Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
Can we have this separated in the future? It's hard to sort out the English from the French, trying to fold it over. I don't have the slightest idea where I am right now.
I'm trying to understand the purpose of a motion like this. We have a draft of the universal periodic review study we did. This would be more appropriate in recommendations vis-à-vis this study, rather than in a motion in this regard. I just don't understand the rationale.
We did all the work and heard witnesses. It's very germane to our study. I don't know why we're pulling this motion out. Why don't we just make it one or two recommendations--whatever we like--in order to recommend to the government that they do such and such?
I am inclined to move a subamendment to the proposed amendment. Instead of using the word “reforming”—which implies that things are not going very well in the council, which is not quite accurate, in my opinion—we could say “improving and strengthening the Council”, which is a better reflection of the current situation.
By the way, the consent there was just a little rapid.
Nevertheless, I want to reassert that I think this motion would be better served as a recommendation in our study of the UPR. I can't support it for that reason. I'd rather see it in a report that's germane and a demonstration of our work.
I'd like to ask Mr. Dorion why he wants it as a stand-alone, as opposed to adding it to our report. I can certainly support it--no issue with that. Is there a significant reason why it shouldn't be in the report, just so I have a better understanding?
I would ask my colleague to clarify his question. The most important thing in this motion is the idea that Canada participate once again in this council, in other words, that Canada renew its candidacy and obtain a place on the council.
Of course, it is also to ensure that the council functions better. I cannot see how anyone could object to that, unless they want to boycott the council. I think it is important for Canada to reclaim its international role in human rights. Such an amendment would encourage the government to do that.
There is an underlying logic. We have seen, on a number of occasions, that Canada's role in international rights is considered much weaker today than in the past. A number of witnesses have shared that concern with us. That is why I think this amendment is important.
Okay. I'll just ask the question, before I go to Mr. Marston and Mr. Sweet. Does this relate primarily to the periodic review of Canada's human rights performance or of Canada's role in the human rights of other countries? I'm not entirely sure.
I assume you're talking about the periodic review of Canada. Our report was about the periodic review of Canada, so that determines whether or not it's relevant to talk about including it in the report, which is how some of the discussion has gone. If this is about the periodic review of Canada, then it can be included in the report. If it's about Canada's participation on the international scene and the human rights records of other countries and our role in that, then there is no way we could include this in our report. It would be outside the bounds of the report. That's why I asked the question.
But I gather from your response that this is referring to the review of Canada's human rights record?
Monsieur Dorion talked about why somebody would be against it. I don't want to assume any intent on his part, but let me be clear that I was not against the substance of this motion, although I do disagree with the last comment that he made about Canada's work in any way being weakened right now. I think if anything it's strengthened.
But all I was saying, Mr. Chair, as Mr. Dorion has just again repeated and reasserted, was that this is very germane to our report, and as a recommendation it would serve much better than as a stand-alone motion. We did the work, and it would be appropriate to put the recommendation inside the report.
Exactly, it is not part of the report, but it is in keeping with the spirit of the consideration of the report. It does not have to be a part of the report.
Professor Cotler comes next, and then I'm going to remind people that we are discussing the subamendment at this point. So we have to find some way back through a chain of three separate decisions. Just keep that in mind.
Mr. Chairman, this motion deals with the universal periodic review. The universal periodic review takes place within the framework of the UN Human Rights Council, so it also deals with the council. Given that these issues are inextricably bound one with the other, it seems to me it might better find its place in the report.
I also want to say parenthetically, but not unimportantly, that I have appeared a number of times before the UN Human Rights Council, and frankly, some of its deliberations are in the Alice in Wonderland category. I'm putting it rather charitably.
I strongly support Canada's candidacy to return to that council, but not without making it clear at the same time that we are returning with a purpose. That purpose is, as Mr. Silva put forth in his amendment, reforming and strengthening the council. Just to put forward our candidacy doesn't make sense. It's almost as if we're going to rubber-stamp what, as I said, has been an Alice in Wonderland proceeding there.
In the French version, the words “la réforme” would be replaced by “l'amélioration”.
[English]
And in English, instead of “reforming”, it would be “improving and strengthening” the council.
That's the subamendment. Then we'll deal with the amendment and then the main motion.
We don't have a consensus, so let's go to a vote on that.
(Subamendment negatived)
The Chair: We will now go to the amendment. The amendment is what you see on your sheet. You can go back and look at that. It's now as originally written.
What about that one? Do we have consensus on that amendment?
I will make a comment, Mr. Chair, to reassert that I agree with Mr. Cotler. I will be in agreement with this subamendment, but not with the motion after, as I will demonstrate with my vote. I'm in consensus at this point.
Mr. Chair, I want to be clear on the record that we are in agreement with the substance of this motion; we're not in agreement with the process.
Since Mr. Dorion wanted to go in public, I will reassert, in public, that although we will be voting against this motion, we will not be voting against the substance of it and we would like to see it as a recommendation in the report.
No, no, but I think the question is in principle. Could someone introduce an amendment to the report in the form of putting this in as a recommendation? I think that's the question, and the answer would be yes.
I have two questions. First of all, even if I vote against the motion as amended, that does not mean that we are against Canada joining the Human Rights Council, on the contrary. I put forward a motion on this that, unfortunately, the majority of the committee did not support. I am concerned by the use of the word “reforming”, which suggests to the committee that the Human Rights Council is somewhat deficient. That is not my opinion, nor my party's.
Secondly, I thought we had abandoned the idea of including it in the report. But the chair is once again saying that it would be part of the report. Could you clearly state whether you really intend to include this motion in the report? I thought we had dealt with that.
I'm going to go to Mr. Silva and then Mr. Marston. If that question hasn't been answered in the process of discussion, I'll try to answer it. But let's go to Mr. Silva first.
I'm sorry, I guess I didn't pay attention to how the vote went, Mr. Chair. If Mr. Dorion, who was the originator of 99% of this motion is not in favour of the minor amendment that was made, then I don't know why any other member of the committee would want to support it. If he's not voting for it, then I would also not be in favour of it.
To be very clear, Mr. Chair, my understanding is that this is a stand-alone motion, and if it's defeated, the option then is that it can be added to the report if the committee feels it wants to. But the vote here does not put it into the report in any fashion; we're still dealing with a stand-alone motion. As a result of that, I can support it.
Is there any more debate? I've been a bit fast on this in the past, so I'll just check.
Okay. So the answer to Mr. Dorion's question, effectively, was given by Mr. Marston. We'd be voting on this as a stand-alone item. If it's defeated, or indeed if it's passed, it can still be put into the report because the report is being discussed as a separate item.
All right. So we're voting on the main motion as amended.
Is everybody clear about that?
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Chair: All those in favour of the motion as amended?
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: May I suggest now that we go back in camera to deal with the UPR report. If we manage to complete that, we can go public again and deal with another of Monsieur Dorion's motions.