SRID Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SOUS-COMITÉ DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT INTERNATIONAL DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 21, 2001

• 1537

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. This is the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development, our third meeting.

We're going to have briefings today from the Department of Foreign Affairs and from CIDA. Foreign Affairs will be discussing human rights and their consultations with the NGOs. We all got in our offices a large report. I don't know if anybody brought it—I didn't bring mine. CIDA will be discussing development issues that they have around the world.

I think we'll start right off with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Adèle Dion is Director of Human Rights, Humanitarian Affairs and International Women's Equality Division. Could you introduce who's with you, Adèle—Madam Dion, I should say?

Ms. Adèle Dion (Director, Human Rights, Humanitarian Affairs and International Women's Equality Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be with you this afternoon.

I have with me my colleague Adrian Norfolk, who is the multilateral human rights officer in my division and has the lead responsibility for our work at the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, which—

The Chair: Sorry, but I should interrupt you to tell the members of Parliament who are here that you're going to be giving a general overview, mainly for new members. Svend probably won't need all of this, but he'll be helping you out.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Could I just interrupt?

I understood that, as she has in the past, Madam Dion was to brief the committee about the key issues coming up at this session of the commission and what Canada's position would be.

The Chair: No, she's doing a general briefing for members who haven't been on the committee before in particular, but also for everybody else. If she can answer some of those questions, fine, but we asked her to give a general overview, particularly for those of us who are new. I think there are several of us who haven't been on the committee before.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, I would ask as well.... Obviously the committee's interested to know what the key issues are that are coming up around the table at this session.

The Chair: She may bring that up. You'll have a question period afterwards, as you always do.

Mr. Svend Robinson: It's not up to me in question period. I would ask that in her overview she indicate what the key issues are on the table at this session of the commission. We don't need just an exposé of how it works, but to know what those key issues are.

The Chair: I understand your question, and I'm sure Madame Dion has her notes prepared.

If you could give us your presentation, each of the members will then get their time to ask questions. If that hasn't been covered, then I'm sure Mr. Robinson will bring it up in his questions.

Mr. Svend Robinson: It's better if she could include that in her opening remarks. It's of interest to all members of the committee, not just Mr. Robinson.

An hon. member: You make the presentation then.

The Chair: That's okay.

• 1540

Mr. Svend Robinson: Madam Chair, we want a presentation that includes what's on the agenda now.

The Chair: Go ahead, Madame Dion, with what you have prepared, what you're asked to do.

Ms. Adèle Dion: Thank you.

We were advised that the subcommittee would like to receive information on three areas: first, how the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is organized to carry out Canada's international human rights policies and activities; second, information on the multilateral United Nations process for promoting human rights—I believe members either have or will have a chart before them; and finally, some background on our consultations with Canadian human rights NGOs.

I would like to address each of those matters in turn, but first, by way of some general background, it might be useful to very briefly recall some of the relevant conclusions that emerged from the foreign policy review the government, in consultation with Parliament, conducted in 1994. The topic of human rights was prominent amongst those considered in that review, and it was addressed in many parts of the government's response to this special joint committee. The government response was agreement with the parliamentary committee's assertion that human rights and democratic development reflect universal values that should find central expression in our foreign policy.

I think it's fair to say that the question of whether human rights should play an important role in Canadian foreign policy was never really at issue in the review. The issue was more the challenge to identify how we best influence other governments to respect human rights. On that question, the government declared in its response its intention to use a range of tools to promote human rights: bilateral channels of influence, development assistance, and multilateral channels.

I thought it would be important to emphasize this latter point, because it does underpin the way Foreign Affairs is organized to address human rights issues. It underscores the fact that human rights concerns and activities are not the exclusive preserve of my division, or indeed any other single unit in the department.

The human rights, humanitarian affairs and international women's equality division is one of five comprising the global issues bureau. This bureau is responsible for management of issues cutting across various aspects of Canada's relations with other countries. In addition to human rights, the division, as its name suggests, is responsible for the policy side of humanitarian assistance. On this issue we work very closely with our CIDA colleagues. It is also responsible for international women's equality issues, which, of course, have a very large human rights component. Other divisions in the global issues bureau deal with questions of peace building and human security, international crime, and aboriginal and circumpolar affairs.

The human rights section of the division is comprised of five professionals responsible for developing policy advice relating to international human rights questions. In so doing, they dedicate a great deal of time to liaising and consulting with other interested parts of the department, with CIDA, and with a range of other concerned governmental agencies and departments—and, of course, with the Canadian human rights NGO community.

Within Foreign Affairs our key partners are officials from the geographic divisions, responsible for managing all aspects of Canada's bilateral relationships with other countries. “All aspects” includes the human rights dimension of a relationship. This decentralization of responsibility reflects the fact that human rights concerns represent an integral, often pervasive factor in relations with a large number of countries in most parts of the world: East Central Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

• 1545

As I've already mentioned, the government's basic human rights goal is to identify the best means of truly influencing a given government in a given situation, and our geographic colleagues from headquarters and our diplomatic representatives abroad are inevitably the best sources of expertise, up-to-date information, and knowledge needed to provide advice on specific cases.

This is not to say geographic bureaus are entirely left to their own devices in developing specific human rights advice to ministers. That's where our division comes in, with a responsibility to advise our colleagues on human rights issues that arise, and to seek to ensure effective and consistent adherence to the government's declared policy and to the international human rights standards. Generally speaking, I think this system works well, in part because both senior management of the department and departmental ministers insist on receiving advice that reflects consultations between all divisions in the department.

I think as well that officials throughout the department share a common, strong, professional appreciation of and commitment to the importance of human rights and democracy in Canada's foreign policy. Part of the reason this commitment exists and is maintained is that, since 1988, my division has been responsible for the management and course content of a three-day human rights training course that is offered twice yearly to a broad range of departmental officers. At this point, upwards of a thousand officers have received such training.

Another factor is the priority given by the department to regular and systematic human rights reporting as an integral part of the work of our diplomatic missions abroad.

Perhaps I'll say just a word about the Department of Foreign Affairs' coordination with CIDA. I know there is a CIDA team here that will be meeting with you immediately after our presentation, but I would just flag that, from Foreign Affairs' point of view, CIDA is a crucial partner in Canada's efforts to promote human rights internationally. The government attaches great importance to the role of development assistance as a constructive means of advancing human rights through such initiatives as strengthening of democratic institutions and strengthening independent judiciaries.

The second item on our agenda this afternoon is the United Nations' processes for promoting and protecting human rights.

The government, on a number of occasions, has made it clear it considers multilateral organizations, and especially the United Nations, as often the most effective channel for influencing other governments on human rights questions. This is an area unlike the bilateral sphere, where the human rights division has a clear lead role in operational terms, as well as in providing policy guidance.

I've mentioned the chart on the UN human rights system. It has been made available to the subcommittee. I'll therefore keep my remarks fairly short so that we have an opportunity for questions and answers on areas of interest.

The first comment—or perhaps it's an observation—is that the system is extremely complex even by United Nations standards. This is particularly apparent when you look at the truly bewildering array of funds, rapporteurs, and working groups that operate under the umbrella of the Commission on Human Rights. This is in good part a consequence of the way in which the system has evolved. It has essentially been built up over the years through incremental efforts by countries such as Canada to secure a rapporteur to monitor a given country's situation, or to study worldwide incidence of some cruel phenomena such as torture or violence against women. Virtually every one of the rapporteurs or working groups of the UN has been the product of a drawn-out political debate at some point in the last fifteen years.

• 1550

The second aspect that I would highlight is that human rights have become an increasingly prominent feature of the agenda in a wide variety of United Nations bodies, ranging from the Commission on Human Rights, through ECOSOC—the Economic and Social Council of the UN—to the UN General Assembly, as well as the UN Security Council.

A key development in recent years has been the increasing engagement of the UN Security Council and its operations in addressing human rights concerns in the former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, Cambodia, and Haiti. During its recent Security Council tenure, Canada placed particular emphasis on the need to address root causes of conflicts, including human rights, and on the protection of civilians in situations of armed conflict. So the strengthening of human rights machinery is a key objective of Canada's overall approach to the UN, not just during and at the Commission on Human Rights.

Of course, the two major governmental fora for debating human rights policy and specific violations are indeed the UN Commission on Human Rights, which opened a six-week session on Monday, March 19, and, in the fall, the Third Committee of the General Assembly. Canada's delegation to the human rights commission will certainly be active in pressing for resolutions on a wide range of country situations, and on a wide range of other so-called thematic issues, such as violence against women, the fight against torture, and questions of racism. Canada's delegation to the commission this year is headed by our deputy permanent representative in Geneva, Madame Marie Gervias-Vidricaire.

Before leaving the UN, perhaps I should mention an important corollary of Canada's UN efforts to encourage other countries to respect human rights. That is our readiness to have our own human rights record assessed internationally.

As party to the six major UN human rights treaties, Canada regularly submits reports on its human rights performance to United Nations treaty bodies. We work with officials from a range of domestic departments and with provincial governments to coordinate the presentation and defence of Canada's reports before the relevant United Nations committees. Our adherence to these procedures, we believe, enhances our credentials to call on other governments to respect the same international standards.

Finally, the third subject on which the committee had requested information was NGO human rights consultations. Our division is responsible for coordinating a wide range of consultations on international human rights issues throughout the year. While we take the lead on behalf of the department, other divisions are involved in discussions on specific issues, particularly regarding human rights country situations. This varies from outreach activities, such as speaking on human rights issues to various groups, to regular meetings with individual non-governmental organizations at their request, to more formal three-day annual consultations prior to the UN Commission on Human Rights.

• 1555

This annual consultation, which concluded recently—February 26 to 28—involves about 200 Canadian non-governmental human rights organizations, as well as non-governmental entities active in international human rights issues, such as the Canadian Labour Congress, the University of Ottawa Human Rights Research and Education Centre, the North-South Institute, the IDRC, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission. While an important focus of the consultations is the CHR agenda and Canadian objectives in multilateral fora, organizations do make use of the consultations to raise bilateral issues with officials of geographic divisions who are in attendance.

We have a variety of formats over the two to three days of consultations. This year, for example, we had a full-day plenary session at which we considered all of the thematic agenda items of the Commission on Human Rights. The Minister of Foreign Affairs addressed the session—I believe copies of Minister Manley's statement are available—and we then had a series of smaller, country-specific round table discussions, chaired by our colleagues in geographic divisions, on situations in each region of the world.

Perhaps I'll stop there. I would be happy to take questions on any of the three areas of my presentation.

The Chair: Madame Dion, I wonder if you would be willing to stay until we've heard from the other group, and then questions could go to both groups.

Ms. Adèle Dion: Sure.

The Chair: Would that be all right with the members of Parliament here? We can hear from the other group, from CIDA, and then questions can go to whoever you want.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: We'll start with Tom Wallace, who is the director general of policy analysis and development of the policy branch.

Mr. Wallace, maybe you could introduce your two colleagues.

Mr. Tom Wallace (Director General, Policy Analysis and Development, Policy Branch, Canadian International Development Agency): Yes, sure.

Anne Bordé is the director general of corporate planning and coordination, and Kirsten Mlacak is our senior human rights adviser.

We were asked to provide you with a general briefing, a general overview of CIDA. What we would propose to do, if we could, is take about 10 minutes, or 15 at the maximum, to take you through a short deck that outlines a little bit of the context of the challenges facing the developing world, and the policy framework within which we operate. I'll ask Anne to take you through that part of the presentation.

At the tail end of the material, we then have some facts and figures on the international assistance envelope, how we're structured, how our resources are allocated, and the trends in financing development assistance over the past 10 years.

There are then three slides at the end that will take you briefly through some of the activities we have underway in the agency now, in reorienting our programming in some respects. It's called “Agenda for Renewal”.

So if I could, I'd just turn to Anne.

I think you have two documents. One is a more detailed text on the fundamentals, and I'll invite you to read it at your leisure because it provides more details. The other one is a deck that provides a bit of an overview. We'll speak to the deck, but I think you'll find a lot of the more detailed information in the supplementary material.

• 1600

The Chair: So are we going to start with this one?

Mr. Tom Wallace: Yes, we will.

Anne, could I ask you to lead off?

[Translation]

Ms. Anne Bordé (Director General, Corporate Planning and Co- ordination, Policy Branch, Canadian International Development Agency): I will give my presentation in French, if I may. The acetates are in English, but my presentation will be in French.

[English]

The Chair: Do we have the documents only in French; one document in French, and the other one is not in French? Is that—?

[Translation]

Ms. Anne Bordé: The acetates are in English and the other document is bilingual.

[English]

The Chair: Is there any particular reason why we couldn't have them both in French?

Ms. Anne Bordé: Just the lack of time to translate the slides.

The Chair: It's not really an excuse. When you come to committees, and we gave a few days' notice, it's....

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): I was going to say the same thing. I find that it isn't right for a department. We are talking about human rights, and having documents in French is a right for us francophones. We are very understanding in the case of NGOs, but in the case of the government, it seems unacceptable to me.

Ms. Anne Bordé: I am sorry. You can follow the presentation from the long document. We thought that it would be easier to do it using the acetates because they are in the same sequence. If you prefer, we can take back the acetates and do the presentation without them.

[English]

The Chair: We'd like assurance that next time there wouldn't be a repeat of this, that we have documents in both languages.

Ms. Anne Bordé: Absolutely. Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, is that okay?

[Translation]

Mr. Svend Robinson: I was going to say precisely the same thing. This is not an NGO, it is a government agency. This is truly unacceptable.

[English]

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Bellemare.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orleans, Lib.): As the parliamentary secretary, I am upset that CIDA cannot present its documents in both official languages.

I participated in a meeting on official languages. At this meeting, criticism was levelled at certain departments which had not met their obligations in the area of official languages. I must therefore emphasize how disappointed I am with the CIDA staff.

[English]

The Chair: You could take that message back to whomever it should go back to and make sure that anything coming out of that department comes in two languages next time.

Okay. Go ahead, Madame Bordé.

[Translation]

Ms. Anne Bordé: If we look at the record of international aid in the past 50 years, it is a positive one but there are still challenges ahead. It is positive in the sense that there has been improvement in a number of social development indicators, or social indicators. For example, life expectancy has jumped from 46 to 63 years, access to safe water has improved, literacy rates have also risen, and infant mortality has dropped, from 150 deaths per 1,000 births about 50 years ago, to 60 deaths per 1,000 births today. Birth rates have also dropped. In the 1950s, there were six births per woman, while now the rate is 3.6 and still dropping.

Still, there are many challenges ahead. There is the continually widening gap between rich and poor and there is the increasing world population, which is still at a high level. It is estimated that, in the next eight years, the world's population will increase by over 700 million people, 95% of whom will be living in developing countries. Women continue to be the poorest of the poor, and children continue to die of malnutrition and of diseases that could be prevented with vaccines. Everyone is aware of the devastation caused by AIDS. There are an increasing number of conflicts, namely in developing countries, and heavy debt burdens continue to weigh down the poorest countries. These are some of the challenges ahead, which the international community must tackle.

What is the policy framework within which CIDA, Canada and the International Aid Program function?

• 1605

At the international level, there is a growing consensus, based on the experience and lessons learned in the last 50 years, on the need to respect certain principles to ensure the effectiveness of international aid.

One of these principles is partnership between donor and recipient countries, at both the government level and the level of civil society. Another is appropriation by the beneficiaries at the local level. Development must not be imposed by us, it must truly be their goal. Development efforts must be co-ordinated, preferably by the affected countries. We must adopt a results-based management approach, so that we can define beforehand what we want to do, what the priorities are and how results will be measured, and then monitor results and take any necessary corrective action.

Finally, donor countries themselves must ensure that their policies are coherent, in other words, that the various policies not connected with international aid—trade or immigration policies, for example—do not thwart their international aid efforts, but help developing countries play a role on the world stage.

There is also a consensus on what are now called International Development Goals. These goals were approved by the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD, to which Canada belongs, and they have also been endorsed at various World Bank and IMF conferences. They set out a number of indicators, or targets, in different areas, for example: gender equality, the implementation of national strategies for sustainable development by developing countries, and a reduction in the proportion of people living in poverty in developing countries. Details may be found in the document that outlines the basic principles of Canada's Development Assistance Program.

In Canada, the policy framework is defined in the document entitled Canada in the World, which is our foreign policy statement. It identifies international co-operation as a vital instrument that will allow us to achieve the three foreign policy objectives you see highlighted here, namely, prosperity and employment, global security and the expression of Canadian values and culture.

Canada in the World also describes the purpose of international assistance: "to support sustainable development in order to reduce poverty and contribute to a more secure, equitable and prosperous world." The document sets out six program priorities for the Development Assistance Program: first, basic human needs such as basic education, health care and access to drinking water; second, gender equality; third, infrastructure services; fourth, human rights, democracy and good governance; fifth, private sector development; and sixth, the environment.

In 1995, responsibility for the delivery of the assistance programs to Central and Eastern Europe was transferred to CIDA. Its mission is to support democratic development and economic liberalization by building mutually beneficial partnerships. Therefore, this is a complementary role, although it is somewhat different from that of the Official Development Assistance program.

• 1610

[English]

Tom, do you want to take it from here?

Mr. Tom Wallace: If I could, I'd like to take you through a bit of the facts and figures and talk a little bit about our policy agenda.

The next chart shows the breakdown of the international assistance envelope. In 2000-2001, it amounts to $2.266 billion. About 80% of that is distributed through CIDA; about 11% through the Department of Finance for support for the World Bank and the enhanced adjustment facility of the International Monetary Fund; and in addition approximately 10% is distributed through the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade for supporting the International Development Research Centre, some programming in la Francophonie, Commonwealth scholarships, and a host of programs in that area.

The next, very detailed, chart provides more disaggregated information on the distribution of the envelope, and the background material we provide provides further details. Roughly speaking, about 30% of the envelope is devoted to geographic programs. This is aid delivered through bilateral cooperation agreements with developing countries. A further 23% of the envelope supports the multilateral organizations, the UN, Commonwealth, and the regional development banks.

We have a Canadian partnership program, which funds non-governmental organizations and private sector partners—that involves about 11.5% of our budget. The countries-in-transition program in central and eastern Europe is an additional 5%. Administration and communications are about 5%, and then the remaining 21% is in other departments.

The next few graphs indicate the evolution of Canada's official development assistance since 1988 and by comparison with the DAC owners. DAC is the development assistance committee of the OECD, which is comprised of 22 countries.

The graph on the left-hand side indicates that throughout the 1990s total development assistance provided from the industrialized world declined pretty significantly until about 1997 but has since been subject to increase. In Canada's case, total DA has declined from a peak of $2.6 billion in 1992 down to $1.7 billion in 1999.

The next chart illustrates the evolution of official development assistance as a percentage of gross national product. That's a very important indicator within the development community because several decades ago there was a commitment to reach a level of assistance of 0.7% of GDP. That's still the target, although only about two or three countries have reached that.

You can see from this graph that the dotted line at the top is the OECD average. The solid line is the DAC median—that is, the ratio for which half the countries are above and half the countries are below. The solid line with the squares is Canada's ODA to GNP ratio, and you can see that, as of 1999, the latest year for which we have comparable data with all the other DAC countries, it was 0.28%.

• 1615

The next two charts illustrate where we are relative to the other countries in the development assistance committee. With our ratio of 0.28% as a percentage of our GNP, you can see that Canada ranks 12th. In the next chart, volume, we rank ninth in terms of our level of support to ODA.

I'll just speak briefly to the last three slides. They outline, in a very cursory manner, some of the activities underway in the agency over the past year.

First are social development priorities. In September 1999, the minister announced CIDA's social development priorities agenda. Basically, it identifies four activity areas as priorities in the social development sphere. Those four priorities are primary health and nutrition, basic education, HIV/AIDS, and child protection.

There's a commitment over the next five-year period to double our expenditures on health and nutrition and increase our expenditures in the other three components fourfold. This policy links back to the international development targets Anne spoke of previously.

We are also working on a discussion paper entitled Strengthening Aid Effectiveness: New Approaches to Canada's International Assistance Program. It's still in preparation and exists only in draft form at this time, but it is circulating widely within CIDA and the stakeholder community, so it may come to your attention.

The document discusses recent trends in development assistance. It poses some questions for CIDA and gives some possible directions for increasing the efficiency of our assistance program. It discusses the possibility of participating in new programming approaches, whereby aid is provided to support the poverty reduction strategies developed by the recipient countries. This approach involves much more donor coordination, and aid is delivered with a view to emphasizing the policy environment in developing countries.

It also addresses the question of the appropriate balance between resources in headquarters and resources in the field, and it addresses long-standing issues regarding the geographical concentration of our aid program—whether we're too dispersed, aid on tying, and a number of other perennial issues that are part of the debate on development assistance.

The document is written as a framework for consultations. We haven't yet decided on the particular process to follow. The document is just being drafted and it's going through successive iterations, the third or fourth at this time. I mention it only because it is out in the community and prompting a lot of comments—our stakeholders are sending in their views on it.

The Chair: Can I just ask you if your timeframe on CIDA's agenda for renewal two and one is the same as it is on three—2001-03? Have you got a timeframe on this, or is it just wide open?

Mr. Tom Wallace: The timeframe for the social development priorities is five years. The discussion paper “Strengthening Aid Effectiveness” has no real timeframe; it just points in the directions where we think we should be heading in the long term.

• 1620

The timeframe for the sustainable development strategy is 2001 to 2003, simply because all departments were required to provide their strategies for sustainable development within that timeframe.

This is an umbrella document, which has now been tabled in Parliament. Basically it's the chapeau document, and it tries to integrate our agenda on social development priorities. Some of the ideas in the aid effectiveness document were on integrating our management systems and producing a plan of action over the next three years.

The Chair: Are you close to being finished? We want to get to questions quickly.

Mr. Tom Wallace: Yes.

As an agency, our mandate promotes sustainable development with a view to reducing poverty and promoting security and prosperity. Sustainable development is really at the core of our mandate. So our strategy has to evolve over time to become our business plan for the agency. That's our objective.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll start with Mr. Obhrai for five minutes.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Thank you. This is a new portfolio for me, so it will take a little while to grasp all the issues, including this one. You'll excuse me if I don't get deeper into it, but you can be sure I'll catch up pretty soon.

I have an audit report here indicating that CIDA was giving money for the promotion of human rights both in Columbia and in Peru. This report shows sloppy management by CIDA, by the forces on your ground level.

This auditor's report identifies a lot of countries. It seems to me that when you add up the money here, it's pretty big money for the promotion of human rights.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Madame Chair, could we have that document tabled so we can all follow what Mr. Obhrai is saying?

The Chair: Mr. Obhrai, you can speak from the document, and we'll make sure we get a copy—though it may not be at this meeting.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I certainly will. It would be my pleasure to give it you.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you.

The Chair: Can I just remind the members that we may not have the people here to answer very specific questions.

We asked for a general overview, which is what we've been given. So to be fair to them, we have to maybe ask only general questions. If they can answer them, fine. If they can't, we understand.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: True, and I'm not going to mention specific countries—I'm trying to speak in general terms.

What this audit tells me is that the money CIDA has given for the development of human rights in this country is basically extremely sloppy management—that there is no follow-up to see the end result. Was that money spent properly? Was there any promotion of human rights? What's happening?

If you don't follow up, that leaves the question of whether the objective of achieving human rights even took place. I'm sure we can utilize the dollars more effectively to ensure that human rights are promoted.

You are in policy development, so perhaps you can tell me. I'm sure you've read this report, this government audit. I'm sure you know about it. Maybe you can tell us what you've done, so we can feel confident that human rights promotion is taking place. First, Latin America.

Mr. Tom Wallace: I regret that I'm not aware of that case. We could look into it and provide the committee with a response to your question.

CIDA enters into about 1,100 new projects a year. We audit a number of them, and some of the reports—as audit reports do—indicate that certain things could have been done better.

• 1625

So in general, I guess I could say I could take note of the issue. Whether this is an isolated circumstance or not is very difficult for me to say because I'm not familiar with the case, and we really don't have any of our audit and evaluation people here that—

The Chair: It could help if you could give a percentage of ones that an audit report might have problems with. Would you be able to do that? If you have 1,100 new ones per year, what percentage of those would there be a problem with, or do you know that?

Mr. Tom Wallace: I don't know that. Maybe Anne...have you...

Ms. Anne Bordé: I don't have a specific answer to that, and I cannot speak to that specific project. But what I can say is that our projects are monitored on a regular basis, and for the past three or four years, projects, on an annual basis, are reporting back on the results and the progress against results at various levels—at what we call the output level, which is a very concrete short term; at the outcome level, which is a bit more of a medium-term level; and then at the impact level. Now there could be cases where there is mismanagement, but there is a regular monitoring process to ensure that the project is on track and that it's actually achieving the results that were expected.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam, with all due respect, what you are saying and what this document is saying are totally different. This document is not talking about one single project. It's identifying practically more than three-quarters of the countries in Latin America where project reports haven't come in and neither has CIDA bothered about finding the fact reports. There is a total contradiction between what you are saying and what this report is saying—and I will be more than happy to give you a copy of this report, by the way. This is your report, anyway. Perhaps you can come back to the committee later on and let everybody know, in response to this, what's happened.

The Chair: Thank you. That looks like this might be an area where we could spend considerable time.

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Even though the document is in English, I find it interesting because it gives some very precise figures for the changes in spending since 1988. It is deplorable that, since 1992—the tables show this very clearly—there have been a whole series of cuts to international aid, even though levels are recovering somewhat now.

How many people work... What would be the percentage breakdown between the budget allocated to administration and the budget allocated to international assistance?

[English]

Mr. Tom Wallace: Probably some more details on that are given through our reports on plans and priorities, but the notes that I think we distributed to you indicate that 5.5% of the international assistance envelope is in administration and communications costs. That would be a higher percentage, I think, if you put it over CIDA's budget, but I'm just referring to the documentation that was provided to you, where we indicate administration and the development information program managed by the communications branch together represent 5.5% of the gross international assistance envelope.

The more detailed information, however, would be in our reports on plans and priorities.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: How many people work for this division of the department?

Ms. Anne Bordé: In the Policy Branch or at CIDA?

Mr. Antoine Dubé: In all...

Ms. Anne Bordé: There are 1,100 people and approximately 100 people with... [Editor's note: Inaudible]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I have the same question for your division. How many people are there?

• 1630

[English]

Ms. Adèle Dion: I have 13 people in my division as a whole. I have five people dedicated to human rights policy.

[Translation]

An hon. member: You are asking that with reference to human rights?

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Yes, that's right. You are ahead of me. That is precisely my question. How many people are assigned exclusively to the human rights aspect, where you work?

[English]

Mr. Tom Wallace: I don't think I could answer that very satisfactorily. Kirsten is our specialist in the policy sector responsible for human rights. But a number of the programs will be delivered through the geographic and partnership branches. They may have some projects they're supporting that deal with the human rights component of the agenda and others dealing with other parts of the agenda.

I don't know if we've ever done an analysis where we actually broke it down according to individuals. You would almost have to divide people into various parts, depending upon the activity they were working on on a particular day.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: You must be in a position to tell me how many people, here, in Ottawa, work on that aspect in your division. She told me that there were five for that branch, but how many are there at your department, at CIDA? An approximate figure will suffice. We will understand if...

I am a little surprised that you would have trouble answering this question. The Alliance member said he has some concerns about the management of international projects.

[English]

Mr. Tom Wallace: The closest I can get to an answer is to give you a ballpark figure. Anne mentioned the six pillars of our development assistance program. One of those is human rights, democratization, and good governance.

There are five themes under that pillar: enhancing the capacities of civil societies in developing countries; building up democratic institutions in order to sustain responsible government; building up the confidence of the public sector; building up the capacities of organizations that protect and promote human rights; and functioning as an advocate to encourage a focus on programming, influencing the will of leaders to respect human rights and the rule of law.

The sum of all those governance, human rights, and democratic development initiatives accounts for about $200 million a year, or between 13% and 15% of CIDA's expenditures. But I'm afraid I don't have here a breakdown of how much of this is spent on human rights components.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

I'd like to mention that the people before us today are policy people. The estimates will be looked at in the main committee, and this has to be done sometime before May. So some time next month the estimates will be studied, giving Mr. Dubé, or anybody else, a chance to hear the exact figures at the main committee.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Chair, I have a question.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: The document I gave you is actually not the official document. It's what we have taken out from the reports that have come from the audit report of March 1999. You can go back to the department and check it out.

The Chair: Are they the department's reports?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes, they are the department's reports. It's called the performance review branch of your own department.

The Chair: We now have copies of them, but they're in English only.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: There's one on Colombia, Peru, and Guatemala.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Can we go on now? Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you. As I indicated earlier, I have some questions, in the brief time that we have allotted to us, on some specific issues I assume will be arising at this session of the UN Commission on Human Rights.

• 1635

I want to ask Ms. Dion, who is a very experienced and knowledgeable person with respect to what's happening at the commission—and I certainly appreciate that and the respect she has in that body—about two or three specific areas.

The first is an area in which, as she knows, there is widespread concern in Canadian and other NGO communities, and that is the human rights situation in China. I want to ask, specifically, has a resolution yet been tabled at the commission? I know the United States indicated that they intended to table a resolution.

Has a resolution, or a draft resolution, been circulated? Has Canada had an opportunity to review that resolution, and if so, are we in a position to co-sponsor that resolution as a means of indicating our strong concern about the appalling human rights situation in China. I'm thinking, for example, of the Falun Gong situation and the persecution of its practitioners.

This issue was raised with the Prime Minister. What's Canada going to be doing in concrete terms on China? Will we co-sponsor a resolution at this session of the commission?

Secondly, with respect to Columbia, this committee heard evidence just last week of the very, very grave violations of human rights there. The report of the United Nations' representative on Columbia, Anders Kompass, has recently been issued. I'm sure Ms. Dion is familiar with that report. It shows a sharp deterioration in the human rights situation over the course of the past year in Columbia.

Again, last year there was a chairperson's statement on Columbia. Will Canada be supporting a strongly worded resolution on Columbia, along with, hopefully, the appointment of a special rapporteur, as has been called for by many observers, such as the Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America?

I was in Columbia myself in January. Ms. Dion is well aware of the situation and the concern in this area.

I understand that Canada will be supporting a resolution on Cuba this year. Given the human rights situation in Columbia vis-à-vis the situation in Cuba, I'd be interested to know why we are not supporting a resolution on Columbia. I'm not suggesting there aren't concerns around human rights in Cuba, but if we're not supporting a resolution on Columbia, why the double standard?

Those are my questions.

Ms. Adèle Dion: Thank you.

First on the question of China, I would remind the subcommittee that the commission began on Monday. We received the draft of the U.S.A. resolution on China yesterday. Our understanding is that this draft has not been circulated to anyone outside of the western group at this point.

We're looking at it. Minister Manley is in London. When he returns on Thursday, we'll be putting a copy before him, obviously.

I don't know if the Americans will ultimately table this draft or not. The normal practice is for delegations to circulate drafts to receive a reaction both to the text, the language in the resolution, and to the likelihood of its being successful.

On China, I'd simply like to confirm that we have just received the draft. We're looking at it. I'm not in a position to say definitively what Canada will do as we have not had an opportunity to pass it to the minister yet.

On Columbia, we certainly agree that the situation is very grave. As you mentioned, Mary Robinson's representative indeed indicated in his report that the situation is actually deteriorating.

• 1640

What has happened on Colombia with the Commission on Human Rights in the past is that the European Union has taken the lead in negotiating a chairman's statement on Colombia. The reason for the chairman's statement is that the Government of Colombia has publicly, and privately, committed to working with the UN and other human rights mechanisms to try to improve the situation of human rights. That of course is also the reason there is an office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia.

Canada at the moment is very supportive of the European Union initiative. We are very anxious that the chairman's statement contain strong language and express strong concern, and identify specific remedies that the Government of Colombia will commit to in order to improve the situation of human rights.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Why would we not be supporting a resolution on this subject?

The Chair: We'll have to give her two more minutes for the rest of her answers.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Fair enough. Madame Dion knows very well that it sends a much stronger signal to adopt a resolution than it does to have a chairman's statement. You have a resolution on Cuba and a chairman's statement on Colombia. There seems to be a very glaring inconsistency there.

Ms. Adèle Dion: I would not portray it as an inconsistency. I think it's very difficult to compare different human rights situations. For example, the Government of Colombia has demonstrated, in a number of UN forums and bilaterally, its willingness to tackle its very serious problems. We haven't received that same signal from the Government of Cuba.

Mr. Svend Robinson: But the UN says they haven't done that.

Ms. Adèle Dion: The UN says they haven't done that and that is why the EU is taking the lead, with our support, in trying to negotiate the strongest possible chair statement.

Again, this is only day three of the Commission on Human Rights. Anything is possible. It's possible that if the EU and other co-sponsors, including Canada, cannot achieve what we want with a chairman's statement, we will move to another vehicle. But it's much too early to say that. I think as well, when a government has publicly stated its commitment to working with a UN mechanism, to have something that is purely condemnatory that the government in question is not a party to, might not be the most efficient way to proceed.

The Chair: Can I interrupt, because there are some new members here. Could you please explain, for us new ones, the difference between a resolution and a chairman's statement and what force is behind those two things? Could you be as quick as you can, because too many people haven't had a question yet?

Ms. Adèle Dion: Thank you. Mr. Robinson and I tend to get to a technical level.

A chairman's statement is actually a tool that was originally developed by Canada as a new approach to the human rights situation in Sri Lanka. In order to have a chairman's statement, the government in question, the object of the human rights concern, must agree to work with other concerned members of the commission, and the chair of the commission, to develop this statement, which normally acknowledges the human rights violations and makes specific commitments to address them. That statement is then read out by the president and by the chair of the commission. It is considered to be a tripartite resolution, if I could call it that. There's considered to be a higher level of commitment, by the government concerned, to taking action.

A resolution is, as Mr. Robinson pointed out, a more traditional tool of the Commission on Human Rights. It is more condemnatory in nature in that it does not enjoy the cooperation of the country concerned. China and Cuba are two obvious examples.

• 1645

The resolution could condemn the human rights situation, call for human rights rapporteurs or other mechanisms to visit the country, and create a special rapporteur to specifically focus on the situation in that country. But there is no guarantee that this country will cooperate in any shape or form with what is called for in the resolution. So that's the primary difference.

The Chair: We have a lot more questions about that, but we'll have to do it another time. We'll come to your questions and—

Mr. Svend Robinson: She's going to answer on Cuba.

Ms. Adèle Dion: We understand that there will be a resolution on Cuba at this year's commission. We haven't seen the draft. It has not been formally circulated. Once it is formally circulated we'll look at the text. We take decisions on co-sponsorship and support on the basis of what's in the text and what our assessment is of the situation.

The Chair: Every question and every answer leads to another question and answer, doesn't it?

We'll go to Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: If you ask him he probably has 85 questions to go.

The Chair: Do you have a question or do we go ahead with him?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes.

[Translation]

Earlier, Mr. Dubé asked how many people were assigned to the Human Rights Division at CIDA and at Foreign Affairs. In my view, Foreign Affairs makes up the policy side of the Canadian government. It interprets and discusses policy issues with other countries, whereas CIDA is there to act on our desire to help other countries develop their communities.

When I heard the question, my reaction was that of a former municipal counsellor. It would be like asking the unit that draws up engineering plans to build a road or a bridge how many employees it has, and then comparing this figure with the number of people employed by the roads department. The roads department does the practical work in the field and implements the policies drawn up by the municipality. In the case of the federal government, CIDA implements our decision to assist developing countries. I wonder whether the question is really appropriate. One might wonder whether it is simply a question of figures. On one side, there are three employees and, on the other, there are 12; that is not fair and everything would have to be redistributed. I don't understand the terms of the question. Perhaps it was only an innocent question.

[English]

The Chair: Who is your question for?

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: [Editor's note: Inaudible]

[English]

The Chair: All right. Could we have a response, because you're time is almost up in just asking the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: My question was not an innocent one. We have to have an overall vision, but at the same time, like a municipal council, we must know what is being done in very concrete terms. We have the right to expect that a member of a branch be able to provide concrete information. When I am given an answer that refers to abstract objectives, I am concerned. That was the sense of my question.

[English]

The Chair: Is there a question there to respond to or not?

Mr. Svend Robinson: I want to ask a couple of questions, if I could, and I'd appreciate it if Mr. Wallace could answer.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I had understood that Mr. Bellemare was the parliamentary secretary to the minister responsible for CIDA.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: He is the parliamentary secretary. He does have numerous opportunities as a parliamentary secretary to ask questions of the officials within that ministry. I just find it a little extraordinary and unprecedented that the parliamentary secretary would be taking the time of the committee to ask questions of his own officials.

• 1650

The Chair: Just a minute—

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Madam Chair, I'm a member of this committee.

Mr. Svend Robinson: But you're also the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Svend Robinson likes to monopolize any committee he sits on by having questions that go on eternally. I think I have a right to be part of the committee and to ask questions.

The Chair: Yes, you do.

Mr. Svend Robinson: But he's the parliamentary secretary.

The Chair: Excuse me, stop the discussion across the table, please.

Mr. Bellemare, do you have a question? That didn't seem to be a question. It seemed to be some kind of investigation or commentary. Your time has been up now for about two minutes. If you have a very short question—

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: That's because Mr. Svend Robinson and Mr. Dubé took the time.

Mr. Svend Robinson: It's unprecedented that the parliamentary secretary would ask his own officials questions.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, I've done the same thing. I asked questions when I was parliamentary secretary, and there's no regulation that you can't.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I asked my question of both.

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare, could we go ahead with Mr. Cotler and ask his question? I still don't know what your question is.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I'm wondering if Mr. Wallace or Madame Dion have an answer to the observation or question I asked.

The Chair: Let's see if they have an answer.

Mr. Tom Wallace: I really don't, sir. I was taking notes. You asked whether it was a correct question, in terms of the question that was formulated.

It's difficult for me. I can't really pronounce on whether it's a correct question or not.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Are we comparing apples and oranges?

Mr. Tom Wallace: We can do some research to try to get some answers and to give an order of magnitude of how many—

The Chair: Okay, that's fine.

Mr. Tom Wallace: But I can't really answer.

The Chair: Maybe we can get a definite answer on that at the estimates.

Mr. Cotler, do you have a question?

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): I have a question for Adèle Dion.

In your opening remarks you mentioned that Canada seeks to influence the human rights performance of other governments, either through bilateral development assistance or multilateral mechanisms. As a follow-up to Svend Robinson's question, which was on the multilateral level, regarding a possible co-sponsoring of a resolution on China, mine is on the bilateral level.

We have had a Canada-China bilateral dialogue on human rights for some time now. We heard from NGOs and others criticisms about the efficacy of that dialogue and the promotion and protection of human rights in China. Has DFAIT made any assessment or evaluation of that bilateral mechanism and ways it might be improved in terms of our impacting on human rights violations in China?

Ms. Adèle Dion: We haven't made a specific all-encompassing evaluation. What we do undertake after each dialogue session, whether it's here in Canada or in China, is an analysis of the exchange, the undertakings, the outcomes.

We try to be iterative. We try to adopt the mechanism that if we have a session that we feel is less successful, for example, in engaging domestic departments in the dialogue, at our next dialogue session we'll try to adopt an approach that ensures that the discussion is more frank and open.

Perhaps I'll just leave it at that.

Mr. Irwin Cotler: Do I have time for a follow-up question?

The Chair: Go ahead with another question.

Mr. Irwin Cotler: Okay. My other question has to do with the UN Commission on Human Rights. I know Canada itself has had some criticisms about the operations, if not the fairness, of this body. Since it is a central mechanism in our overall multilateral approach to the protection of human rights, has Canada come forward with some specific recommendations regarding the better functioning and integrity of the UN Commission on Human Rights?

Ms. Adèle Dion: The effective functioning of the UN Commission on Human Rights is in fact the subject of a resolution that Canada takes the lead on. Three years ago there was a comprehensive report on reform of the human rights system, written in large part by Canada, by Mr. Hynes, who at that time was a member of the bureau of the commission.

• 1655

This is again something that is ongoing. It's a bit like pushing a large boulder uphill. Sometimes we make some small advances; other times we're less successful. But it is something that continues to be a priority for Canada.

Certainly at the level of my department, we are always very interested in receiving recommendations from experts, from non-governmental organizations, from parliamentarians following their visit to the CHR. These are all extremely useful suggestions that we can then try to pursue as a member of the commission.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Dubé, do you have a question?

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Yes, but I will agree to allow...

[English]

The Chair: We can ask a short one each, and then we'll be almost finished.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: My question has to do with priorities. You identified several priorities. In my view—and I agree with Svend Robinson on that—the situation in China is very serious, as is the one in Columbia. Can you identify territories, countries, where human rights are... We have, in fact, seven or eight weeks of work between now and the end of the session. What should our first priority be? I know that our chair has proposed an agenda, but I would like to hear you...

[English]

Ms. Adèle Dion: As a quick clarification, are you asking about priorities we are working on here in my division or at the commission in Geneva?

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: What countries should we look at as priorities? Your answer will influence us. Our committee meets once a week, and that would help us know whether our work is grounded in reality. You are better informed than we are about what is happening internationally, since you are in contact with the United Nations Commission. What would you recommend?

[English]

Ms. Adèle Dion: Okay. First, I would emphasize again what I said earlier in my remarks. In terms of country concerns, specific country situations, my division does not take the lead. The lead belongs to the geographic division within the department.

For example, in the case of China, the lead for human rights concerns, as for the rest of Canada's relationship with China, is with our China relations division.

Of the four specific priorities that my division has at this moment, both here at home and in Geneva, the first is freedom of opinion and expression. Canada takes the lead on a resolution on this issue at the commission. That's very important for us. It's also a key element of our human security agenda.

The second is violence against women, and again, violence against women is something that speaks both to human rights and to my responsibility for international women's equality. Again Canada takes the lead on a resolution at the commission.

The third one is more at the commission than my division here in Ottawa. The third is impunity. Canada takes the lead at the commission in Geneva on a resolution against the concept of impunity. We do this to reinforce our work with regard to the International Criminal Court.

And finally, we also do a resolution at the commission on the working group on the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Canada is very committed to negotiating a declaration on indigenous peoples' rights, and this resolution in effect provides the legislative mandate to continue the negotiations on the draft declaration.

• 1700

So, in brief, that is what is preoccupying us.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I would like to ask a short supplementary question. Can we obtain the texts...

[English]

The Chair: It has to be really short.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: ...of the draft resolutions?

[English]

Ms. Adèle Dion: They certainly are available. At the moment, I believe they are available in English only, but we could certainly have them translated and made available to the committee.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Could you make sure the clerk gets a hold of them?

Ms. Adèle Dion: Yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'll be very brief. I know—

The Chair: You have the last question, Svend, but since we asked for the department's priority, I just thought I would ask what CIDA's priority is.

Just answer very quickly, Mr. Wallace, and then Svend can get to his last question.

Mr. Tom Wallace: Well, I mentioned the social development priority as a very major activity in the department. Over a five-year period, we're committed to more than doubling our expenditures on HIV/AIDS, health and nutrition, basic education, and child protection. They're very much our priorities within the social sphere.

We also have our long-term strategy on measures to improve our aid effectiveness, which relates more to how we're going to deliver aid as opposed to what. Those measures are also a very big priority for the agency.

The Chair: Fine, thank you.

Svend.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes, I'll be very brief—and I thank the chair.

I just have two brief questions. The first is with respect to the very serious human rights situation in West Papua. I'm sure Ms. Dion is familiar with the massive increase in militarization and the growth of militias that have taken place in West Papua over the course of the last year. There has been grave concern expressed by the Canada-Asia Working Group and many other NGOs. I'm sure this came up at the consultations this year.

What position is Canada going to be taking? Are we going to be mentioning Indonesia and West Papua specifically in our item 9 speech? And will we be supporting a resolution on Indonesia at the commission?

To go to the second question, Madam Dion mentioned the parliamentarians' visits to the UN Commission on Human Rights. As she knows, I've had the privilege of participating in a number of these visits. The former chair also participated in these visits, and a number of members have done so over the years. I personally have found it to be one of the most valuable opportunities to actually see the role Canada plays at the international commission. I know Mr. Cotler is a veteran of the commission as well.

I haven't heard yet about any opportunity this year. Almost every year, there has been an invitation extended to parliamentarians. I don't know if that opportunity is going to be made available this year. If it's not made available this year, I would certainly strongly encourage that the opportunity be made available to members of the committee next year. As I say, it's an incredibly valuable one, and members of the committee have availed themselves of it in the past.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, before she answers your question, could you tell me what the name of the country was that you just said a few minutes ago?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Indonesia and West Papua.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Irian Jaya, West Papua.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Dion.

Ms. Adèle Dion: On the situation in West Papua and Indonesia, yes, it causes us a great deal of concern, and there was considerable discussion when we met with the NGOs.

To date, I have not heard whether or not there's going to be anyone taking an initiative at the Commission on Human Rights. Normally it's the European Union that takes the lead on resolutions concerning Indonesia and East Timor, and I do know both Canadian and European NGOs have expressed strong concern to the European Union about the situation in West Papua. I'm only speculating at this point, but I would think the European Union certainly will be trying to insert appropriate references into the text.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Is there any reason Canada wouldn't show leadership on this issue?

Ms. Adèle Dion: At the risk of sounding as if I'm ducking the question, Canada already takes the lead on four resolutions at the commission.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I know about them, but this is a specific area.

Ms. Adèle Dion: Normally, what happens is that there's a division of labour amongst the members of the commission. Since the European Union is already a strong leader on human rights situations in the area, we would not volunteer or take the initiative on this area unless the European Union asked us to.

• 1705

But we certainly share the concerns, and we certainly will—

Mr. Svend Robinson: So we wait for direction from the European Union?

Ms. Adèle Dion: Not at all. What we say to the European Union is that we have concerns, our Canadian NGOs have concerns, and we would hope there would be appropriate language reflected in their resolution.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And if there isn't—

Ms. Adèle Dion: We then work to achieve that.

Mr. Svend Robinson: If they don't bring forward that language, why wouldn't we?

Ms. Adèle Dion: Because we are not the lead on the human rights situation in that area.

Mr. Svend Robinson: But we could be. Is there something written that says we can't take leadership on it if they don't?

Ms. Adèle Dion: We wouldn't take leadership on the resolution. It might be possible to do so in other ways, but that is a question—

The Chair: Maybe you could just explain, for those of us who are new, what the protocol is that doesn't allow us take the lead in it.

Ms. Adèle Dion: Well, not to get into the—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Explain to the ones who have been around for awhile, as well, while you're at it.

Ms. Adèle Dion: Normally, the Commission on Human Rights is comprised of 54 members. There are about 100 resolutions that comprise the business of the commission. The delegations that are most active in taking the lead on resolutions are those from the Western Europe and Others Group, of which Canada is a member.

Overall, Canada leads on six resolutions. Two of them come up only every other year. This year, we're taking the lead on four ourselves, and we co-sponsor upwards of about twenty or thirty other resolutions.

When we co-sponsor, it means we are committed to being an active partner in all of the negotiations on those texts. In the case of Papua and the Indonesia resolution, that means we are already committed to being extremely active in the negotiations and to working to achieve the strongest possible language.

Just because we're not taking the lead, it does not mean we're not concerned and committed. We are.

The Chair: Okay, I think that's a fair answer.

Mr. Svend Robinson: [Inaudible—Editor]...about the commission, the invitation to parliamentarians.

Ms. Adèle Dion: Oh, sorry.

Again, Minister Manley is out of town. We have made a recommendation to the minister. He returns on Thursday, so hopefully we'll hear something by the end of the week.

The Chair: Are there meetings on now? Is that what you're checking, Svend?

Ms. Adèle Dion: They began on Monday.

The Chair: And how long do they go on?

Ms. Adèle Dion: For six weeks.

The Chair: Six weeks. Should we ask, as a committee, if that's possible? Should we send out—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes, if you could check with the minister.

The Chair: Okay, I think we'll—

Mr. Svend Robinson: That has been the practice in the past, yes, and I trust that's been the recommendation by Madam Dion. She doesn't have to tell us, because....

The Chair: We will send a note, then, to see if there's any way anybody in the committee can participate. If all of us can or some of us can, it would be very interesting.

Mr. Svend Robinson: They usually try to send invitations to all of our members.

The Chair: That would be good.

I have just a short question for CIDA, and then we'll let you nice people go.

You mentioned your agenda for renewal and said it was in draft form. Could you make sure that when it gets into a final form we have a copy?

Mr. Tom Wallace: Sure.

The Chair: Okay.

I'd like to thank you very much for being here. You've helped us to understand a lot. As I've said, for every single statement that comes up, I have more questions. As the chair, I'm not in the position...well, I get my little questions in every now and then. But you've certainly helped us out a lot. I'm sure we will be asking you back again to answer some other questions that will come up. Thank you very much.

This part of the meeting is adjourned, and we'll now have an in camera meeting for members only.

[Proceedings continue in camera]