UNA-Canada Research Papers

UNA-Canada Research Papers> Agendas for Change Papers

Canada's Experience with United Nations Human Rights Treaties

by Philippe LeBlanc
November 1994

The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and not necessary of the United Nations Association in Canada.

In my paper, I will deal with some of the UN human rights treaties which Canada has ratified including a discussion of the obligations undertaken by Canada and the procedures for monitoring the implementation of the treaties. The paper will not deal with humanitarian law treaties such as the Geneva Conventions nor the International Labor Organization (ILO) conventions which Canada has ratified.

I will attempt to show how the human rights treaties ratified by Canada since the seventies have had an impact both on our notion of rights and freedoms and on the life of Canadians. I will demonstrate how the period after 1975 represents a new era in the development of human rights in Canada. I will also examine Canada's hesitancy in dealing with human rights questions at the UN in the early history of that body.

- - - - - - -

I. Introduction

The period following 1975 represents an important era in the development of human rights in Canada. Important steps were taken both nationally and internationally to further the promotion and protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. For example, Canada has signed and ratified since 1975 some key human rights treaties including the International Human Rights Covenants. Prior to 1975, Canada had not been very active internationally in the field of human rights and Canadian delegations rarely referred to them in public pronouncements in international forums. Following the 1975 Federal-Provincial Ministerial Conference on Human Rights and subsequent to Canada's election that same year to the UN Commission on Human Rights, human rights became a more significant component of the government's foreign policy agenda.¹

Canada is a party to 29 of the approximately 43 treaties which it is in a position to ratify. In all, there are approximately 72 principal international treaties dealing with human rights. These were adopted at various times by international bodies including the United Nations, UNESCO, ILO, the Organization of American States, the Council of Europe and the Organization of African Unity. It should be noted that Canada is not in a position to ratify the treaties of the two latter organizations.

II. Brief History

Canada's position on human rights treaties has evolved over the years. Historically, questions were raised concerning Canada's treaty making power especially in terms of the ratification of the first ILO Conventions, the federal government's view of treaty implementation, and the issue of shared jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments.² For example, at the UN, Canada traditionally maintained that it could not enter into treaty arrangements which would infringe on provincial areas of jurisdiction. In an attempt to resolve the latter issue, Canada promoted both at the UN and at ILO different versions of a "federal clause", which would have allowed federal states to ratify treaties only in their areas of jurisdiction. Despite its efforts, Canada was never successful in gaining approval for a "federal clause".

Following the creation of the United Nations in 1945, Canada's caution toward speaking out on human rights lessened. As a signatory to the new United Nations Charter, Canada had undertaken obligations in the area of human rights. For example, the Charter was forthright in outlining member states' responsibility in promoting and protecting human rights. Some important articles of the Charter, for example articles 13(1)(b), 55 and 62 were clear in stating the UN's role in human rights.

However, Canada did hesitate to vote on important documents at the UN. For example, in 1948, Canada abstained from voting in committee on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the Third Session of the General Assembly, but finally did vote in favour of the resolution in plenary session. The Canadian delegate Lester B. Pearson explained Canada's position by saying that "the federal government of Canada does not intend to invade other rights which are also important to the people of Canada, and by this I mean the rights of our provinces under our federal constitution."³

Beginning in the late 1950s, Canada viewed its role as strengthening and assisting the development of international treaties to protect human rights. Thus it was willing to apply these standards within its jurisdiction and encourage provinces to do likewise. Canada sought to become more involved in human rights and became a member of the Commission on the Status of Women (1958-61) and a full member, albeit a low-profile one, of the UN Commission on Human Rights (1963-65)⁴. Also, the federal government began consulting provinces more systematically on the ratification of various treaties including ILO conventions, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (which Canada ratified in October 1970) and the International Covenants. However, in the 1960s, the Government of Canada still kept a low profile when human rights matters were discussed at the UN. The major concern as before was Canada's reluctance to offend the provinces by speaking out in international forums on areas which could have an impact on provincial jurisdiction.

One of the major breakthroughs in joint participation in human rights was the first Federal-Provincial Ministerial Conference on Human Rights which was held in December 1975. It culminated in the establishment of the framework of consultation for the ratification of human rights treaties.

III. First Federal-Provincial Ministerial Conference on Human Rights

The first Federal-Provincial Ministerial Conference on Human Rights was held in Ottawa, on December 11 and 12, 1975 and was chaired by the Secretary of State of Canada⁵. The meeting was a turning point in the understanding of the shared responsibilities of both federal and provincial governments in the field of human rights. The main reason for calling the conference was the ratification by Canada of the International Human Rights Covenants.

At a meeting of cabinet immediately preceding the conference there was concern that Quebec had not yet given its consent to ratification. During the cabinet discussion, the Prime Minister declared that he was ready to proceed with the ratification of the Covenants without Quebec. The Prime Minister then mandated the Secretary of State of Canada to try to obtain Quebec's agreement at the Conference and if that failed to report back to Cabinet for further direction. The Federal-Provincial Conference was seen as a last opportunity to win over the Quebec government.

The major item on the Conference agenda was the ratification of the Covenants and the main purpose was to obtain unanimity on the question. This was achieved at the meeting due in large part to a report which was tabled on the first day. The report proposed mechanisms for ratifying and implementing human rights treaties in Canada. The proposals were founded on the principle of federal-provincial and inter-provincial "concertation" in dealing with human rights which had been advanced by the Quebec delegation at planning meetings. During the debate, both the federal government and the provinces accepted the principle as a basis for acting together to implement human rights treaties in Canada. This unanimity allowed the Quebec Intergovernmental Affairs Minister François Cloutier to announce on the second day that he was ready to recommend to his cabinet colleagues that assent be given by Quebec to ratification. In a public statement following the Conference, Cloutier expressed his satisfaction that the federal government had recognized the preponderant role of provinces in human rights. He also said the it had been one of the best, if not the best, federal-provincial conference he had ever attended.⁶

In my view, the successful outcome of the conference can be attributed to the preliminary work done by a federal-provincial task group headed by Professor Tom Symons who was then the Chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The task group drafted modalities and mechanisms for implementing the Covenants which found support in all the delegations. (See Appendix A) The founding principle is in paragraph 1 which reads: "It was agreed that, before Canada acceded to future international human rights covenants, there should be a process of consultation like the one conducted for the December 1975 Federal-Provincial Ministerial Conference on Human Rights". The spirit and the intent were clear. Provinces were to be consulted and all parties were to be in agreement before ratifying any future international human rights treaty.

The other important proposal was the creation of a continuing federal-provincial committee of officials responsible for human rights. This committee was to meet at regular intervals, with rotating chairmanship and sessions held in different locations across the country. The committee was set up and it continues to meets regularly. The original mandate was subsequently clarified and approved at the September 1988 ministerial Federal-Provincial-Territorial Conference on Human Rights. (See Appendix B)

One of the results of the ongoing inter-governmental structure which was set up at the Conference was the early ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. It was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1979 and Canada ratified it in December 1981 following consultations with the provinces and the territories through the Continuing Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee of Officials Responsible for Human Rights.

IV. Process of ratifying the International Covenants by Canada

A major shift in approach to human rights occurred in the 1960s when the Government of Canada decided that it could participate and even vote on human rights issues at the UN without jeopardizing the delicate balance between federal and provincial areas of jurisdiction and responsibilities in the field of human rights. In order to avoid potential conflicts the Government of Canada began consulting provinces on the ratification of human rights treaties. The government had previously developed the practice of provincial consultation for the ratification of ILO conventions.

This shift can be illustrated in the government's approach to the ratification of the International Covenants, the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol attached to the latter. The treaties were developed at the UN Commission on Human Rights over a period of 20 years following the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 to entrench in legally binding documents the rights contained in the Declaration. The Covenants and the Protocol were adopted by the UN General Assembly and opened for signature and ratification by member states in December 1966.

Provincial Consultation

The Government of Canada began consulting provinces in 1967 to inquire whether their respective legislation was in conformity with the Covenants and, if not, whether they would be willing to make the necessary modifications. In the fall of 1969, nine provinces had replied of which five were in favour of ratification. Two provinces raised questions about the implications of doing so, one provided an interim answer and another one was opposed to ratification. In 1971, the Secretary of State for External Affairs wrote to the provincial premiers seeking re-confirmation from the provinces that had agreed to the Covenants and endorsement from those which had not responded positively. At the same time, the Department of External Affairs undertook a program to create among the provincial governments a better understanding of how international human rights instruments are understood by member states of the UN. The program included activities such as appointing provincial representatives to the Canadian observer delegations to ECOSOC meetings. It was hoped that this exercise would bring all the provinces on board. By early 1973, there were only two hold-outs: Quebec and British Columbia.

In his response to the Secretary of State for External Affairs' letter, the Premier of Quebec Robert Bourassa had outlined his province's concerns regarding ratification of the Covenants. Before agreeing to the treaties, Quebec maintained that it was necessary to convene a federal-provincial conference to discuss how all levels of government could work together especially for the implementation in the various jurisdictions of the obligations under the Covenants. The Secretary of State for External Affairs had responded negatively to Quebec's request for a conference since he did not see the need for such a meeting.

British Columbia still had some reservations about the treaties, but Premier Barrett informed the federal government in December 1973 that his province would agree to ratification. Then the B.C. Premier informed Ottawa without any prior consultation that he was convening a federal-provincial conference of human rights ministers. Following a series of discussions between his officials and federal government officials, it was agreed that the meeting would take place but as an inter-provincial conference hosted by British Columbia. It was held in Victoria in 1974 and the federal government was represented by an observer delegation. Subsequently, a second inter-provincial meeting was convened by the province of Nova Scotia in early 1975. At that meeting, provincial ministers urged Ottawa to call a federal-provincial conference on human rights to discuss matters such as the ratification of the Covenants.

Finally, the federal government accepted the recommendation of the provinces and convened the first Federal-Provincial Ministerial Conference on Human Rights to be chaired by the Secretary of State of Canada whose department had been more sympathetic to Quebec's original request and more responsive to the concerns of the provinces.

V. International Human Rights Covenants

Canada acceded to the International Covenants, (i.e., the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol to the latter Covenant) in May 1976, the same year they entered into force at the UN. The treaties have had an effect on human rights in Canada both on individuals and on legislative changes. In terms of the latter, the Canadian representative to the UN Human Rights Committee commented on the impact of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.⁷

The two Covenants are different in terms of implementation and enforcement. For instance, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights required immediate implementation which meant that federal and provincial laws had to be in compliance with the treaty obligations before ratification. On the other hand, the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provided for progressive implementation of the treaty provisions.⁸ Further, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provided for a Human Rights Committee and contained a provision under article 41 which allows states parties to declare that they recognize the competence of the Committee to receive complaints of one state party against another. Canada made such a declaration under article 41 in October 1979. Both Covenants require state parties to present periodic reports to the UN on "the measures they have adopted which give effect to the rights recognized therein and on the progress made in the enjoyment of those rights". Canada's reports have been the most thorough of any member state and have been cited as models at the UN.

Optional Protocol

Ratifying the Optional Protocol attached to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was a major step for Canada as it allows individual Canadians to make a complaint against their country before an international body if they consider their rights have been violated. However, ratification of the Protocol was not achieved without serious opposition. Both the Departments of Justice and External Affairs raised objections to ratification (though Canada had voted in 1966 at the UN General Assembly for including an individual complaints mechanism in the Covenant). The Department of Justice had a number of concerns including the international embarrassment the government would suffer if a province were to be found in breach of an article of the Covenant. External Affairs generally agreed with the arguments put forward by Justice. On the other hand, the Department of the Secretary of State was of the view that the Optional Protocol was an essential part of the treaties and had to be ratified. Their view was that Canadians would be deprived of additional protection and it would give the impression internationally that Canada was not totally committed to protecting human rights. The matter was settled at a federal Cabinet meeting in December 1975 when ministers endorsed the ratification of the two Covenants and the Optional Protocol.

Canada has been the object of a large number of complaints under the Optional Protocol. However, this is not necessarily an indication that Canada has a poor record in human rights but rather that individuals and groups working in human rights are familiar with the Protocol and use it for the benefit of individual complainants.

Sandra Lovelace case

One of the most significant complaints against Canada under the Optional Protocol was the Sandra Lovelace case. It concerned an Indian woman from the Tobique Reserve in New Brunswick, Sandra Lovelace, who had lost her Indian status upon marrying a non-Indian as a result of Section 12(10)(b) of the Indian Act, which declared that "the following persons are not entitled to be registered, namely...a woman who married a person who is not an Indian..." Her case was accepted by the UN Human Rights Committee notwithstanding the fact that she had not exhausted all domestic remedies, i.e., by going to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Committee accepted the fact that in the 1973 Lavell case another native woman had already gone on a similar issue before the Supreme Court and had lost. Thus Sandra Lovelace stated in 1977 that Canada had infringed a number of rights contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights including the right to protection from discrimination as provided under articles 2(1) and 26; equality of men and women under article 3; protection of the family under article 23(1); equality of rights and responsibilities in terms of marriage under article 23(4); and, the right to enjoy her own culture under article 27.

In its 1981 decision, the Human Rights Committee declared that Sandra Lovelace had lost her rights prior to the entering into force of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and that her right to enjoy her family was only indirectly at stake. However, the Committee concluded in her favour by ruling that the effects of her loss of rights continued after the Covenant had come into force and that the particular right being denied was the right to enjoy her culture in her community. Following the release of the statement of the Human Rights Committee, the Canadian government agreed to modify the Indian Act to bring it in harmony with the Covenant. It took four years for Sandra Lovelace's case to be decided at the UN and another four years for the Indian Act to be amended. The Government of Canada first introduced legislation in June 1984 to amend the Indian Act in order to remove the discriminatory clause. The amendment was re-introduced in the new parliamentary session in 1985 and became law in June 1985, thereby putting an end to sexual discrimination in the Indian Act.

Human Rights Committee

One of the major mechanisms for implementing the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol is the UN Human Rights Committee, which was established in 1977. Its main purpose is to ensure that countries live up to their obligations under the Covenant, to receive and comment on reports prepared by states parties to the treaty and, finally, to receive and deal with complaints under the Optional Protocol. When the committee was being set up, Canada submitted the name of Professor Walter Tarnopolsky as a candidate for election. He was elected and served in his personal capacity as a committee member until his appointment to the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1983. He was very influential in the formative years of the committee in helping to establish procedures and insisting on a more liberal and open interpretation of its mandate. When Walter Tarnopolsky resigned, he was replaced by the first woman on the committee, Professor Gisèle Harper-Côté of Laval University, who completed his term of office.

VI. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

The Convention was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1965 and entered into force internationally in January 1969. Canada signed the Convention in August 1966 and ratified it in October 1970 without any reservation or declaration.

The development of the Convention came out of the late 1950s and 1960s as a result of the renewed onslaught of racial, religious and national hatred in some parts of the world. The basis of the Convention is found in the definition (a.1) which includes all forms of racial discrimination.

The key provision of the treaty is article 4. Regretfully, Canada has been found in breach especially of article 4(b) The provision reads: "States Parties... (b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offense punishable by law."

The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has raised questions about Canada's compliance ever since Canada presented its first report in 1972. It has informed Canada that measures taken by the government fall short of meeting the requirements of article 4 and therefore that Canada is not in compliance. The Committee has required the government to take direct legislative action to implement the provisions of article 4(b). The Canadian position at CERD meetings is that the goals of article 4 can best be achieved by other means, such as public information, administrative directives, and so forth.

Notwithstanding the government's arguments at the UN, Canada is still not in full compliance with the provisions of article 4.⁹ Our non-compliance with article 4(b) makes it difficult for Canada to declare under article 14 which provides for an individual complaints mechanism similar to the one in the Optional Protocol. The concern is that someone could complain under article 14 of Canada's non-compliance.

VII. Convention Against Torture

The UN Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1984.¹⁰ Canada signed the Convention in August 1985 and ratified it in June 1987. The UN treaty binds ratifying states to take measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under their jurisdiction. It accepts no exceptional circumstances, including war, which can warrant the use of torture. It stipulates that a public official cannot invoke the argument of "merely obeying orders" to justify its use. Further, the Convention includes a clause providing for extradition of an alleged torturer who flees to another country. The state where the person is found is obliged to extradite the alleged torturer or to prosecute the individual under its own laws.

One of the major tests for any human rights instrument is the strength and nature of the mechanisms which are created to implement it. It often happens that when such mechanisms are debated at the UN, members states will insist on various safeguards, which tend to protect states rather than individuals. After lengthy debates on the Convention Against Torture the UN agreed to the following mechanisms for enforcement and implementation: a Committee Against Torture to supervise the implementation of the Convention and to handle individual complaints (a.17-18); a reporting system (a.19); a procedure for inquiries and on-the-spot visits (a.20); an optional declaration whereby a state can complain against another state for non-compliance with the treaty (a.21); and a second declaration which allows complaints to be received by the Committee from or on behalf of individuals who claim to be victims of violations of the Convention by a state party (a.22). The two optional declarations (a.21 and 22) are key mechanisms as, on the one hand, they allow states to challenge others for not living up to the Convention and, on the other hand, they permit individual victims to be heard by an international body.

In order to ratify the Convention, the Government of Canada had to amend the Criminal Code to make torture an indictable offense. The government did so by introducing, in December 1986, Bill C-28, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code [Torture], which made torture an offense punishable by a prison sentence of up to 14 years. The main purpose of amending the Criminal Code was to bring Canada's legislation in line with the requirements of the UN Convention.

The unfortunate aspect of the legislation is that the government chose to incorporate in its bill a qualifying clause, which reflected one of the weaker aspects of the Convention and which has the effect of legalizing certain uses of torture in Canada. The legislation, which came into force on June 1, 1987, repeated the definition of torture which is contained in the UN Convention. The offending text reads: "Torture...does not include any act or omission arising only from, or inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions". Thus Canada now has legislation on the books which makes torture a criminal offense, yet which also sanctions some uses of torture and cruel punishment in certain circumstances. Further, if alleged torturers hiding in Canada were brought to trial here (now allowed under the amendments to the Criminal Code), they could use Canadian law to plead their innocence. Alleged torturers could defend themselves by saying they were merely doing what is considered in their countries to be "inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions".

When Canada ratified the Convention, it did not include the optional declarations under articles 21 (complaints against a state party) and 22 (complaints from or on behalf of individuals).¹¹ By endorsing the general principles without committing itself seriously to enforcement, Canada had set a dangerous precedent. If a country like Canada where torture is not a way of life can endorse the treaty without real commitment, then countries where torture is a problem have an excuse to follow suit.

VIII. Convention on the Rights of the Child

The most recent human rights treaty which Canada has ratified is the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The UN General Assembly adopted the Convention in November 1989, which entered into force in September 1990 following ratification by the required 20 member states. Canada signed the Convention in May 1990 and ratified it in December 1991. The Convention is founded on the principle that children (18 years and under) have inalienable rights covering the entire spectrum of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

Traditionally, children have been treated by law or governments as objects of charity and of protection, but never as subjects of rights; nor was there ever much discussion of the effects on children of governmental policies or budget priorities. Article 27 of the Convention rectifies this, declaring that "states parties recognize the rights of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development." States are also bound to take all appropriate measures "to the maximum extent of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international cooperation" (art.4). A key principle contained in the Convention is that states parties must take into account "the best interests of the child" in actions concerning them. Article 3.1 clearly indicates that, in all actions concerning children -- whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies -- the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration. This article signals a remarkable change of attitude among the highly diverse member states of the UN.¹²

The Convention provides for two key implementation mechanisms which is the establishment of a Committee on the Rights of the Child (a.43) and a reporting requirement for states (a.44). Canada's first report was recently tabled at the UN for scrutiny by the Committee. It was widely distributed to other governments and to groups involved in promoting children's rights in Canada.

Following consultation with provincial and territorial governments and the non-governmental sector, Canada ratified the Convention with two reservations to a.37(c) and a.21. and a statement of understanding. The reservation to article 37(c) is a serious one as it would seem to be incompatible with the object and spirit of the Convention. Article 37(c) requires member states to ensure that children and adults be kept in separate detention facilities. Canada's reservation deposited at the UN reads: "Canada therefore reserves the right not to detain children separately from adults in circumstances where this is not appropriate or possible". One of the concerns of the government was that this would not always be possible for financial reasons.

The reservation to article 21, which deals with adoptions, relates to concerns raised by aboriginal groups with the intent of respecting aboriginal traditions. Article 21 provides that adoptions "must be authorized only by competent authorities...in accordance with applicable law and procedures". After consultation with aboriginal groups, the government adopted the view that ratifying the Convention should not put an end to customary forms of care such as custom adoptions among aboriginal peoples. One justification is found in article 30 which ensures that an indigenous child is not denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, religion and language. Canada's reservation reads as follows: "Canada therefore reserves the right not to apply the provisions of article 21 to the extent that they may be inconsistent with customary forms of care among aboriginal peoples in Canada".

The Government of Canada also entered a statement of understanding regarding article 30 which deals with rights of minority groups including indigenous peoples. It was meant to ensure that article 30 is taken into account in the interpretation and application of all the rights in the Convention.

Unfortunately, in the process of ratification the Canadian government did not respect the original 1975 agreement since Canada ratified the Convention without the consent of one province. The province of Alberta withheld its consent to ratification apparently because of a concern that the rights contained in the Convention could infringe on the rights of parents. The Government of Canada decided to move ahead without the consent of all the provinces. The press release announcing the ratification stated: "...the provinces and territorial governments have reviewed their existing legislation...Some provinces and territories have in fact indicated their support for ratification formally, and others may do so in the very near future."¹³ Unfortunately, the disadvantages of ratifying the Convention without the consent of all jurisdictions outweighed the positive outcomes that could be expected. The action of the government was contrary to the intent and the spirit of the 1975 agreement which had created the framework of federal-provincial "concertation" for ratifying human rights treaties. The result is that one province can now claim that the Convention does not apply in its jurisdiction since it did not agree to it. The decision to move ahead without Alberta raises serious questions about the 1975 federal-provincial agreement on "concertation".

IX. Conclusion

A new era began in 1975 with the historic agreement reached among the provinces and the federal government. It represented the beginning of a new form of cooperation in the promotion of rights and freedoms both nationally and internationally. The principle of federal-provincial and inter-provincial "concertation" in protecting and promoting human rights has proven to be beneficial both to Canada as a country and to the protection of the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

- - - - - - -

Endnotes

¹ A 1987 report to the Government of Canada emphasized the following development in human rights: "Since 1976, Canadian diplomatic delegations have been at the forefront of efforts within the UN Commission on Human Rights and other UN bodies in the development of approaches and mechanisms for the protection and promotion of human rights. Their efforts have been enhanced through consultation and interaction with leading Canadian non-governmental human rights advocates such as the churches, Amnesty International and more recently native groups. The joint decision of the federal and provincial governments in December 1975 to move toward the ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Optional Protocol served as a signal to Canadians and to the international community that Canada was prepared to submit its performance in the area of human rights to international scrutiny. With the ratification in May 1976 of the Covenants, and most especially of the Optional Protocol, individual Canadians were accorded the international legal right to appeal their causes to an international body." Excerpt taken from: Côté-Harper, Gisèle and Courtney, John, Report to the Right Honourable Joe Clark and the Honourable Monique Landry: International Cooperation for the Development of Human Rights and Democratic Institutions; Ottawa; June 1987; p. 3. | BACK |

² See Allan Gotlieb's article, The Changing Canadian Attitude to the United Nations Role in Protecting and Developing Human Rights; in Gotlieb, Allan, Human Rights, Federalism and Minorities; Toronto; 1970; pp. 16-53. | BACK |

³ Ibid., p. 38. | BACK |

⁴ When Canada was first elected to the UN Commission on Human Rights in 1962, the Diefenbaker government appointed Margaret Aitken, a defeated Conservative candidate, to serve as Canada's representative. When the Liberals returned to power in 1963, they allowed Aitken to serve on the Commission, but appointed an alternate to attend sessions with her. The Canadian delegation rarely intervened on major issues during Canada’s two-year tenure on the Commission. See my article on Canada's participation in the 1985 session of the Commission when Canada participated as an observer: LeBlanc, Philippe, Canada at the UN Human Rights Commission, in International Perspectives; Ottawa; September/October pp. 20-22; 1985. | BACK |

⁵ The federal delegation consisted of 23 members and 14 observers. The delegation included: the Hon. J. Hugh Faulkner, Secretary of State of Canada; the Hon. John Munro, Minister of Labour; the Hon. Ron Batsford, Minister of Justice and Attorney of Canada; Monique Bégin, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs; and, Francis Fox, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. | BACK |

⁶ Quoted in La Presse, December 13, 1975. | BACK |

⁷ "Although it is true that the [Canadian] Charter [of Rights and Freedoms] and the Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights] were not identical in every respect, there was a high degree of similarity and complementarity between them. The Charter gave effect to many of Canada’s obligations under the Covenant. Further, the Covenant and the comments made by members of the Human Rights Committee during the review of Canada's initial report had contributed to many of the changes to the original draft of the Charter." Report of the Human Rights Committee, G.A. Official Records: 40th Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/40/40); p. 32, para. 183.

Further, the Minister of Justice Jean Chrétien indicated in a statement to a House of Commons Committee the influence of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the substantive rights included in the Charter: "Apart from amendments to the general limitations provision (section 1), changes resulting in stronger protection inspired by international human rights law include the addition of a clause specifying that Charter rights "are guaranteed equally to male and female persons' (section 28); granting jurisdiction to the courts to order an "appropriate and just remedy" (section 24); specifying individual responsibility for criminality recognized under international law (section 11); strengthening criminal process rights in the area of search and seizure (section 8), detention and imprisonment (section 9), and bail (section 11). Examples of the invocation of international instruments with respect to the matters listed above are found in the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Special Joint Committee...The influence of international instruments was particularly powerful in generating changes to section one that makes restrictions on rights more difficult to legitimize." From the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons of the Constitution of Canada, 3:28 (1980-81), 287-88. | BACK |

⁸ "Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and cooperation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures." Article 2; Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. | BACK |

⁹ At its August 1994 meeting, the CERD Committee concluded that "Canadian authorities should strengthen their efforts...with the view to fully implementing articles ..4...In particular, measures should be taken to ban racist organizations..." Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; Forty-fifth session; August 1-19, 1994. | BACK |

¹⁰ My articles on the Convention are the following: "Le Canada risque de diminuer sa réputation dans le monde", Le Devoir, Montreal; September 3, 1987; "Ottawa Tarnishes its image in flawed law on torture", The Globe and Mail; July 27, 1987; p. A 7; "Canada Should Take the Lead in Ending Torture Everywhere", Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa; February 4, 1987; p. A 9; "Against Torture", in Policy Options, Vol. 6, no 5; June 1985; pages 26-27; "Le Canada et la Convention contre la torture", Le Devoir, Montreal; March 20, 1985. | BACK |

¹¹ The Government of Canada deposited declarations under articles 21 and 22 of the Convention at the UN, in November 1989. | BACK |

¹² LeBlanc, Philippe, Changing Attitudes, in Libertas; Montreal; Vol. 2, no 4; October 1992, p. 3. | BACK |

¹³ See Press Release and documents, Prime Minister Announces Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child; Office of the Prime Minister; December 11, 1991; Ottawa. | BACK |

- - - - - - -

Bibliography

Human Rights: A Compilation of International Instruments; Vol. 1 and Vol. 2; UN; New York; 1993.

Multilateral Treaties in the Area of Human Rights to which Canada is a Party; Human Rights Directorate, Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada; Ottawa; 1993.

International Human Rights Law: Theory and Practice; edited by Irwin Cotler and F. Pearl Eliadis; The Canadian Human Rights Foundation; Montreal; 1992.

Bayefsky, Anne F., International Human Rights Law: Use in Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Litigation; Butterworths; Toronto; 1992.

Hunsley, Terrance, Canada's International Commitments in the Social Policy Field; Their Impact and Potential Role in Future Policy; a paper prepared for the Ontario Premier’s Council on Health, Well-Being and Social Justice; Toronto; December 1992.

Human Rights in Canadian Foreign Policy; edited by Robert O. Matthews and Cranford Pratt; McGill-Queen’s University Press; Kingston and Montreal; 1988.

Matas, David, Domestic Implementation of International Human Rights Agreements; Canadian Human Rights Yearbook; pp. 91-117; Ottawa; 1987.

Tarnopolsky, Walter S., The Canadian experience with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights seen from the perspective of a former member of the Human Rights Committee; University of Akron School of Law Symposium, 1986. (unpublished paper)

Kinsella, Noel A., Some Domestic Dimensions of the Canadian Experience with the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights; University of Akron School of Law Symposium; 1986. (unpublished paper)

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women: Reference Document; Continuing Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee of Officials Responsible for Human Rights; Supply and Services Canada; Ottawa; 1986.

Selected Decisions under the Optional Protocol: Human Rights Committee (Second to Sixteenth Sessions); United Nations; New York; 1985.

Commentary on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; Continuing Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee of Officials Responsible for Human Rights; Ottawa; 1985.

Study on the Implementation of Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; prepared by the Special Rapporteur, José D. Inglés, for the Second World Conference to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination; Geneva; 1983.

Hurtubise, l'honorable René, La mise en oeuvre au plan interne des obligations contractées au niveau international en ce qui concerne les droits de la personne: une expérience vécue ou la concertation fédérale-provinciale au Canada; in The Cambridge Lecture Series; edited by Nancy E. Eastham and Boris Krivy; Canadian Institute for Advanced Legal Studies; Butterworths; Toronto; 1981.