Mr. Chair, good evening.
Thank you very much for inviting the UN working group on business and human rights to share views about the role and powers of the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise, CORE.
The working group has a mandate to promote the effective dissemination and implementation of the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. We work with the states and other stakeholders to discharge this mandate. If requested, we can provide advice and recommendations regarding the development of domestic legislation and policies relating to business and human rights.
Access to remedy for business-related human rights abuses is an important component of the UN guiding principles. As the working group clarified in its 2017 report to the UN General Assembly, affected rights holders should be able to secure an effective remedy. That means a tangible outcome, not merely access to a remedial mechanism.
While effective judicial mechanisms are at the core of ensuring access to remedy, state-based, non-judicial grievance mechanisms such as the CORE also have an important role to play. However, several conditions should be satisfied to allow the CORE to fulfill this role effectively. The CORE should meet the effectiveness criteria stipulated in principle 31 of the UN guiding principles.
In addition, I will reiterate our recommendation made in the 2018 report on the country visit to Canada. We had recommended that the Canadian government ensure that the CORE:
... is well resourced...so that it can provide effective and timely remedies for and recommendations about complaints.... have total independence from government, undertake meaningful investigations and have investigatory powers to summon witnesses and compel stakeholders to produce documents...to fully address human rights abuses.
That recommendation, made three years back, is very much relevant even today. Moreover, the mandate of the CORE should not overlap significantly with other non-judicial grievance mechanisms such as Canada's national contact point.
For example, if the CORE mostly adopted collaborative approaches of facilitating dialogue and mediation, it might end up duplicating what the national contact point should be doing.
I also think the CORE should not have the mandate to advise Canadian companies, because this may create a potential conflict of interest if it were to deal with complaints against these very same companies. In short, if a core objective of the CORE were to provide effective remedies and hold Canadian companies accountable for their overseas human rights abuses, it would need more powers to fulfill this objective. The CORE should have the power to investigate, power to compel documents and testimony, and the power to enforce its recommendations against companies. With such powers, the CORE would not only be able to remediate, but also prevent human rights abuses linked to overseas operations of Canadian companies.
I will also take this opportunity to encourage the Canadian government to develop a national action plan on business and human rights similar to the regulatory initiatives unfolding in Europe. It should enact a comprehensive, mandatory human rights due diligence legislation governing business activities, both inside and outside Canada. Only then would Canada be able to claim rightfully global leadership in promoting business respect for human rights.
I look forward to our dialogue today. The working group also welcomes further opportunities to engage the Government of Canada, as well as the CORE, in promoting responsible business conduct in line with the UN guiding principles.
Thank you very much.