CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 12, 1999

• 1538

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.)): Order, please. We welcome the staff from the Department of Canadian Heritage to help us if we need their assistance as we go through the clause-by-clause.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed.

(On clause 2—Definitions)

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Bloc motion 1 and G-1 seem to be doing the same task, so we'll begin with the Bloc.

Madame St-Hilaire, do you want to begin with your first amendment?

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): As Ms. Archambault told us yesterday, it's primarily a matter of differences in the terminology in the English and French versions. Early on the bill, we read the following in the French version:

a) la juste valeur marchande des objets exposés et prêtés par l'étranger dépasse celle des objets provenant du Canada;

The English version only uses the word "borrow". Yesterday, Ms. Archambault pointed out that the French version wasn't consistent with the English one, and that's why I'm proposing an amendment.

• 1540

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Is there any further discussion? Would anyone else like to speak to it?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, if I may, the government has introduced a similar motion. I want to compare the two because I haven't had a chance to. Just as I expect the opposition might have just received government amendments, I have just seen for the first time Madame St-Hilaire's amendments. Could I ask for a couple of minutes to take a look, consult and caucus, and whatever else needs to be done?

[Translation]

After yesterday's testimony, the government is proposing that the words "objets exposés et prêtés" on line 16 in the French version of the bill be replaced with "objets qui en font partie". The reference is to objects in the exhibition that would be eligible for indemnification and that are borrowed from outside the country. In my view, the words "qui en font partie et qui sont empruntés à l'étranger" provide a more accurate description. We're proposing this amendment after hearing testimony. I think we almost agree on this point.

We prefer the government's amendment because it achieves even more clearly the stated objective.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Then, you wouldn't touch line 17 which reads "dépasse celle des objets provenant du Canada"?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We plan to oppose Ms. St-Hilaire's motion, not because we object to its contents, but simply because we feel our motion better meets our expectations and those voiced yesterday.

• 1545

(Motion negatived)

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.)): Our next item of business is amendment G-1.

Mr. Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The amendment we wish to move is virtually similar in terms of content to the one moved by Ms. St-Hilaire.

[English]

I move it.

[Translation]

(Motion carried)

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): The next item of business is amendment BQ-2.

Mr. Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, the government opposes amendments BQ-2 through BQ-5 for several reasons, which I will review one at a time.

Amendment BQ-2 would set the fair market value of borrowed objects in the exhibition at $100,000, whereas the government is proposing to set the level at $500,000, which would include exhibition materials, glass cases, shelves and all appurtenances needed to exhibit objects properly. This ceiling was set following a fairly elaborate consultation process and I have no problem rejecting this amendment in view of amendment G-2.

In G-2, we follow up on another recommendation made by the witnesses yesterday, namely that the administration of the act be subject to review. We accept this recommendation and have agreed to include in the bill a provision whereby, in five years' time, a committee of the House, either standing or special, will be required to review the provisions of the act and any regulations arising thereof.

I think committee members generally agree on the merits of this proposal, and we would like to be able to review the act's provisions after five years. If we determine at that time that the ceiling is too high or that the overall coverage provided is inadequate, then we can move to make the appropriate changes. For now, let's stick to what's in this bill, since there appeared to be a sense of urgency yesterday and a desire to move forward quickly.

Frankly, I must admit that bringing in the requested amendment would jeopardize the passage of the bill before the summer recess. We face a number of time constraints. We could bring in all kinds of amendments, but no doubt this would delay the whole process. It's a matter of choice. After listening to the testimony presented yesterday, we are opting—and I hope committee members are all on side—to keep the bill more or less intact, and to limit the number of amendments, even if this means reviewing the legislation in five years' time, as we are proposing to do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Do you have any comments, Mr. Dumas?

Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Yes, thank you.

Don't you think five years is a rather long period of time? What if there has been an error and something goes wrong....

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We'll get to that when we consider G-2.

Mr. Maurice Dumas: Fine.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Bélanger, you brought up a number of subjects while we were still on BQ-2. I'd also like to say—I'm not accusing anyone either, because I know you work hard, Mr. Bélanger—that I would have appreciated receiving the amendments a little earlier than I did. This doesn't leave us much time to go over them.

• 1550

Our amendment focuses on two things, the first of which is institutions. Yesterday, we talked about institutions in two provinces. You may recall what Mr. Perron said, namely that the residents of Edmonton weren't likely to be interested in an exhibit in Vancouver. That is something we need to be careful about and the same holds true for Quebec. In the bill, the exhibit must be shown in at least two provinces. Small exhibits or small museums might not necessarily be subsidized and could encounter problems.

I understand your wanting to adopt this bill quickly, because I share your sentiments, but if these amendments were adopted unanimously, we wouldn't have any problems. We have to consider ways of improving this legislation without delaying the proceedings.

As such, amendment BQ-2 which pertains to institutions and provides for a ceiling of $100,000—something that the witnesses appearing yesterday called for—would not delay the process. Can we not accommodate the requests made by members of the museum community?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Any comments?

(Motion negatived)

(Clause 2 as amended carried)

(Clause 3—Agreements for indemnification)

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Next on our agenda is clause 3 and amendment BQ-3.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Once again, this amendment comes on the heels of yesterday's meeting. The Parliamentary Secretary was in agreement with us on this. Everyone seemed to be confused a little, and that is why we are proposing that the clause be amended to read "at any time", instead of "in any fiscal year".

We are not asking that the ceiling be increased, because we know the government has limited funds available, but we would like the time frame to be specific.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Can I ask a question on this?

I understand that the fiscal year...I understand it fully, but I fail to see the significance between both, and I'm wondering if the people from the ministry could explain the difference.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I just want to confirm what Ms. St-Hilaire said. My understanding of the situation was somewhat different. This ties in with the review process planned for several years down the road. I agree that perhaps it would be preferable for the clause to read "at any time".

One has to realize that in government, decisions are made at a given moment in time. I hadn't understood correctly and I apologize for that. I admit that I would prefer it not to be cumulative. For now, the government's position is very clear. It supports the bill as is, knowing full well that eventually changes could be made to improve it.

Indeed, Mr. Muise,

[English]

the situation is that it is—and I had not understood this—cumulative, so that indeed if you had three travelling exhibitions covering $400 million each, let's say, and none of them had any claims and they came to terms six months into the year, it would still only leave $300 million out of the $1.5 billion for the rest of the year. So there will have to be a judicious use and allocation, and that is where the government has indicated it will rely on advice from a committee of peers, as is in the act.

• 1555

If we adopt that amendment and do the review, I would like to see the Government of Canada eventually review that and put in that note at any time, as I've said. For the time being, I misunderstood, and I apologize if I've caused any grief because of that.

[Translation]

(Motion negatived)

(Clause 3 carried on division)

(Clause 4 carried)

(Clause 5—Regulations)

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Next, we have clause 5 and amendment BQ-4. Ms. St-Hilaire.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Amendments BQ-4 and BQ-5 deal with the same subject and are being proposed further to our consultations with museum officials. I have several problems with paragraphs (ii) and (iii). Do they not, in some respects, appear to call into question the ability of museum administrators?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Do you have any comments, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We won't support those amendments because I find it a bit strange that you want to abandon those two subparagraphs. Subparagraph (ii) refers to "the educational and professional quality of the exhibition" and subparagraph (iii) speaks of "the significance and relevance to Canadians of the exhibition's theme and contents". These determinations will be made in consultation with an advisory committee made up of peers.

We live in a country where we enjoy freedom of speech and if someone notes an infringement or some type of abuse, you can be sure that we will be hearing about it, perhaps even from the opposition itself. we are not trying to get anything by, but criteria must be set. These criteria were chosen in close consultation with the museums representatives ant they do not seem to have big problems with that. Certain persons expressed reservations; those reservations will allow the government to be attentive in its interpretation of these subparagraphs and, especially, will encourage the advisory committee to make sure they are well founded and well applied.

And so, at this time, we do not believe it would be useful to eliminate those two criteria suggested for the program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(Amendments BQ-4 and BQ-5 are negatived)

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Amendment G-2.

• 1600

Is Mr. Paradis the sponsor of this amendment?

Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): No, I did not. I would however like to make a clarification, or ask a question.

In this amendment G-2, in proposed paragraph 5.1(1), it says that "of the House of Commons or of both houses of Parliament", whereas in paragraph (2) the words "both houses" are absent. We have to make up our minds. If you say "of the House of Commons or of both Houses of parliaments" in paragraph (1), you must repeat the same thing in paragraph (2).

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No. It may be a joint committee, but....

Mr. Denis Paradis: In that case, both Houses would have to extend the review period. If an extension is possible, it must be authorised by both Houses.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, but if this amendment is carried, the second House will also have to study it and pass it. A standing committee or a special committee can be a committee of a single House of Parliament or a joint committee. We are saying that it will be either a joint committee, that is a committee of the House of Commons and of the Senate, or a committee of the House of Commons alone. The House will be involved in one way or another.

Mr. Denis Paradis: Yes, but in paragraph (2), it says that only the House may authorize a longer period. This is not in compliance with paragraph (1).

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It is not necessary to add the words "or of both Houses of Parliament". The House Standing Orders allow it to create joint committees. Perhaps there is an error. I will ask the drafter if that is the case.

Mr. Denis Paradis: It says in paragraph (1):

5.1(1) The administration of this Act shall, five years after the coming into force of this Act, be reviewed by the Committee of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.

We know what a joint committee is; it is a committee of the House and of the Senate. It says in the third line of the French version of paragraph (2) "Within a year after the review is undertaken or within any further time that the House of Commons may authorize". That is where it should say "that the House of Commons or the Senate may authorize, as need be". If the review period is to be extended, both Houses must authorize this extension in the case of a joint committee. All I am seeking is conformity. I would remove the words "or of both Houses of Parliaments" in paragraph (1), to make it simpler.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): There is a technical question, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, about whether the English and French texts of proposed subsection 5.1(1) match. Where it says “the committee of the House of Commons, or of both Houses”—it isn't an elegant translation to say “mixte”.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I need some assistance here. Is it possible for the House of Commons alone to unilaterally extend a deadline of a joint committee?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Yes, you can send a message to the Senate to grieve the deadline, but otherwise it's an order. You must go through that procedure.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: But the House of Commons can unilaterally extend a deadline of a joint committee.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): No, one would have to go to the Senate. Is that correct? The Senate would have to concur. Remember, the two chambers have equal authority constitutionally. We must respect the dignity of the Houses.

If this can be corrected, it might be a very routine matter and won't take very long. There is a lack of equivalence between the English and French texts.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So it would read:

5.1(1) The administration of this Act shall, five years after the coming into force of this Act, be reviewed by the committee of the House of Commons that may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.

(2) The committee designated or established by Parliament for the purpose of subsection (1) shall undertake a review of the provisions and operation of this Act and shall, within a year after the review is undertaken or within any further time that the House of Commons may authorize, submit a report to Parliament thereon including a statement of any changes to this Act or its administration that the committee would recommend.

• 1605

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): I think we should have that rewritten for official purposes. I take it you would delete “or of both Houses of Parliament” and the “soit mixte” from the French version. That would simplify it, but we would need to—

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In French, we would have:

5.1 (1) Le Parlement désigne ou constitue un comité...

And we would remove "soit de la Chambre des communes, soit mixte", "of the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament".

Mr. Maurice Dumas: "Of the House of Commons".

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): "Committee of the House of Commons".

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Very well.

... after the coming into force of the this Act, be reviewed by the Committee of the House of Commons that may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.

(2) The Committee designated or established by Parliament for the purpose of subsection (1) shall undertake a review of the provisions and operations of this Act and shall within a year after the review is undertaken or within any further time that the House of Commons may authorize, submit a report to Parliament thereon including a statement of any changes...

Is that okay?

Some hon. members: Okay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): A comment from Mr. Dumas.

Mr. Maurice Dumas: You absolutely want your five-year period? Can you explain the reasons for that?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm going to give the floor to the people here. I will acknowledge that there was some debate about this. Let's hear what they have to say.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Are you moving this amendment?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I move the amendment.

[English]

Mr. David Walden (Director, Moveable Cultural Property, Arts and Heritage, Department of Canadian Heritage): It's our opinion that you will need five years of data to have a sufficient indication of how the program is working and the number of exhibitions and objects that will be indemnified.

It's not impossible in the first part of the program, if you reduce it to a shorter period of time, to only indemnify 10 to 12 exhibitions. There can be a preponderance of exhibitions organized and circulated within Canada, or the reverse, only international exhibitions. To allow us to get the appropriate mix and enough data to be indicative of how things are working, we think five years is an appropriate period.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): The comments of the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Dumas, one of the arguments that convinced me is that this amendment provides the assurance that this will be done within five years.

Mr. Maurice Dumas: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: But nothing prevents us from doing it sooner if the need arises. If there were an infringement or some type of serious problem, nothing would prevent the government or the committee from asking that the review be carried out before the end of the five-year period.

We are in fact going further than what our witnesses asked for yesterday. Our witnesses were asking for a commitment on our part; they weren't asking that we amend the law. We accepted this concept of an obligatory review. As for the five-year period, it is true that it will allow us to have a better overall view of things, but the review can be carried out sooner if that proves necessary.

Mr. Maurice Dumas: But why don't you add "Or before if necessary"?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Because that is part of parliamentary prerogative. Since this already exists, we don't have to specify it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): The parliamentary secretary has moved the amendment.

(Amendment carried)

(Clause 5 as amended carried on division)

(Clause 6 and 1 carried)

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Carried.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Has the bill carried unanimously?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): I believe so. Shall the bill as amended carry?

Some hon. members: Carried.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Shall I report the bill with amendments to the House of Commons?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Yes.

• 1610

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Pursuant to Standing order 108(2), we request to consider the Second Report on Canada's compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Mr. Lowther.

[English]

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): I wonder if I just might have a few minutes to review a few notes I have here with the committee and go over a few things, just to bring everybody back up to speed on this issue. Then there may be opportunity to discuss it a little and hopefully come to some go-forward resolution. We tabled this motion back in February, or maybe it was November, I'm not sure.

So with that and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'll press ahead for a few minutes just to lay the groundwork.

On November 25, 1998, Mr. Bélanger, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, was requested by this committee to produce a report on the process followed in producing Canada's second report to the UN on compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We got the report, and I think you all have it in front of you here this afternoon. We received it earlier, and I thank Mr. Bélanger for that.

The report states:

The Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for the coordination of the preparation of all the reports that Canada must submit on the implementation of international human rights instruments.

And this includes the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It also states this on the Heritage Canada web site. Therefore, the heritage committee, not the foreign affairs committee, is the venue for potential hearings on the matter. Given concerns about this report and the convention itself, I suggest committee members should indeed take up this responsibility.

After looking at the report in additional depth, it is noted the report from Mr. Bélanger, from the department, states:

Within the federal government, the Departments of Health and Justice have the lead responsibility for drafting the federal portion of the Report on the Rights of the Child, with the assistance of an interdepartmental Committee on which the Department of Canadian Heritage is a member.

But fundamentally, the Department of Canadian Heritage pulls this all together. We've noticed there is no parliamentary review given from elected parliamentarians, even though many citizens are concerned about the UN convention, this report, and its potential impact on family life in Canada. In the 36th Parliament alone there were 80 petitions with almost 12,000 signatures. Since this has been brought up, there's been another 1,000 signatures submitted in the House, for a total now of 13,000 signatures of people concerned about the implications of the UN convention. Heritage committee hearings could ensure that the report—a bureaucratic report, largely—is reviewed and publicly supported before going on to the UN.

The report states:

The Department of Canadian Heritage also participates in the work of the Canadian delegation attending the United Nations Committee review of the Canadian report.

So Heritage is involved at the UN when this report is reviewed. However, in responding to Canada's first report, which was in 1994 in this convention, the UN committee on the rights of the child was critical of Canada in a number of areas.

This is the five-year report. This is the five-year period in which it's now time for us to submit again. Canada will have to address some of the criticisms that were expressed in the 1994 report in its second report, due in 1999. I submit that parliamentarians should indeed take an interest in responding or seeing how we are responding to the criticisms of such policy questions in Canada's second report to the UN.

On another issue here, the report states:

The Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children undertook an analysis

—this is another group, the Coalition for the Rights of Children—

—of legislation, programs and policies that affect children, to assess the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Research results are intended to foster a dialogue between the federal government and non-governmental organizations on the status of children.

• 1615

This coalition received financial support from the federal government, totalling $330,000, to prepare what I think you would call an NGO report. What can we expect from this third-party report? Unfortunately, there are some very serious questions about who this NGO report speaks for. Is it ordinary Canadians or advocacy and lobby groups? I'd submit that after investigation, you'll find, as I did, that far from being an open shop, to obtain official membership in this coalition, an organization must, and I quote from their own material

...submitting

a formal letter from an authorizing body of the organization stating official support of the Coalition's mandate;

All membership requests are subject to approval by members of the Coalition.

So I submit it's very much a closed shop.

The proposal I'm submitting to the committee today is this. I suggest the heritage committee should be prepared to call those responsible for drafting Canada's report before this committee, to allow an opportunity for you to review the process and hopefully review the document before it goes to the United Nations.

The government should assure Canadian families, I submit as well, and reaffirm written statements made in response to some of the petitions that have been submitted, that they're going to include these responses in the report to the UN. I have the petitions here, and I can quote where in the response to the petitioners the government said that in keeping with the government's publicly stated position, the government should emphasize that, one, implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child will not undermine the rights, responsibilities, and autonomy of parents; two, the government has no intention of repealing or amending section 43 of the Criminal Code; and three, the government will not fund any research or court challenge respecting section 43 of the Criminal Code.

These are responses the government itself gave to petitioners on this issue.

I'm almost finished here, Mr. Chairman, if you'll indulge me for a few more minutes.

Let me also bring to the committee's attention that in a meeting I attended when I was a member of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access, the Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Secretary of State for Children and Youth, stated:

The Convention on the Rights of the Child...is very clear, in article 9, sections 1 and 3 in particular, on the rights of children in such circumstances.

She goes on to say:

It would be a good reminder that we support this convention, and this is the reflection of the underpinnings of our legislative mandate, and where we want to go in terms of policy.

I'm making this point to underline to the committee how this convention is really driving much of the government's policy.

I go on to say that the health minister in 1998 also said that the government is firmly committed to the international obligations, and the convention now forms a foundation for all initiatives involving children.

I'll close, Mr. Chairman, with a point that I'd like to also draw to the committee's attention, which is that other countries have made a decision to allow input and review by parliamentarians. Australia, for example, has recently amended its international agreement protocol so that there is input and review from parliamentarians in the process. Between 1994 and 1996, the Australian government conducted two reviews of the process by which Australia becomes party to international treaties and agreements.

I can read through this and bring out more of that, but I think I'll close by saying that they did this to ensure that adequate consultation during negotiation of an international treaty and review was made a requirement before any kind of final action by the executive arm of government.

So with that background, Mr. Chairman, I'm hoping that the committee will consider this motion and allow yourselves as elected representatives of the people to have a better understanding of this process, to question the process, and perhaps, should you see fit, actually see the report that's being submitted at great taxpayer expense to the UN prior to the United Nations committee actually getting it. I'm not saying we necessarily have to change it—that would be a decision of this committee—nor am I saying we have to lobby to change it, but I am saying just bring some exposure to this.

• 1620

With that, I'll turn it back to you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Thank you.

For commentary, I should ask Mr. O'Brien and I should perhaps ask the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Sir, I'd defer to my colleague here.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'd like to read a response to this into the record. I have copies for distribution. Perhaps we can circulate those. I've given a copy to the booth behind me. But bear with me, because I want it to be read into the record. It reads:

Canada is party to six United Nations conventions in the field of human rights.

Each instrument requires the review of periodic reports of Member States by a dedicated, UN appointed, independent panel of experts. These reports are required every two to five years.

The periodic reports contain the information deemed relevant and appropriate by the various levels of government to reflect Canada's performance in implementing the provisions of the instrument during the review period.

Since the reports themselves do not create policies or programs, they have always been treated as an interdepartmental administrative function where departments with domestic responsibility for a given issue are accountable for the content and the wording chosen for statements included in the report.

The Human Rights Program of the Department of Canadian Heritage is responsible for the compilation of the federal, provincial and territorial report modules, to review and iron out with interested parties any inconsistencies and contradictions, to structure the reports in the agreed upon format, and to send them to Foreign Affairs for onward transmission to the United Nations.

In keeping with the practice established in concert with provincial and territorial jurisdictions in 1975, it is only once the complete reports are received at the United Nations that they are deemed to be public. Only then does the Human Rights Program begin their distribution on a request basis. The public documents are also now posted on the Program's Web site at the following URL

I'll skip the address; it's there.

Having said this, Mr. Chairman, nothing prevents any member of Parliament, anybody from the public, anybody from any NGO from transmitting to the government, either through their members of Parliament or directly, their opinions, as is the want of everyone to be able to do that. Also, nothing prevents any committee or any member of any committee, once a report has been made public, to review that report at the committee, which would be the appropriate time to do so.

In response, therefore, to the request that we proceed with an analysis of the report before it is written and made public, I can only say no.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Thank you.

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's interesting when you substitute at these committees what you sometimes stumble into. Of course, I've served on this committee, so I'm pleased to be back to speak to this.

I'm glad Mr. Bélanger read what he did here and distributed it before I spoke, because philosophically I have a fair bit of sympathy for what Mr. Lowther raised, to the extent that I hear frequently from constituents that positions are taken on behalf of Canada at international fora, most importantly the UN, on a variety of things such as rights of the child, etc., where there's a perception, or misperception—whatever the case may be—that there was not a full enough opportunity for input from the public.

So what my colleague has just said I think somehow needs to be advertised better to the public. If there really is an opportunity for this input from the public, whether the onus falls on the government or whoever, I think it needs to be more widely advertised. I have had a number of constituents over my six years here contact me to say that such and such a position was taken that they find morally reprehensible about a variety of things, and they felt they didn't have much of a chance for input.

With that comment, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask Mr. Bélanger a question. Essentially I hear him saying that the analysis, or the hearings, that Mr. Lowther is calling for by this committee would be premature, if that would be the right word. That's fine. If this is the case, that's fine. But I would encourage that I don't think as parliamentarians, frankly, we are enough involved in some of these positions that are taken on behalf of our country internationally.

• 1625

As a general comment, I have great philosophical sympathy for the point that was raised by Mr. Lowther, particularly as it relates to some very serious issues of a moral question, if I can put it that way. I take the parliamentary secretary's comments advisedly. But as one MP sitting here, I hope this committee will monitor this in the future and look for an opportunity to broaden the opportunities for input.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understand what the parliamentary secretary just explained to us, but I'm wondering, since the report falls under the purview of the heritage committee, would it not be possible to set aside a block of time to have witnesses come and share their views, and then we as a committee could pass those views on to the group putting the report together? I also support what my honourable colleague from the Reform Party is suggesting. But I recognize we have to work within certain guidelines, so I'm hoping there may be a way we can help the process by opening our doors to make the process broader, so the proper witnesses can come forth, ensuring those witnesses and the Canadian people that the information goes where it should go.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): This is really a question to the chair as much as anything else. It has to do with international law, so I feel some comfort in putting it to the chair. My understanding is that Canada is a party to these international treaties, so it's the government that is accountable for honouring the treaty, not Parliament. It's the government itself. Once the report has been made public by the government, then in a review function, an all-party committee like this could look over it and say, this government didn't tell the truth; this government forgot this, that, and the other. But it's not this committee, it's not a committee of Parliament, that is making the response to the United Nations. It is the Government of Canada, duly elected.

So if you start to confuse the two things about who's responsible.... I don't think it would be appropriate for this committee to have a share of the responsibility of making the report on behalf of the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada, through the concerned ministries of health and justice, is the one that's on the line having to answer specific comments, accusations, or charges, and they've got to get on with it directly. They can't have it modified or filtered through a committee. I think that would be improper.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): It is technically correct. The conduct of foreign policy is within the prerogative powers of the executive. However, if an international agreement entered into by the executive required implementing legislation, then Parliament immediately comes into play, and as a result of the decisions of the Privy Council, which are still law, any implementing legislation must be within the constitutional law-making powers of the federal Parliament. If it's within provincial powers, the federal government must speak to the provinces and get cooperative legislation.

But if it is simply a report and an engagement to a report, without the necessity of or the call for implementing legislation, it is technically within the prerogative powers of the executive, and therefore beyond Parliament. You get into a larger question of whether Parliament can conduct discussions in the air and the like, and I don't want to give you a legal opinion on that. That's a matter of political judgment.

Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I just want to clarify a couple of points here so that we're not getting sidetracked from what I'm requesting the committee to consider. To Mr. Godfrey's point, if we, or Canadians in general, want to make comments about some shortcomings we perceive in the report on the implementation that goes to the UN, at that point Canadians or parliamentarians are in a debate more with the UN than they are with the government, because now the UN will have issued their statement on our shortcomings or strengths, and we won't be debating the nuances of the report; we'll be debating the UN's position. So the government is that much insulated from any input on the report.

• 1630

I would think it would be a good thing, to avoid future problems, if this committee could add their own perspective on the report before it goes to the UN, so that there is that covering of public comment on the report before we're at the stage that we're debating the UN. It doesn't mean we have to change the report. It is the government's report; I recognize that. At the same time, I think fundamentally it actually serves the government's interest if an opinion from Parliament is offered on the report before it's sent to the UN for commentary.

The other reason I say that...and to Mr. Bèlanger's comments that the reports themselves do not create policies or programs, I refer the committee again to the very quote from Ethel Blondin-Andrew, who's keenly involved in youth and children's issues, that this is the document that forms public policy for the government—the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

So to say that they don't in themselves form policies or programs conflicts exactly with what Alan Rock and Madame Blondin-Andrew have said to others. I think it only adds strength to whatever we're doing within the UN convention process if this committee has an opportunity to review it before it goes to the UN, and to understand the process also.

So, as Mr. O'Brien says, if he gets asked by constituents, as I have, we can at least point to some sort of oversight by the people's representatives before it is in the hands of the UN.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): The actual motion that was agreed to on division asked for a report by Heritage Canada on the process followed to prepare Canada's second report. That's a slightly different orientation. Has that report on the process...?

Mr. Eric Lowther: That was a motion, but that's not the motion that was tabled. The motion that was tabled, which we're bringing back today, is not that one.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Yes, that's the short one.

Mr. Eric Lowther: The motion says:

That the Heritage Committee have hearings on the preparation of Canada's second report to the United Nations on the International Convention on the Rights of the Child....

That's the actual motion that we put on the floor back when we had this issue brought up the first time. The idea of the hearings would be that this committee could understand the process more thoroughly, and also request, within that, that they have access to see the final product, if the committee thought that was suitable once they understood the process more extensively.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Mr. Muise had a comment.

Mr. Mark Muise: No.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Had you finished your commentary?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes, sir.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question.

If the concern is that these reports become public prematurely, then could that not be addressed by this committee holding in-camera sessions?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): We certainly have the legal power to hold them.

Yes, Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: That suggestion is exactly the one that has been adopted by the Australian government, that if there are concerns about “secrecy” on these things...they have in fact implemented an in camera process in their own government to do that very thing.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I'm not trying to come here as a substitute and create problems, but I've stumbled onto something that's very important to me, and I'm glad I did. I understand Mr. Bèlanger's concern, the government's concern, but I also have great sympathy that there should be more opportunity for parliamentary and public input into these reports and delegations on very important issues that go to international fora. So I just offer the thought. Maybe the committee would want to look at the possibility of an in camera review of such a report, I don't know.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Madame St-Hilaire.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: I find this very interesting and I would like to ask my colleague Mr. Lowther something. The motion talks about before the adjournment, if I understand correctly; so that would be before June. I know that the committee is very busy and I wonder how much time Mr. Lowther is requesting for hearings. Is he asking for a three-hour block?

• 1635

[English]

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes, that part of the motion was actually deleted by the committee in discussion when this was first brought up, because we didn't want to be constrained by some time deadline, and I believe Mr. Bèlanger spoke to that a little bit the last time. So the motion no longer has a time constraint of before the House rises. That portion has been struck out. Is that correct?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): I understand that, yes.

[Translation]

Ms. St-Hilaire.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: That doesn't really give me an answer. It will be before June, but we don't know how much time Mr. Lowther needs.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Mr. Muise.

Sorry, okay.

[Translation]

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: The adjournment will be in June.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Mr. Lowther, then Mr. Muise, and the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Well, at the current point in time, we're actually at or past the deadline for Canada to respond with its report to the UN. So we have not met our deadline, and there is some indication from some of the bureaucrats I've talked to that we'll actually be late on the deadline. But in fact the deadline is looming, so I would think leaving this too long would not be a good idea. I doubt whether we'd get it on the agenda before the House rises. I don't know. I leave that to the challenges of this committee to decide. But I would think we wouldn't want to leave it too long.

The other part of that is that...sorry, I've just lost the second thought. It'll have to come to me. I apologize.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): That's fine.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I'm of the same opinion as Mr. O'Brien. I think this is far too important to just let pass, and if there are certain concerns about privacy or secrecy until the report is finished, let's offer the opportunity and do it in such a way that protects the evidence that is given prior to it going to the final report. I would very much support what Mr. O'Brien said if it's at all possible under the committee rules.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Mauril Bèlanger: I'm very happy Mr. Godfrey raised the question he raised about the separation of powers in our society among the executive, the judiciary, and Parliament, or the legislature. As a legislative unit, we're now trying to do something that is in the purview of the executive. The drafting of a report for the state, because it is party to international treaties, is in the purview of the executive. If the Department of Canadian Heritage has a function in coordinating the drafting of that report with other federal agencies and departments, provincial agencies and departments, and others, that is still in the purview of the executive.

I've said and I will repeat, any member of Parliament, any Canadian citizen, can write to the ministers responsible for the organizations and the administrative units that have the responsibility of putting together this report. Anyone can, and should, if they have concerns. But it is not in the purview of this committee to draft the report for the executive. It is very much in the purview of any committee of the House to analyse it and comment once it has been made public. And if this committee or any incarnation of it down the road, a human rights subcommittee, or a justice or health committee wants to look at it as well, that's its decision.

I would at this stage...we should be very careful where we're going here, because I think we're being presented with a bit of a pig in a poke, in terms of concerns and so forth. Those concerns expressed are totally legitimate, and any member of Parliament who has them should write and express those concerns to the appropriate ministers. If you haven't done so, do so.

But to mix the legislative and the executive, as we're trying to do, I suspect, Mr. Chairman, is a very dangerous thing. I hope we'll bring this to a vote soon.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I understand where Mr. Bèlanger is coming from, and he makes some valid points. They are the government and they do have these prerogatives. I would just point out to the committee that they have spent $330,000 in a coalition with an NGO that I believe is somewhat of a closed shop to supposedly bring together the concerns of Canadians. We don't get to see that report here.

• 1640

In addition, I'm not requesting it in any way. It would be a decision of the committee if we want to try to find a way to make changes to the final report.

All this is saying is that I think Canadian parliamentarians should have an opportunity to understand the process better and see the final report before it goes to the UN. Then Canadians are being critiqued by the UN on a report their own parliamentarians have not had an opportunity to see. I'm not saying we have to change it here. I'm just saying we should have an opportunity to see it before it goes to the UN and to understand the process better, particularly if we have to respond to the people who put us here, that is, our constituents.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Call the question, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Sorry, I'll take that the question be called after Mr. Mark is finished.

Mr. Inky Mark: If it wasn't given to the Department of Heritage to look after the process of getting this report done, I wouldn't be concerned about it. But this is the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and I think if we believe in democracy, then this standing committee should.... It doesn't have to rewrite the report, but I don't think that's the issue. I think the issue is to take a look at it and debate it. The report supposedly represents the views of Canadians. If this standing committee doesn't represent Canadian heritage, then I don't know who does. So I don't know what we have to fear.

The other point is that if the executives wanted to keep it as an executive decision, then they should have just made that decision and not bothered with the Department of Canadian Heritage. They could have easily done that, I'm sure.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We're ready for the question, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Yes, the parliamentary secretary called for the question. I agreed to defer it until Mr. Mark had spoken. I take it the parliamentary secretary still calls for the question. Those in favour of the motion, please indicate.

An hon. member: I'd like a recorded vote.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Certainly.

An hon. member: We don't need a recorded vote. We'll go with the hands.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): A recorded vote has been requested, and I think we should defer to it.

It's a tie vote.

I've taken great note of what has been said. I will vote against it, but I will guarantee to bring it to the attention of the minister and examine the substantive merits that have been advanced.

(Motion negatived nays 7; yeas 6)

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I intend to draft my letters to the appropriate ministers too.

• 1645

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Yes, I think we'd appreciate your help, Mr. O'Brien, on those letters. There's a great deal of valuable material there.

Mr. Eric Lowther: May I make a request?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Yes.

Mr. Eric Lowther: If you, along with Mr. O'Brien, are going to be bringing this to the attention of the minister, I'm wondering if there might be some response you'd be willing to pass on with regard to this issue to see if there might be some way to get greater parliamentary exposure to this process.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): The reason I hesitated was that this issue has come up in other committees. We run into a roadblock sometimes with the foreign affairs committee, which has an empirical view of its jurisdiction. The foreign affairs committee set up a subcommittee to examine the general principle of this particular issue. I think Mr. Turp is a member, and I have a feeling I'm on it, too. I will undertake to do that, Mr. Lowther.

I'm instructed to remind you that the meeting of the committee on chapter 2 of the report is scheduled for tomorrow at 11 a.m. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.