C. to come and lobby in Ottawa for contracts and to see departments than it does for one in Ottawa.

Mr. Svend Robinson: These aren't companies with huge budgets for lobbying.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: These organizations have offices here or have links here into the national groups, Svend. It's enough of a problem if you get 250 of them.

The Chair: As far as accounting for NGOs is concerned, are they subjected to audits? Let me tell you, for example, one of the things that I have been told. I'm not absolutely sure that it is true. I'm told that, say, if Canada gives $40 million, $40 billion, $40 trillion to an NGO and Germany gives $40 million and Norway gives $40 million, when we ask for an accounting we only have the right to ask for our own certain money.

I have been told that people who have worked in NGOs use this same accounting for the moneys. They would show to me that they've spent my $40 million here, but they would give that same report to another country that had given a similar amount.

As I say, I don't know if that's true or not, but I do know that we looked very hard into our own funding for CIDA and such, and we tend to wash our laundry and...

We all like to think that NGOs are all very up front and spend their money more wisely than government does; however, the same human beings are involved as there are in everything else.

Ms. Adèle Dion: The generally accepted rule, both at the national level and the international level, is that NGOs are subject to the same kind of audit as any other government or institution. And it is a complete audit.

It shows, as you say, where the $40 million from Canada and the $40 million from Sweden or whatever country has gone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: It can be put down to about $400 each or $4,000. I can't stand $40 million, but I do agree.

The Chair: We've just been doing estimates, and millions, billions, trillions of dollars all sound the same to me. It's just a matter of zeros.

We can reduce it to $40 if it makes you more comfortable. Perhaps that is more reflective of the amount.

Who does that audit? Who orders that audit? Who is responsible for that audit?

Ms. Adèle Dion: Generally, what happens is that every non-governmental institution has in its constitution or its mandate a requirement for a public audit. There are very few that don't, because if they didn't have that they would never be able to attract funding. They all have that if they're bona fide NGOs.

The donor community, both government and private funds or even individuals, contribute to that policing by making it a condition of their contribution that the organization produces an audit. Obviously, there may always be some organizations that either can't or won't comply with those guidelines, but then they're the ones that don't survive.

The Chair: Madame Augustine.

• 1655

Ms. Jean Augustine: Somehow you gave a part answer to my question. My concern is around the indigenous people. Is Canada part of the working group? Are we making statements? How are we involved in that in the session on the world's indigenous people?

Ms. Adèle Dion: Yes, we are very much a part of the working group. The way it works is that now that the draft declaration has been reported out of the subcommission, the negotiations are actually taking place amongst member states. This means that the timing of the working group and the negotiations is different. It no longer happens near to or in parallel with the commission.

The negotiating session took place in February, and we are indeed very active participants. We had a large delegation in Geneva for that negotiation, including representatives of Canadian aboriginal peoples.

Also, in that instance we funded representatives of Canadian aboriginal peoples to attend independently and to monitor the work of the working group.

Because the working group is a creature of the Commission on Human Rights, there is on the commission's agenda a standing item where every year the mandate of the working group is renewed. Canada takes the lead on the resolution that renews the mandate of the working group. Because we take the lead and also because it's an important issue for Canada, we always make a formal statement. So that's how the two are interconnected.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Thank you.

The Chair: Madame Finestone.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Has a parliamentary delegation as well as your own internal delegation been appointed to go to Geneva?

Ms. Adèle Dion: The list is before the minister. I checked before I came over and I understand it is truly before the minister, so we're hoping to hear shortly.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: How many people go on a delegation?

Ms. Adèle Dion: Let me just check.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm not sure. I think there were three.

The Chair: Reform didn't send anyone, did they?

Mr. Svend Robinson: No, they didn't. There was space for four, but they didn't send anybody.

Ms. Adèle Dion: On the question of the number of parliamentary observers, it's normally three or four.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Do they stay the whole time?

Ms. Adèle Dion: No, it's a week-long session. On the government side, it's usually about 10 officials, but again they don't stay for the whole time. They do their particular items and then leave.

The Chair: I have a little note here from Jim. You may be interested to know that when the foreign affairs committee was looking at the issue of Canada's policy on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, NGOs and others requested a means for greater input into government policy. When we tabled the report in December, one of its recommendations was that a similar sort of annual consultation on nuclear issues be held. That was based on the perception of members that this sort of mechanism has worked very well in the area of human rights. So I think that is certainly to be noted.

Ms. Jean Augustine: They're on the right track.

The Chair: You have served your department and this committee very well today. You were straightforward, and we really appreciate your being here and being as frank with us as you possibly could. We will talk to you again after Geneva.

Ms. Adèle Dion: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

This meeting is adjourned.