>Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 11:30:08 -0500 >From: Eric Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: s4p all lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Canadian officials duck UN ECOSOC questions in Geneva >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >Status: U > > >From: Eric Fawcett and Phyllis Creighton > co-Chairs of SfP Working Group on Human Rights > >Canadian officials duck UN Questions >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Human rights committee accused Canadians of stonewalling queries on >poverty, justice > >Ottawa Citizen, November 28, 1998 >By Aileen McCabe > >GENEVA- A Canadian delegation stonewalled, ducked questions and was as >unco-operative as witnesses from undeveloped countries, says the committee >examining Canada's compliance with the social, economic and cultural >covenant of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > >"I say poor Canada. Canada deserves better that this," said committee >member Mahmund Ahmed, a retired Egyptian ambassador. "I don't think [the >delegation] is doing justice to Canada." > >The delegation, led by the Canadian ambassador for disarmament, Mark Moher, >and including officials from the departments of justice, immigration and >heritage, said they were being "as co-operative and forthcoming as >possible." But after two days of questioning that ended yesterday, >members of the United Nations committee were astounded by what Mr. Ahmed >called the "stonewalling". > >When asked his opinion, another committee member, Arirranga Pillay, the >chief justice of the Supreme Court of Mauritius, said: "I haven't been >satisfied with the answers. There's a lot of waffling and sometimes you >get the impression that they don't want to answer. When they are cornered >they just move on and that is it. Maybe, they haven't done their homework >properly or they are embarrassed at answering the obvious, which is that >there is a great deal of poverty in Canada and yet it is such a rich country." > >Another committee member, Panama's Oscar Ceville, said the only time the >committee had encountered such unco-operative witnesses was "with some >undeveloped countries." > >John Foster, a University of Saskatchewan law professor who was in Geneva >to convince the committee to question Canada on the human rights >implications of the now-defunct Multilateral Agreement on Investments, said >in a an interview that he was embarrassed by Canada's showing. >"Even thought we're fighting (the Canadian government delegation) in some >ways, there is a certain national pride in looking good," he said. > >Committee chairmen, Australian history professor Philip Alston, evaluated >the Canadian performance: "of all the groups we've heard in the last >week (Germany, Israel and Cyprus) there is a much greater level of >generally not acknowledging any particular problems, giving answers that >could be applied to any state." He said the committee was being fobbed-off >with replies that consisted of phrases like "this is under review", "a >study is underway" and "consultations are ongoing." It was left, he said, >with a "a pile of generalities" from Canada, not answers. > >Mr. Moher was clearly furious with the criticism and refuted the claim, but >Mr. Alston was not swayed. "Let me take up your challenge Mr. Ambassador", >he drawled, and then proceeded to list a series of questions Canada had >ducked, dodged or otherwise not answered. > >The committee members had been thoroughly briefed by Canadian pressure >groups, socially active non-government organizations (NGO's) and over nine >hours of hearing they asked questions that would leave many a Canadian >cringing. They queried the high levels of poverty across the country. >They put specific emphasis on poverty among women and asked about the >effect that had on children. They honed in on the growing instance of >homelessness, quoting lamentable facts and figures. They poked freely at >some of the worst skeletons in Canada's closet, too, things like the >conditions of native people on and off reserves and the general levels of >literacy. > >After the heavy criticism of the delegation, Mr.Moher and his team >appeared to change tactics for the last few hours of questioning. They >moved from "generalities" to reciting just about every federal program on >the books that might possibly address the problems under the microscope. >The tactic did not find favour. Exasperated, French committee member >Philippe Textier quipped: "From these replies I get the impression we are >being shown the woods, not the trees." > >The committee is expected to release its report on how well Canada is >complying with the UN's social, economic and cultural covenant next Friday >and there is little doubt now it will be scathing. While annoyance with >the Canadian delegation's replies may have hardened attitudes, the negative >evaluation will have more to do with the federal government's focus on >deficit-cutting since 1995 and the affect it has had on social spending. >The federal government will certainly regret the embarrassment if it >receives a failing UN grade, but the committee has no power to make it >change policy or policy direction. > >Still, activists like Jacquie Ackerly, spokeswoman for the National >Anti-poverty Organization, says the report is likely to make a difference >because "it will give poor people and the NGO's that work with them >something to work with, something to use in civil society to bring our case >farther forward." >
