Evidence of meeting #60 for Subcommittee on International Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was implementation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Fayçal El-Khoury
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 60 of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. All witnesses have completed the required connection test in advance of the meeting.
I would like to ask.... I am not going to introduce every witness by name, in order to save some time due to the vote.
I would like to start inviting witnesses—
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB
I have a point of order.
Can I just suggest that we forgo our committee business meeting today and make sure that we have...because we have such a limited amount of time. I don't know how many witnesses we have, but perhaps we could truncate slightly the opening statements as well so that we can get to some Q and A.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Fayçal El-Khoury
Thank you. That's exactly what I had decided. Instead of five minutes, I'm giving three minutes. For the question period, instead of seven minutes, I'm giving five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Lake.
Anita, go ahead.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Might I suggest that, to save time, we could do a little bit of back and forth informally on the list of the potential awardees and maybe see if we can come to a consensus just by talking in the chamber or something.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Fayçal El-Khoury
Okay.
I would like to give the floor to the clerk, please.
Go ahead.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Eric Glavin
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to inform members of upcoming logistical deadlines for the Human Rights Defender Awards. Currently, they're scheduled to be presented to the candidates selected by the subcommittee on December 10. Given the fact that date is approaching, it would be appreciated to have some clarity on not only the names of the candidates but also the format in which the subcommittee would like to hold the event.
Last year, it was conducted quite similarly to a standard subcommittee meeting. The recipients appeared, gave statements and were congratulated much like in a similar meeting. Before the pandemic, additional commemorative measures were put in place.
Given that the date is approaching, some direction on the committee's decision as to how elaborate the event should be would be much appreciated.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Might I suggest that, like we did the first couple of times, we approach the Speaker to see if the Speaker would be willing to host a reception afterwards—which he's done before—for the awardees? We would have our own meeting where they could speak, and then we would retire to the Speaker's chambers for a reception.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Fayçal El-Khoury
Okay. Thank you.
I like to invite Madame Charlotte-Anne Malischewski to take the floor for three minutes, please.
The floor is yours.
Charlotte-Anne Malischewski Interim Chief Commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Good afternoon, hon. members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today.
I am speaking from Ottawa, the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation, whose culture and presence continue to feed this land. At the Canadian Human Rights Commission, we recognize that it is incumbent upon us to reflect on our colonial legacy and the systemic injustices still faced by indigenous peoples. We are committed to continuing the work of reconciliation with humility and openness.
The commission welcomes your study. First, we would like to express our support for the joint recommendation that will be presented by our fellow panellists. This recommendation calls for Canada to take the lead in working with provincial and territorial governments to develop and adopt a national framework for the implementation of human rights.
As Canada's national human rights institution, the commission plays a unique role in the UPR process. There are so many human rights issues in Canada requiring attention, so we have focused our advocacy, during this UPR cycle, on a crosscutting issue that affects some of the most vulnerable people in this country: the condition of people deprived of their liberty. This is not just about people detained inside our prison system. It's also about people who are deprived of their liberty outside of that system. It's about migrant detainees, Black and first nations children who are being removed from their homes and placed in care, elderly people confined to long-term care facilities and people with disabilities who are institutionalized in communities across the country.
While some oversight mechanisms do exist, there are overwhelming gaps. That's why we're calling for the immediate ratification of OPCAT, the United Nations optional protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Ratifying OPCAT would provide a powerful framework for ensuring there is meaningful oversight in all places where people are deprived of their liberty.
We need only think back a couple of years to the pandemic to understand how important this is in places like long-term care homes. In prisons, ratifying OPCAT would pave the way for a more proactive approach to dealing with systemic human rights issues—issues like the overrepresentation of indigenous, Black and other racialized prisoners, especially indigenous women; the use of solitary confinement; the treatment of prisoners with mental health disabilities; the warehousing of older prisoners, where alternatives would be more appropriate; and the safety of 2SLGBTQQIA+ prisoners facing sexual coercion and violence.
Eight years ago, the government committed to ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Since then, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has called on Canada to follow through on this commitment. A number of people here today echoed that call, as did the 25 member states during the Universal Periodic Review. For Canada, ratifying the protocol would be an important step toward meeting its human rights obligations and strengthening protections for all.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Fayçal El-Khoury
Thank you, Ms. Malischewski.
Now I would like to invite Ms. Michèle Biss, who is the director of the National Right to Housing Network.
You have the floor for three minutes.
Michèle Biss National Director, National Right to Housing Network
Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to address this committee.
My name is Michèle Biss. I'm the national director of the National Right to Housing Network, a broad-based civil society network of organizations and individuals who work to ensure that the government's human rights commitments, made under the National Housing Strategy Act, are meaningfully realized.
The NRHN has engaged in United Nations reviews, including the 2022 review by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the 2023 universal periodic review by the Human Rights Council and the most recent 2024 review by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.
We have had the opportunity to engage with the team at Canadian Heritage and to attend meetings, like the continuing committee of officials on human rights and meetings of the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for human rights. I have sat on the other side of Zoom calls and across in-person tables while government representatives read the same speaking notes that are conveyed in press releases instead of meaningfully engaging on human rights accountability with civil society representatives and rights holders. In this meeting, I would most like to convey the deep sense of frustration, across civil society organizations, that Canada is not taking its human rights accountability mechanisms seriously and that there has been no improvement since this committee wrote its 2010 report.
I want to acknowledge the efforts of staff teams at Canadian Heritage who have created processes, like the director general, rights group, and the June CCOHR presentation of a civil society engagement strategy. The challenge is that, despite what I believe are very good intentions on behalf of the staff at Canadian Heritage, they are under-resourced, and civil society has not been meaningfully integrated into these meetings.
I am increasingly hearing from civil society colleagues that human rights engagement meetings lack authentic human rights practices and feel like a waste of resources for organizations that already have limited capacity. I would like to amplify my colleagues' recommendations to call on federal, provincial and territorial governments to implement and adopt a national framework for international human rights implementation.
I also echo the call for further witnesses to be called, from government to rights holders with lived experience of human rights violations. As my colleagues will state, we cannot position ourselves as champions of human rights on the global stage if we do not lead by example at home.
I am coming to you also with deep knowledge of Canada's first domestic implementation mechanism of an economic and social right, through the National Housing Strategy Act, which has some strong—
National Director, National Right to Housing Network
—proof points that I'm happy to share on how meaningful engagement with rights holders can create strong, rights-based policy and outcomes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Fayçal El-Khoury
Thank you, Ms. Biss.
I now invite Alex Neve, adjunct professor, international human rights law, University of Ottawa, to make his opening statement.
Professor Neve, you have the floor for three minutes.
Alex Neve Adjunct Professor, International Human Rights Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, subcommittee members. It is a pleasure to be here.
People are often surprised to learn that Canada’s record of engagement with the international human rights system is problematic. Canada has ratified just over 70% of the main UN human rights instruments—at the University of Ottawa, where I teach, that would be a B minus—and none of the inter-American human rights treaties, which of course would be a failing grade. More critically, there are significant shortcomings when it comes to meeting those obligations. That is clear from recommendations from numerous UN human rights bodies, experts and processes—including the universal periodic review over the years—pressing Canada to more effectively implement the country's human rights obligations.
This is of concern on the home front, because failure to meet those obligations means failure to address serious domestic human rights challenges. It is also of concern internationally, because failing to comply with the obligations we impress upon other governments undermines vital diplomatic efforts.
The obstacles are many.
The first is the challenge of our federal system, with constitutional responsibility for particular human rights issues divided among federal, provincial and territorial governments.
The second is no clear political accountability for human rights. There is no minister of human rights at any level of government in Canada.
The third is reticence to recognize the equal legal standing of economic, social and cultural rights.
The fourth involves positions adopted in court by government lawyers that often downplay the applicability of international human rights law.
The fifth includes excessive secrecy, inadequate public reporting and poor engagement processes with indigenous organizations and civil society groups.
The sixth is the failure of Parliament and legislative assemblies to monitor international human rights compliance across the country.
The seventh is a failure to recognize the role of municipal governments and indigenous governments.
The eighth is insufficient resourcing for the processes and bodies integral to upholding international human rights.
In 2017, after decades of inaction, federal, provincial and territorial governments met to consider international human rights implementation. They established the Forum of Ministers on Human Rights, which met for the first time last year but which has yet to live up to its potential.
Speaking on behalf of all those appearing before you today, we recommend the federal government take the lead in working with provincial and territorial governments, indigenous peoples and civil society to develop a national framework for international human rights implementation as a priority for the next meeting of the Forum of Ministers on Human Rights. The framework should include clear public commitments to international human rights implementation from all federal, provincial and territorial governments; the adoption of federal, provincial and territorial laws—
Adjunct Professor, International Human Rights Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
—enshrining those obligations; improved consultation; an enhanced role for Parliament and the legislatures; and increased resourcing.
Thank you very much.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Fayçal El-Khoury
Thank you, Professor Neve.
I now invite Meghan Doherty, co-director of Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights, to make her opening statement.
You have the floor for three minutes.
Meghan Doherty Co-Director, Policy and Advocacy, Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights
Thank you.
I am here today on behalf of Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights. We have participated in all of Canada's universal periodic reviews, and I have also worked with more than 100 civil society organizations in more than 50 countries to support their engagement in the UPR process.
I will focus my remarks today on the importance of civil society participation in these processes.
At the outset, I would like to emphasize that human rights are not just a set of ideals to which countries should aspire. Human rights are legal obligations of states that have ratified international human rights treaties. Compliance with these legal obligations is reviewed through a variety of mechanisms, including the UPR, which are essential for civil society to be able to elevate neglected and stigmatized issues of concern.
We participate in the UPR because it is an accessible and powerful mechanism for connecting the international human rights framework to the realities of people's lives. It is uniquely designed to be a collaborative and ongoing process that emphasizes building the capacity of rights holders to claim their rights and of duty bearers to meet their obligations.
In other countries, this looks like assigning a federal ministry to be accountable for follow-up and implementation of UN human rights recommendations, providing multiple entry points for civil society to engage directly with decision-makers throughout the process, and publishing mid-term reports on implementation progress among many other examples.
In Canada, the UPR does not look like this. Civil society and rights holders are treated as passive recipients of technocratic information that is devoid of actual dialogue on the issues being considered. While different government human rights tables have been established, their program of work and outcomes—if any—are not publicly available and there is no framework in which to operationalize the recommendations.
Civil society organizations are invited to attend portions of these meetings to give their opinions on which of the hundreds of recommendations should be implemented and how—often within 90 minutes or less—and then a box is ticked. This is not meaningful participation. It doesn't help the government in the task before it, and it certainly doesn't help the people who are directly impacted by human rights violations.
All of us are here today because we believe in human rights. We want Canada to be the champion of human rights that it purports to be on the global stage. We are ready to roll up our sleeves to do this important work. We are asking all levels of government to do the same.
We urgently need a national framework for human rights implementation that recognizes the critical role of civil society. There is no time to waste.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Fayçal El-Khoury
That's perfect timing.
I now invite Shelagh Day, chair of the Human Rights Committee of the Feminist Alliance for International Action, to make her opening statement.
You have the floor for three minutes, please.
Shelagh Day Chair, Human Rights Committee, Feminist Alliance for International Action
Thank you for the invitation to be here today.
It is not acceptable that, in 2024, Canada does not have a national mechanism to monitor compliance with its international human rights commitments and ensure implementation of treaty body and UPR recommendations. Canada needs a framework of law, policy and programs, as described by Alex Neve, to guide and ensure its compliance with international human rights law. Canada needs this urgently.
The Feminist Alliance for International Action, which I represent today, was formed in 1997 with the specific goal of ensuring that the rights of women set out in the international human rights treaties Canada ratified become real in the lives of women in Canada. We believe these rights matter. Fulfilling them matters to the lives of women and the health of the country.
We need international human rights treaties in addition to the charter and human rights codes, because international human rights law fills many gaps. It provides a full and comprehensive set of human rights protections that our domestic legislation does not, including commitments to an adequate standard of living and due diligence on the part of governments to protect women from male violence.
Since 1997, FAFIA has participated in almost every review of Canada by treaty bodies and in the four cycles of the universal periodic review. We have repeatedly urged our governments to develop mechanisms and procedures for implementing the recommendations that emerge from these reviews so that we can move forward, solve problems, improve lives and repair harms. However, we and our many human rights colleagues have not been successful in persuading Canada to create an effective domestic mechanism to support the implementation of recommendations and the fulfillment of rights.
The importance of what happens after reviews is freshly before us due to recommendations not just from the UPR but also from the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. A week ago, on October 29, CEDAW issued the concluding observations after its 10th review of Canada's compliance with the CEDAW convention. This was a review marked by the high attendance of indigenous, racialized and young women. There are many recommendations from CEDAW that, if implemented, would make a marked difference in their lives. They have hopes.
Prominent among its many strong recommendations—
Chair, Human Rights Committee, Feminist Alliance for International Action
I will.
Prominent among them is the repetition of a recommendation CEDAW made in 2012 and 2016: Create a national mechanism to report, follow up on and implement international recommendations. We need that recommendation implemented as a key element of Canada's response to UPR and CEDAW recommendations in 2024.