Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 18, 1996

.1231

[English]

The Chairman: I'd like to convene.

Members, I'd like to introduce Mr. Walter McLean, who is the chair of the Standing Committee on Human Rights of the United Nations Association in Canada, and Mr. Globensky, who is the executive coordinator of the Declaration Project.

Mr. McLean, we trespassed seriously on your time, but you expressed to me at the break your understanding of the importance of the issue we were discussing, and I appreciate your patience. I think the members of the committee would agree with me. Maybe we can extend the meeting by another 15 minutes and go till 1 p.m. We appreciate your coming. Thank you very much.

Maybe you could shorten your presentation. We've received your written brief, if you wish to comment on it, Mr. Globensky, and then we might have some time for questions.

Hon. Walter McLean (Chair, Standing Committee on Human Rights, United Nations Association in Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. For 12 of the 15 years I was in this place, I was a member of this committee, so I feel at home, although I don't know that I've been called to testify before the committee before.

I also want to say that I've been following with particular interest the situation in Nigeria. I was the first Nigeria coordinator for CUSO. I lived in Nigeria from 1962 to 1967 and have been following Nigerian events since then. I've been back on numerous occasions following the war.

More laterally, when I was special representative for southern Africa and Commonwealth affairs, I was back on an annual basis in the years leading up to 1993. I was back in December for the funeral of the former governor, Dr. Azikiwe. Just before your last meeting, I consulted with Mr. Broadbent and others, having met with international human rights groups. So I've been following today's activities with more than passing interest.

I mentioned that because before the last election, I was chairman of the subcommittee on human rights of this House. We undertook a study on Canada's relations with southern Africa. Among the issues we were looking at was the issue of sanctions. If memory serves me, Mrs. Stewart was a member of that committee. We recognized that sanctions are a blunt instrument by their very nature, but that sanctions had forced a political decision by making the cost of maintaining a government... I mention that in terms of instruments that are available for human rights.

I have my eye on the time, so I'll not talk the clock out.

The Chairman: As a former minister, you might be familiar with that technique. We won't draw that to everyone's attention.

.1235

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. McLean: Secondly, let me say that since I returned from Nigeria this last time and since the events of Saro-Wiwa, I have been working, along with a coalition of 12 groups, on Nigeria, including unions, Amnesty, Greenpeace, churches and others.

We have had a series of meetings, and I regret to say that despite the political will exercised in both those groups, the response on the part of the government to a number of proposals for lifting this issue into greater visibility in Canada has been somewhat lackluster. We've developed a number of proposals, put them forward, shared them and had some discussions.

Let me then move to today's responsibility and thank members for affording this time. I'd like to signal early on that part of the minutes we have together is to get some response to the proposal, which has been translated.

[Translation]

We brought the document which is in both official languages.

[English]

This is, in a sense, the concluding phase of an open process of consultation on how Canada might mark the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We have just spent three hours seeing what happens to society when all vestiges of what we would consider human rights disappear, when there's nowhere to turn, when every element of society, as is my experience of Nigeria, has disappeared - anything we'd recognize.

My intent as chairman of the United Nations Association's committee was to determine if there was sufficient interest amongst Canadians.

I'm summarizing what we've outlined in the document before you.

We remind members that the Universal Declaration of December 10, 1948 has in a sense drawn together the universal principles inherent in diverse religious and cultural traditions, and it's been the basis on which other covenants have been produced. It's been the international norm. We spend some time, as members can read, just reminding ourselves of the diversity of activities and actions that have spun off from that.

On the second page we remind ourselves that John Peters Humphrey, a lawyer from McGill, was the first director of the Human Rights Centre, and he was instrumental in the drafting. So Canadians drafted the resolution and Canadians have been instrumental in promoting the Human Rights Committee of the UN and the High Commissioner.

When the United Nations Association approached me and asked me if I'd chair its committee on human rights, I made a commitment to organize a process of national consultation with Canadians to see their views on how this milestone, this anniversary, could be marked.

As a former minister responsible for human rights, I was very immediately aware that one needed to take very seriously the provinces - that this was shared responsibility and without adequate consultation with the provinces we would get nowhere in trying to determine how we might market.

So first of all I set off to meet political leaders and met most of the ministers responsible, and in the one or two cases where I couldn't, their senior political staff.

Secondly, we met, in all ten provinces as well as here in Ottawa, those responsible for statutory agencies, the human rights commissions, the ombudsmen.

Thirdly, we met the non-governmental sector, the not-for-profit sector, the stakeholders on human rights. This was funded in part by a modest grant from Heritage Canada and a number of private sectors and foundations, who made it possible for us to undertake a five-week consultation in 15 cities in 10 provinces with 30 ministers.

We've met over 250 organizations. We have, in a parallel way, done by correspondence an approach to those off-the-main-track organizations and stakeholders so we can hear their views.

We'll present a final report, and any input, thoughts and suggestions you have today we'd like to try to pick up and convey to the Minister of Heritage and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The lead ministry is Canadian Heritage, as Mr. Dupuy will know, but Foreign Affairs has shared responsibility on this and hence my desire, first of all, to flag the issue with you and, second, to seek your support where it is possible and your input into that final report.

.1240

What have we found? First of all, we found interest, and it's been more than passingly polite. We found from provincial governments a willingness to discuss this at the cabinet level and at the Privy Council Office level. We found that a number of premiers have said this is the kind of thing they feel could be in their throne speeches at a provincial level.

Secondly, we found that the statutory people say this is something around which as ombudsmen, as human rights commissions or as councils they can work. We've also found that, in regard to non-governmental organizations we've consulted in many cases, this has drawn them together. They say that instead of being balkanized, one being of one human right and the next of another, they can see it as a whole and as central to Canadian citizenship and Canadian views.

So a number of people have said this would be an ideal opportunity for us to allow people to tell their own stories. In the same way Humphrey and others have led internationally, a number of people have led in their community, in their province and nationally.

On page 4 there's a paragraph or two on youth, which I have flagged. As we went across the country we found deep concern about the fact that young people today are almost unconnected with human rights and these values. The question of programming in a significant way, particularly with the target on youth, has come back to us again and again.

We've also found that there is a great concern about the fact that human rights are not being seen as mainstream. What do I mean? As I said a moment ago, we find the attitude that ``I am of the disabled, the mentally handicapped or the physically handicapped group''. The groups even within a sector do not necessarily work together. In the round tables we had in all of the capitals the amazing thing was that as we introduced ourselves and asked them to introduce themselves, they in turn were introducing themselves as ``I am of the refugee, I am of the children, I am of gender, I am of the aged'', etc. They began to say that what is happening is it's divide and conquer with the restructuring, the downsizing. What's happening is that many of the groups feel tremendously fragile.

They feel that in a sense they're distanced from people who have affirmed them in the past. They're struggling, and rather than being separated they began amongst themselves to say, ``Supposing we take the year 1998, and starting on December 10, 1997, we start a human rights day. Through the year we take racial discrimination, women, labour day, law day, refugees, and we celebrate each other''. They said ``We will do it from the grassroots, and it should be provincially led''. The overall Canadian sense of citizenship and of common values would be there.

I'll come to one or two proposals as to what our thinking is about what might happen.

Many people feel there's a danger that we'll throw the baby out with the bath water. Because of the structural changes and the financial downsizing, we are losing the perspective of values and human rights that have been struggled for. Groups being fragmented, not putting out a picture...many people feel these are optional. These are special interest groups; these aren't normal. The challenge or the opportunity for this year is for us to bring that front and centre.

Let me say that there are two conditions - on page 5 in the English text - that would be fundamental. First, it must be community based. Second, there must be some national mirror structure that would allow us to share common services and to have a communication structure.

While there is sufficient interest among Canadian stakeholders for the Government of Canada to proceed with a program of national support for the issue, time is pressing. One of the problems is that 1998 seems a long way away, but all of us know that in planning, particularly when you're going to do it with existing resources and very little if any new financial resources, it needs to be in the planning stream early. A number of organizations like the United Nations Association can take on strategic partnerships, but this initiative, if seized, is larger than any one non-governmental group or organization.

.1245

We therefore have a number of recommendations, which I want you to look at, and they're grouped. Then I think, Mr. Chairman, we should go for any comments that you have or suggestions about it, and I'm happy to talk more about the background.

We are discussing these recommendations with ministers, with officials, with NGOs. It's an open process and this is about where we are now. It's timely, particularly in regard to the ones that relate to the broad spectrum, and particularly the international side, on which this committee might wish to make some comments.

The first four or five under these are the general principles that we recognize. One principle is that a national instrument, a commission of some sort, be established with some capacity to relate to provincial initiatives and to encourage, where possible, that initiative if it's taking place. Some financing has to be identified in order that all parts of the country have some activity.

In different provinces and in different regions it will be different people or different groups that take it up. Maybe the financial assistance that would be made available centrally would be on a matching basis; it would require partnerships.

Then there are a number of recommendations, particularly relating to the heritage ministry, which talk about the sectoral and functional side of the setting up of a national area. On page 7, we note that suitable means should be found to publicize and commemorate the contribution of Canadians who have led in human rights. It's an opportunity to specifically tell those stories, starting with John Humphrey and his involvement.

I've talked with the law school at McGill and met with the university communities and others and there's a willingness to pick that up. There's an opportunity through that year to find ways of recognizing Canadians.

Then at the bottom of page 7, in the English text, we go on specifically to those that relate to the international side:

I should also say that there is a recommendation that I didn't highlight on page 6:

Mr. Chairman, now for my last caveat as to why this would be important.

At the conclusion of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations celebration last year those of us on the 50th anniversary committee met with the Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, when he was here in Ottawa. Among the things we talked with him about was the future of the UN.

.1250

I told him I had been asked to chair this committee and asked him what support we can expect from the 38th floor, from him as Secretary General. His reply was ``I regret, Mr. McLean, very little, none''. He said that it was not that he was not interested but that at the moment there is no political will to mark this among the member nations and that at the moment there are no financial contributions to maintain the structure of the UN.

That brings us back to the financial crisis. During the briefings, which were held before the Geneva meetings in the Pearson Building, the officers responsible for the Human Rights Commission from Foreign Affairs said again and again that the lights go out in Geneva on June 30. The budgeting for the Human Rights Commission is so fragile that the question of maintaining that instrument, which Canada and the High Commissioner for Human Rights have fought for, is in some jeopardy.

Canada has given bi-partisan leadership on this issue. We continue to do that. I think there's an opportunity for some creative international leadership in the UN among like-minded states. I understand Mr. Axworthy started that process when he was in Geneva. It seems to me something that can be built on.

Mr. Globensky, would you say what I missed? Then we should go to questions.

Mr. Peter Globensky (Executive Coordinator, Declaration Project, United Nations Association in Canada): With all due respect to time, Mr. Chairman, I don't think much has been missed. I'll pass and perhaps have some input into the questions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Globensky.

Mr. McLean, on a personal note I want to thank you very much for your reference to the role of Professor Humphrey in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I think there are few Canadians aware of the extraordinarily pivotal role that he not only personally played but the Canadian delegation also played at the San Francisco conference. I think it's very important for us to remember that and to remember him as a very fine human being and a great teacher and intellect, as well as a great contributor to international human rights.

Let us now go to questions or observations.

Mr. Dupuy (Laval West): I certainly volunteer for a good many reasons. The first is that I think we should support the recommendations. Canada is a leader, has been a leader, and should continue to be a leader. This is an important anniversary. As the early part of our morning well demonstrated, if human rights are left as a minor priority, the world will suffer; even in Canada we will suffer.

I think this is a very good initiative. It's articulate, it's well presented. My only question mark - and I would like to question our witnesses on the subject - relates to money. Basically, issues of resources and utilization of resources are at stake here. To what extent were discussions carried out with External Affairs and with Heritage that would give us hope that the appropriate reshuffling of funds will take place?

Mr. McLean: Thank you, Mr. Dupuy. That's a very helpful question.

The signals that we've received to date have been less in terms of actual dollars and more in terms of support for the project. When I went to Heritage Canada, they provided us with a small grant to get started on this feasibility study. If they weren't serious about looking at it, I don't believe they would have asked us to run across the country and meet with these folk at the political and institutional levels. They gave us the grant to do both the paper contract and personal contract.

Second, when I went to the international foreign affairs centre and asked if I could have a staff person to help, since we needed somebody who knew the field...Mr. Globensky has been dealing with their international programs, but he was formerly with the Department of the Secretary of State. He knows both areas. He has been seconded to us for this period.

.1255

So I take those illustrations by government and para-governmental institutions as supportive. Clearly, we have been saying there's no money to spare in the system. If this is going to be marked, it's going to be within largely existing funds. It's the same within the non-governmental sector. One of the reasons for the urgency of coming to you today early on is to say that if there's some general approval, the sooner government begins to address the question of structures and possible financing, the better.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso): I was going to make the suggestion - my thoughts are very similar to those of Mr. Dupuy - that this committee might, in the course of its work, act as a springboard for some of the initiatives you've spoken about. We have a subcommittee on human rights, and we could perhaps lend some support to that by taking it as a project.

Mr. McLean: It could be very helpful, as we discovered, to go out and call together human rights groups to talk with them. I found it personally rewarding, with Mr. Globensky. We found the effort to have been well worth while. I believe encouraging that sector to come together and to tell its story could be very helpful. It's not a big buck issue to do that. It could be extremely encouraging to groups, particularly stakeholders, who feel very fragile at every question: is this all going to be cut? There are fewer resources and more demands on them. We're living in very difficult political and structural times.

The Chairman: You, yourself, put it in the context of this morning's hearings, and so did Mr. Dupuy. But for me, one of the most distressing comments you made this morning is the fact that you just don't see much future for the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights. We had him here in Parliament. I think he was here last fall. Ms Beaumier and I met him. It was extraordinary. He has an office of about three people. He travels around the world. I think we've calculated that 0.0001% of the budget of the United Nations is spent on human rights, when this is supposed to be one of the pillars of the organization.

You're telling us, I gather, that the feeling you got when you were in New York was that the member governments are not going to be any more forthcoming with funding for this operation than they have been up until now. Now, do you think this committee can somehow further that agenda in some practical way, perhaps by Mr. English having the high commissioner come before our subcommittee on human rights?

Mr. McLean: I would think any support, moral and hopefully leading to financial or physical support, would be most welcome.

There were criticisms among the non-governmental group at Geneva about the action of the high commissioner. Then somebody, I think it was the Canadian Council of Churches' committee on human rights, the other day observed, rather tellingly, that the human rights commissioner is spending all his time begging for money to keep his office going.

Now Canada, having had the declaration, having had the part, as you rightly say, in drafting the charter, having pressed for human rights...during my eight years on our delegation in New York this was the issue. But I know that there are many governments today for whom human rights either loom threatening to their military or single-form government...the Government of Nigeria is not much on human rights. When it comes to bloc voting in the UN, when it comes to the sharing of resources, and when it comes to our neighbours, the United States, paying the core of the United Nations' operating budget, the need to mobilize a national political will is important. Hence, the recommendation that the minister appoint someone who can visualize this a bit on the international field and say that since Canadians take this as important, can we encourage other governments to join with us, like-minded governments who will show some support and solidarity for this issue, and use the year as an opportunity to rehearse it?

.1300

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. McLean. I don't see any other observations or questions.

Did you want to add something, Mr. Globensky?

Mr. Globensky: I was just going to say, Mr. Chairman, anecdotally, that in Thunder Bay we heard a rather novel suggestion coming from an organization that had an international focus on development education. They suggested a campaign of a penny a person. In Canada this would raise some $300,000, which represents approximately 25% of the total operating budget of the Human Rights Centre in Geneva and New York, simply to echo absolutely that they are in a critical situation. Simplement pour vous dire...

The Chairman: If we could get the Nigerian generals to commit to a penny a person from the 100 million people in Nigeria, considering the oil revenues -

Mr. Globensky: Or fourteen minutes of their oil profits.

The Chairman: Thank you very much both of you for coming.

I would like to remind the committee members that at 3:30 p.m. we have six ambassadors coming, including the ambassadors of the United States, China, and Russia. We're going to break it into two sessions of one hour each. We're adjourned until 3:30 p.m.

I'd also remind you this session commences this evening on CPAC at 10:30 p.m., so if you're still watching it, it's now 2:30 a.m. and you're a serious insomniac.

Thank you very much. We're adjourned until 3 p.m.

Return to Committee Home Page

;