UN
Human Rights Committee Reports on Canada
July 2015
Click square for index
This
July Canada was examined by the UN
Human Rights Committee (HRC) for the
first time since 2006. (All
countries that sign the Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights agree to
a periodic reporting and examination
by an elected Committee as set out
in the treaty.) A number of Canadian
NGOs made submissions and attended
the meeting in Geneva: the U of T
Faculty of Law’s International Human
Rights Program wrote about jail and
mental health, Amnesty International
made a submission, the American
Association of Jurists wrote about
lack of respect for HRC requests not
to deport. A professor at the
University of Toronto had worked on
and co-authored a book about human
rights and Canadian companies
abroad. The insights contributed
found their way into the HRC’s
Report on Canada, with its usual UN
list of good things, concerns and
recommendations.
The list of good things was small: a
Human Rights Act for Newfoundland; a
Domestic Relations Act for Prince
Edward Island; modifications to the
Ontario Human Rights Act to allow
direct appeals; Canada’s
ratification of the Convention on
the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities. Far too few HRC past
recommendations from April 2006 have
been implemented – and at that time
the HRC reported that many
recommendations from 1999 had not
been implemented. Now, in 2015,
decades after ratifying the UN
Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (CCPR), Canada still lacks
“procedures by which oversight of
the implementation of the Covenant
is ensured” as the HRC told Canada
in 2006. Canadian courts have no
principled way of giving effect to
the rights promised by the CCPR.
This year was special in a new way.
The NGOs that went to the HRC
examination of Canada managed to
attract media attention. There were
published opinion pieces in the
Globe and Mail. Articles about the
report were generated, with
investigative write-ups about
persons affected. I suspect this HRC
report on Canada is the most
publicized so far. So there is hope
for some work being done to whittle
down the large list of
recommendations the HRC thinks will
move Canada into line with its CCPR
obligations.
Here is a short listing of the
concerns. For the full text see:
HRC,Concluding Observations on the
sixth Periodic Report of Canada,
July 2015.
1. At the top of the list in 2015
(para.5) is concern that Canada does
not respect the HRC’s requests not
to deport someone while it examines
their case -- undermining Canada’s
obligation to provide the person
with an “effective remedy.” In
slightly different words, this was
the top concern in 2006 (para. 6
then). The point here is that not
giving the HRC time to examine a
petition when it asks makes a
mockery of the promised right to
make a petition to the HRC.
2. This year, in para.6, the HRC is
concerned about Canadian companies
abroad not following and promoting
the treaty rights as the CCPR
promises. It wants Canada to step in
as it would within Canada. It wants
human rights standards for mining
companies, and legal remedies
established for victims of their
activities. The HRC concern links to
a wider UN concern about mining
corporations being linked to the
mess of armed factions, protracted
conflict and resource diversion in
Central Africa. The refugee-serving
community’s concern in this is that
conflict prevents the full
addressing of the causes of
refugees. It allows a level of
violence that prevents solutions for
refugees and displaced people. This
wider worldview and perspective is
important for those working hard
with refugees in Canada. This
concern is about promoting a world
where solutions for refugees might
be easier in the longer term.
3. Concerns about Canada’s
Anti-Terrorism Bill C-51, para. 10,
are: a) the lack of legal safeguards
given the targeting of activities
that should be protected under the
CCPR; b) sharing of information
without means of assessing its
accuracy; c) a no-fly list without
telling the affected persons and d)
a form of judicial review which can
be secret and with special
advocates. There is general concern
with lack of oversight. Seven
articles of the CCPR are listed as
at issue here. The HRC wants
“adequate legal safeguards” and
“judicial involvement” in
surveillance.
4. There is a collection of concerns
and advice on detention, asylum
seekers and non-refoulement. There
is concern about unlimited
detention, and about mandatory
detention for irregular arrivals.
There is concern about those from a
Designated County of Origin who lack
access to the appeal division. Here
we can be thankful for a Federal
Court judge who, earlier in July
2015, miraculously struck out the
legislative barrier on grounds of
discrimination. There is concern
about cuts to Interim Federal Health
Care that deny irregular migrants
access to essential health care.
There is a list of CCPR articles at
issue. These concerns are all in
para. 12.
A separate item, para.13, deals with
exceptions to non-refoulement
including security certificate cases
and concerns that judicial review
may be in secret and that special
advocates cannot independently and
properly seek evidence. There is
concern that Bill C60 may prevent
some from applying for protection.
The HRC calls for changing the law
to allow an appeal for claimants
from ‘safe countries.’ (In its 2006
Canada Report the HRC had called for
judicial review of detention in
accordance with CCPR Art. 9 for
those on security certificates. This
is a kind of international Habeas
Corpus.
5. There were other important
concerns beyond those directly
linked to refugees.
a) About gender equality, para.7.
b) About violence against women,
para.8.
c) About the murder of aboriginal
women, para. 9.
d) About excessive use of force by
police, para.11.
e) About detention conditions:
overcrowding; long times for
administrative and disciplinary
segregation; and insufficient
medical support for those with
mental illness, para. 14.
f) About freedom of expression,
assembly and association, para.15.
6. There were several concerns about
aboriginal peoples:
a) land and title;
b) Indian Act;
c) Over-representation of aboriginal
peoples in criminal justice, and
their access to justice;
d) Situation of indigenous peoples
in general.
The report ends saying that Canada
should disseminate the CCPR, its
Protocols and this 6th report
widely, to judicial, legislative and
administrative bodies and to NGOs
and the general public. NGOs are
clearly helping. Perhaps they can
take on an even bigger role!
For me, the concern of the HRC in
its 1999 and 2006 Canada Reports
about the prohibition of torture not
being absolute in Canada should have
been explicitly repeated in 2015. We
are long overdue in amending our law
– and our constitution – so that
Canada comes into line with the
obligations on the prohibition of
torture that are in two treaties
Canada has ratified - the CCPR
and the Convention against Torture.
The prohibition of torture, and of
torture consequential to expulsion,
cannot be suspended –
notwithstanding a notwithstanding
clause in the Constitution. It
should be easier to fix than dealing
with Constitutional changes for the
Senate.
