Under Resolution 60/251 adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2006, the 192 UN member states have accepted a universal periodic review of compliance of their domestic policy with international human rights law.
Canada was the 51st state to be subject to the review, which proved to be a severe test for our country. The Human Rights Council’s findings do not paint a flattering portrait of the way the rest of the world perceives Canadian human rights policies and practices.
The Council’s review involves submissions by the country in question, an interactive dialogue with the country, and then recommendations made to it. In Canada’s case, there were 68 recommendations, compared with an average of 35 for the 50 countries that preceded it. Few states received such a long list covering so many areas.
Departing from diplomatic etiquette, some countries spoke of Canada’s lost role as a leader in human rights and argued that Canada should rework its policy, which they find perplexing. They also advocated that Canadian policy should be made consistent with the values Canada affirms and the positions defended by its representatives on the Human Rights Council.
A number of countries expressed concern about the many international conventions and protocols that Canada has not ratified: International Labour Organization conventions and international conventions on enforced disappearances, torture, the rights of persons with disabilities, and legal protection for economic, social and cultural rights. Strong calls came from around the world for Canada to put an end to its active opposition to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Brazil and Mexico have asked that Canada adhere to the American Convention on Human Rights.
Identifying a real problem with the Canadian federation, many countries, including Great Britain and Holland, criticized the way the federal, provincial and territorial system implements Canada’s basic rights commitments. Much fault has been found with the system in recent years, and the Canadian Senate has called for reform. According to the English representative on the Human Rights Council, Canada has to at least ensure that the system does not impede implementation.
Finally, many countries took a negative view of the real degree to which Canadians’ rights are promoted and protected. Holland and Denmark asked Ottawa not to abandon Canadians who are sentenced to death in foreign countries, and, in accordance with international practices, to request clemency for them.
Judging by the fact that more than one in two members of the Council criticized Canada for the way it treats Aboriginal people, our country’s reputation is seriously threatened by the First Nations’ poor socio-economic conditions and the nature of their relations with the federal government. The criticisms were often specific: poverty, general living conditions, housing, access to water, violence against and disappearances of Aboriginal women and discrimination with respect to access to education, health care and the labour market. Summarizing the comments of many other countries, Great Britain recommended that Canada work on the following five areas: economic development of Aboriginal communities, access to education and skills development of Aboriginal community members, resolution of land claims, governance and political autonomy.
Japan, Turkey, Mexico and many other countries demanded explanations and action with respect to the situation of women in Canada. Such convergence in judgments and assessments from around the world is striking. A number of recommendations concern corrective measures to counteract family violence and violence against women, to fight against poverty and discrimination in the workplace, and to provide jurisdictional protection for women’s rights.
Treatment of minorities
Numerous were the countries that challenged Canada on practices they consider discriminatory against African, Muslim and Arab visible minorities. Questions were also raised about the poverty of Canadians of African origin, violence against Muslim and Arab communities, racial and religious profiling, hate speech, security certificates, extended periods of detention, immigrant rights including family reunification, refugee and asylum seeker rights, and extradition to countries where torture is practiced.
The head of the Canadian delegation provided provisional responses pending an official reaction. The said reaction will have to take into account observations concerning the weakness of the link between the government and Canadian civil society, as well as the follow-up mechanism for implementing the Council’s recommendations.
Conducting an in-depth research at the Université de Montréal on the Human Rights Council and its Universal Periodic Review program, we have solid data for comparison. According to our findings, Canada belongs to the small club of countries that have been judged harshly and criticized for shortcomings in policy compliance with international human rights law.
Everything that was said about Canada in Geneva does not have the same weight. However, the resulting situation requires immediate action from Canada’s civil society and government. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and its Subcommittee on Human Rights have to study the UN recommendations immediately and perform an exhaustive examination of Canada’s basic rights policies and practices. Parliament will have to discuss the committees’ conclusions. The protection of Canadians’ rights, Canada’s reputation and our contribution to the international system of basic rights are all at stake.