McLeod Group blog by Stéphanie Bacher, May 10, 2018
When it comes to human rights in Canada, the Trudeau government should brag less and act more. All UN Member States undergo a peer review of the human rights situation in their country every five years or so, known as the Universal Periodic Review. Tomorrow, on May 11, it will be Canada’s turn to defend its record in front of the United Nations’ Human Rights Council. It will be the occasion to systematically assess the human rights situation in Canada and allow other UN Member States to ask questions and make recommendations in order to improve Canada’s human rights record.
In preparation for its review, the Canadian government submitted its national report in March. The national report is usually a good indicator of a country’s commitment to fulfill its human rights obligations. But it seems that once again, the Canadian government is more interested in rhetoric than using the opportunity to conduct honest introspection and to improve the human rights situation at home.
Canada’s national report mentions a list of recent steps it has undertaken to improve human rights at home. For example, the report cites Canada’s human rights-based approach to housing, its full support of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the appointment of a Special Advisor on LGBTQ2 issues, and the new action plan to implement “gender-based analysis plus” (GBA+) across federal departments and agencies.
These are definitely positive measures. However, the report draws only a partial picture of the human rights situation in Canada by focusing almost entirely on the new policies and programs implemented by the Trudeau government, while ignoring the significant challenges the country faces in promoting and protecting human rights at home. A national Indigenous organization noted during the consultation phase that the report did not address some of the shortcomings of the forums dedicated to addressing Indigenous issues such as the Working Group of Federal Ministers and the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Indigenous Forum. It also pointed out that the government seemed to minimize its historical role in systemic discrimination against Indigenous communities.
Let’s not forget that in 2011, James Anaya, who was at the time UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, compared the living conditions on First Nations reserves to those of Third World countries. In that context, the Canadian government has nothing to brag about and should instead acknowledge its longstanding failure to meet its human rights obligations towards Indigenous people.
Canada’s national report also includes a short section entitled “Advancing respect for human rights internationally” with two paragraphs on international assistance and corporate social responsibility. In it, the Canadian government boasts about its new Feminist International Assistance Policy as the “most effective way to reduce extreme poverty and build a more peaceful, inclusive and prosperous world”. At the same time, it refuses to put its money where its mouth is. During the last review in 2013, Sierra Leone recommended that Canada increase its official development assistance, which the Harper government flatly rejected. Despite the lack of any substantial new aid funding, the Trudeau government is making the feeble argument that it “has made efforts to increase its international assistance”.
The Canadian government’s report also highlights the creation of a new Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise that will investigate allegations of human rights abuses linked to Canadian corporate activity abroad. Although it is a step in the right direction, the new institution still lacks clarity on its mandate and the powers of the office to ensure that the institution will be an effective mechanism for corporate social accountability. These are just a few of the issues that the report ignores.
The UN encourages countries to hold broad consultations at the national level before submitting their national report. Even though the Canadian government claims it consulted over 280 Indigenous and civil society organizations (CSOs), only 16 of them submitted comments on the draft report, and some of them noted the limited opportunity to provide feedback. Consultations should not be a mere pro forma exercise without any real substance (see our previous blog). The government should establish a formal consultation process to include CSOs’ inputs and could follow the example set by other countries such as Jordan and the United Kingdom.
The Canadian government needs to set up a strategy to implement the UPR recommendations it agrees with. As we have seen in the past, the government too often has no actual plan to meet its international commitments, as recently illustrated by the Auditor General’s report on the Sustainable Development Goals.
Finally, the government should use the UPR exercise not as a podium to blow its own horn about what it has done, but as a valuable opportunity to make significant further progress. More honest introspection is needed. If Canada is serious about improving its human rights record, it should begin by being upfront about the serious human rights problems at home.