114Th Session of the UN Human Rights Committee

Joint submission on Canada114th Session of the UN Human Rights Committee Geneva, June 29-July 24, 2015 responding to List of Issues in relation to the sixth periodic report of Canada adopted by the Committee at its 112th session (7–31 October 2014)Alternative Report on Canada’s Compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsPresented by:Franciscans International, Franciscans of Western Canada & Ordo Franciscanus Saecularis Canada Sisters of Mercy (NGO), Mercy International Association: Global Action Blue Planet Project of the Council of Canadians UNANIMA International Sisters of Charity Federation International Presentation Association of the Sisters of Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary Congregation of the Mission NGO Mining Working Group Alternative Report on ICCPR: Canada 2 114th Session of the UN Human Rights CommitteeIntroductionI. Human Rights Conduct of Canadian Oil, Mining, and Gas Companies Operating Abroad A. Systemic human-rights abuses B. State-business nexus means increased duty to protect C. Regulation of human rights conduct of Canadian companies abroad D. Legal venues for victims of Canadian extractive firmsII. Restrictions on Freedom of Expression and Democratic Participation A. Punitive measures against civil society organizations B. Stigmatization of the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction Movement C. Expansion of the counter-terrorism paradigm III. Rights of First Nations, Inequality, and Environmental Policy A. Persistent discrimination in the human right to water and sanitation of indigenous peoples B. Collective rights and public participation in environmental decision- makingIV. RecommendationsContributing and endorsing organizations Alternative Report on ICCPR: Canada 3 114th Session of the UN Human Rights CommitteeThis written submission seeks to assist the UN Human Rights Committee in carrying out a constructive review of Canada’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights. This joint report focuses on: (I) the human rights impacts of Canada’s actions and omissions vis- à-vis its mining sector operating abroad; (II) the closing of democratic spaces and restrictions on the freedom of expression and peaceful assembly inside Canada; and (III) discrimination, the rights of First Nations, and participation in key environmental decision-making. The report concludes with a suggested list of recommendations for the Committee to issue to the Canadian Government. A list of the organizations contributing to and endorsing this report is included as an annex.I. Human Rights Conduct of Canadian Oil, Mining, and Gas Companies Operating Abroad About 75% of the world’s exploration and mining companies are headquartered within Canada’s national territory and jurisdiction.1 This is a result of the Government’s pro-active promotion of the extractive industry on one hand and omissions in terms of weak corporate governance and accountability on the other.2 The extraterritorial impacts of these policies are vast: Canadian mining companies are active in more than 100 countries around the world, including 43 of the 55 countries in Africa and in every country in Latin America.3 A. Systemic human rights abusesThe systemic human-rights abuses associated with the Canadian mining sector operating in Latin America has been amply documented and analyzed. The Working Group on Mining and Human Rights in Latin America prepared an extensive study for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2013.4 The study “The Impact of Canadian Mining in Latin American and the Responsibility of the State of Canada” documents 22 cases in 9 countries5 and systematizes the patterns of violations and abuses. Also of note are: the McGill Research Group investigating Canadian Mining in Latin America,6 the 2014 Ruling of the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal1 Building the Canadian Advantage: A Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector (March 2009), available through the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development of Canada: Trade Topics, www.international.gc.ca. 2 See Stephen Leahy, “Canada's revamped approach to aid likely to leave bitter taste, say experts,” THE GUARDIAN, Mar. 25, 2013. 3 Mining Association of Canada, Facts & Figures of the Canadian Mining Industry: 2014, p. 73, http://mining.ca/sites/default/files/documents/Facts_and_Figures_2014.pdf. 4 Submitted for the 149th session, November 2013. An executive summary is also available in English. The Working Group is made up of the following organizations: Observatorio Latinoamericano de Conflictos Ambientales–OLCA (Chile), Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo–CAJAR (Colombia), Fundación para el Debido Proceso– DPLF (regional), Centro Hondureño de Promoción para el Desarrollo Comunitario–CEHPRODEC (Honduras), Asamblea Nacional de Afectados Ambientales–ANAA (Mexico), Asociación Marianista de Acción Social (Peru), and Red Muqui (Peru). 5 Id. 6 See homepage of database at: www.micla.ca/conflicts. Alternative Report on ICCPR: Canada 4 114th Session of the UN Human Rights CommitteeSession on the Canadian Mining Industry in Latin America;7 and the recent submission to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by the Latin American Episcopal several key Catholic institutions on the Catholic Church’s position vis-à-vis the human rights violations and abuses against the peoples affected by the extractive industries in Latin America.8One of the most concerning trends we observe in relation to the efforts to promote the extractive development model in Latin America is the increased criminalization of social protest and human rights defense. This is in addition to the well-known patterns of threats and violence against environmental and human rights defenders. These patterns are prevalent where Canadian corporations are operating.9 Abuses directly related to the Covenant include threats and violence against defenders and community leaders, the use of excessive force against peaceful protesters, assignment of the security and armed forces to protect private interests, arbitrary use of the criminal justice system, impunity for abuses against defenders, and invasions of the right to privacy. Other systemic human rights abuses include those affecting the rights to participation, a lack of access to information and democratic decision-making spaces; the right to self-determination and free, prior, informed consent; forced evictions; and violations of economic, social, and cultural rights of vulnerable and marginalized groups constituting de facto discrimination.B. State-business nexus means elevated duty to protectIn its restatement of existing international law, Principle 4 of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights10 refers to the elevated duty to protect emerging from the State- Business Nexus: in those circumstances where business enterprises receive substantial support and services from the State agencies, States should take additional steps to protect against human rights abuses, including by requiring human rights due diligence.11 The support includes that of credit agencies, investment insurance and guarantee agencies, development agencies, and development finance institutions.12 In sum the closer the State- Business nexus the greater the State’s means and duty to implement policies and practices to ensure that human rights are upheld.13 7 Ruling of the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal Session on the Canadian Mining Industry in Latin America May 30 – June 1, 2014, Montreal, Québec (ruling issued December 2014). 8 CELAM et al, Submission on the Catholic Church’s position vis-à-vis the human rights violations and abuses against the peoples affected by the extractive industries in Latin America, Hearing during the 154th period of session, March 19, 2015. 9 See El impacto de la minería canadiense, pp. 25-27, 28-36. 10 Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, UN Doc A/HRC/17/31 Annex (21 Mar. 2011). 11 Id. Principle 4, Guiding Principles. See also Franciscans International, Canada’s Mining Interests in Latin America and the Urgent Need for Measures to Prevent and Remedy Human Rights Harms Caused Abroad, Submission List of Issues to be considered in connection with the Sixth periodic report of Canada (July 2014), pp. 3-4, available at http://www.ccprcentre.org/country/canada/. 12 Id. (“Where these agencies do not explicitly consider the actual and potential adverse impacts on human rights of beneficiary enterprises, they put themselves at risk – in reputational, financial, political and potentially legal terms – for supporting any such harm, and they may add to the human rights challenges faced by the recipient State.”) Alternative Report on ICCPR: Canada 5 114th Session of the UN Human Rights CommitteeThe nexus between the Canadian State and its extractive sector is notoriously direct.14 The Peoples’ Permanent Tribunal highlighted this paradox in the extractive development model: “while it rests on the paradigm of free trade as a driver of economic development, its expansion is made possible thanks to sustained public intervention.”15 Canada’s steadfast and expansive public support of its mining industry has been extensively catalogued. In sum, the State nexus with the mining industry includes: - financial support of loans and insurance through Export Development Canada (EDC);16 - the Toronto Stock Exchange (TMX Group);17 - incentives and deductions in the Canadian tax system;18 - redirecting foreign development aid to secure social license for mining projects;19 - political support and cover from embassies;20 - undue influence over legislative reforms to mining codes abroad;21 and - negotiating free trade regimes.22 13 Id. Commentary Principle 4 explains that “the closer a business enterprise is to the State, or the more it relies on statutory authority or taxpayer support, the stronger the State’s policy rationale becomes for ensuring that the enterprise respects human rights.” 14 For background, see Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, Dirty Business, Dirty Practices: How the Federal Government Supports Canadian Mining, Oil, and Gas Companies Abroad (May 2007), available at www.halifaxintiative.org/dirtypractices. 15 PPT Ruling, p. 39. 16 See e.g. PPT Ruling, pp. 49-50. 17 Id. 18 PPT Ruling, pp. 50-51. Also Facts & Figures: “The Canadian mining industry supports the federal government’s reduction of the federal corporate tax rate to 15%. A recent report from the University of Calgary School of Public Policy suggests that Canada has the lowest corporate tax rates in the G7.” 19 See The Impact of Canadian Mining. 20 “Canadian Embassies have regularly gone to bat to protect the interests of Canadian mining companies in cases where communities don’t want them and where there have been egregious human rights and environmental abuses. Their interventions have been strategically timed with regard to mining project or policy decisions related to Canadian commercial interests and demonstrate systematic disregard for the perspectives and interests of the affected communities.” Backgrounder: A Dozen Examples of Canadian Mining Diplomacy, Oct. 8, 2013, http://www.miningwatch.ca/article/backgrounder-dozen-examples-canadian-mining-diplomacy. 21 E.g. Colombia, Peru, Honduras. See The Impact of Canadian Mining. The Canadian government reports that in Latin America it has provided assistance to resource-rich developing countries to improve their governance capacity in the extractive sector and has held discussions with free trade agreement on how best to address voluntary principles of corporate social responsibility in the context of negotiations. Building the Canadian Advantage: A Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector (March 2009), available through the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development of Canada: Trade Topics, www.international.gc.ca. 22 The nexus is clear: “Canadian mining’s presence in this region is one reason why Canada is moving towards more liberal trade relations.” Facts and figures, pp. 75 “Since 2006, free trade agreements with Peru (2009), Panama (2013), Colombia (2011), and Honduras (2014) have come into force, while negotiations are ongoing with Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic.” Id. at pp.75-76 “Canadian trade regime is expanding aggressively, giving Canadian miners greater flexibility to expand into new and emerging markets” Id. at p. 75. Canadian mining companies have filed multi-million dollar cases against El Salvador, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Peru. See also Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, and Canada’s Extraterritorial Obligations, Thematic Hearing for 153rd Period of Sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Oct. 28, 2014, p. 9. Alternative Report on ICCPR: Canada 6 114th Session of the UN Human Rights CommitteeThis substantial support and involvement informs the expectations in terms of what measures must be taken by the Canadian government to protect against human rights abuses committed by its corporations.C. Regulation of human rights conduct of Canadian companies abroadThe Committee has requested information regarding “measures taken or envisaged to monitor the human rights conduct of Canadian oil, mining, and gas companies operating abroad.”23Despite the elevated duty to protect, the Canadian Government does not have effective measures to monitor and regulate the human rights conduct of business enterprises domiciled within its jurisdiction in order to ensure their compliance with human rights standards throughout their operations.The Government has extended the forms of support listed above without imposing conditionalities and without requiring from extractive companies that they implement human- rights due diligence procedures.24 There have been several legislative initiatives to fill this gap.25 Most recent was Bill C-300, the “Corporate Accountability of Mining, Oil, and Gas Corporations in Developing Counties Act”26 which would have withdrawn governmental support to companies violating human rights standards. The stated purpose of the Act was “to ensure that corporations engaged in mining, oil or gas activities and receiving support from the Government of Canada act in a manner consistent with international environmental best practices and with Canada’s commitments to international human rights standards.”27 The Act contained provisions related to codes of conduct for companies, clear criteria conditioning governmental support on compliance with those standards, and authority for the government to investigate acts of noncompliance. The Bill was narrowly defeated in October 2010 by a margin of only 6 votes.Notwithstanding the calls and efforts toward a proper regulatory framework, to date Canada has only adopted measures promoting a voluntary strategy focused on corporate social responsibility policies predicated only on the willingness of corporations.28 In 2009 the Government launched “Building the Canadian Advantage: A Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy for the Canadian Extractive Sector Abroad.”29 This was a watered-down response to the recommendations from the government-convened multi-stakeholder consultative23 Human Rights Committee, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, List of issues in relation to the sixth periodic report of Canada, UN doc. CCPR/C/CAN/Q/6 (21 Nov. 2014), para. 24 See generally PPT, p. 41. 25 For more, see El impacto de la minería canadiense, pp. 102-04. 26 House of Commons of Canada, Bill C-300, 2nd Session, 40th Parliament 57-58 Elizabeth II, 2009. 27 Id. para. 3. 28 For more see, Charis Kamphuis, Canadian Mining Companies and Domestic Law Reform: A Critical Legal Account, German Law Journal, vol. 13, no. 9 (2012), available at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index. php?pageID=11&artID=1487. 29 Building the Canadian Advantage: A Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector (March 2009), available through the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development of Canada: Trade Topics, www.international.gc.ca. Alternative Report on ICCPR: Canada 7 114th Session of the UN Human Rights Committee process between 2006-2007 that called for the provision of government support be explicitly tied to meeting human rights requirements and the establishment of an independent complaint mechanism with investigatory powers.30 However, the voluntary approaches are manifestly insufficient in fulfilling Canada’s international obligations under the Covenant.The lack of effective measures with regard to transnational corporations registered in Canada whose activities negatively impact the rights of people in territories outside Canada was documented by the 2014 Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal,31 the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2012),32 and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2012).33 The Committee on the Rights of the Child specifically recommended that Canada ensure “the establishment of a clear regulatory framework for, inter alia, the gas, mining, and oil companies operating in territories outside Canada to ensure that their activities do not impact on human rights or endanger environment and other standards” and “the monitoring of implementation by companies at home and abroad of international and national environmental and health and human rights standards.”34 The question was also raised during Canada’s 2013 Universal Periodic Review (UPR), which included a recommendation related to “the establishment and implementation of an effective regulatory framework for holding companies registered in Canada accountable for the human rights impact of their operations.”35 Yet the Government held fast to this approach and conditionally accepted the recommendation pledging only to “continue its efforts to encourage responsible business conduct by Canadian companies in their operations abroad.”36 In November 2014, the federal government renewed the Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy, now called Doing Business the Canadian Way,37 Industry interpreted these strategies as30 Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal, p. 40, citing National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries: Advisory Group Report, Mar. 29, 2007, available at http://www.miningwatch.ca/files/RT_Advisory_Group_Report_0.pdf. 31 Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal, Ruling, (Dec. 2014), p. 40 (pronounced its concern over “the absence of a legal framework requiring Canadian corporations to respect human rights abroad) 32 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations: Canada, UN Doc. CERD/C/CAN/CO/19-20 (4 Apr. 2012), para 14. 33 Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations: Canada, UN Doc. CRC/C/CAN/CO/3-4 (6 Dec. 2012), para. 28. The Committee specifically recommended that Canada ensure 34 Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations: Canada, UN Doc. CRC/C/CAN/CO/3-4 (6 Dec. 2012), para. 28.. Id. para.29. 35 Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Canada, UN Doc. A/HRC/24/11 (28 June 2013), recommendation 128.151. 36 Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Canada, Views on conclusions and/or recommendations, voluntary commitments and replies presented by the State under review, UN Doc. A/HRC/24/11/Add.1 (17 Sept. 2013), para. 42. 37 Canada’s Enhanced Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy to Strengthen Canada’s Extractive Sector Abroad, http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/other-autre/csr-strat- rse.aspx?lang=eng Alternative Report on ICCPR: Canada 8 114th Session of the UN Human Rights Committee a “signal that Canada supports and promotes a strong and vibrant Canadian mining sector both at home and abroad.”38The Government’s revised CSR Strategy does not address the need for independent investigations into complaints, analysis and reporting on those findings, and recommendations. Instead, the CSR relies on two institutions that have failed to produce results: The National Contact Point for the implementation of the OECD Guidelines for Mulitnational Enterprises and the Office of the Extractive Sector CSR Counsellor.” In March of this year, the government appointment a new Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Counsellor for the extractive sector after the post had been empty for over a year.D. Legal venues for victims of Canadian extractive firmsFederal policies promoting the mining sector in the absence of sufficient conditionalities and oversight based on human rights and environmental requirements are aggravating the situation of impunity. Another dimension is the search for justice for harms committed. As part of its review of the right to effective remedy (article 2), the Committee inquired as the legal venues available in Canada for victims of human rights abuses arising from overseas operations of Canadian extractive firms. Victims’ attempts to seek remedy in Canadian courts have been by-and-large rejected on jurisdictional challenges.39 There are two exceptions that may be precedent-setting. There is a recent decision related to three connected cases against HudBay Minerals before the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice for its imputed responsibility for violent acts in Guatemala, namely the rape of eleven indigenous women and the murder of an indigenous leader.40 Second is the case against Tahoe Resources for its role in violence committed by private security against peaceful protesters.41 Despite these important, precedent setting advances, most victims do not count on the necessary resources to attempt to overcome the numerous judicial obstacles that exist for accessing justice for these cases in Canada. To comply with its obligations the Canadian government should proactively open a route for access to justice by these victims.42 There have been several failed legislative attempts to fill the legal gaps the keep victims from accessing justice. Bill C-323 (formerly C-354) was a legislative initiative launched in 2009 that aimed to amend the Federal Courts Act in the interest of international promotion and protection of human rights.43 It was an innovate bill modeled after the United States’ Alien Torts Claim Act. If it had been approved it would have expressly recognized the authority of the Federal Court38 FActs and Figures p. 77 39 See Working Group on Mining and Human Rights in Latin America, pp. 112-13. 40 For more information see website Choc v HudBay Minerals Inc, http://www.chocversushudbay.com/. 41 For more information see website Guatemala plaintiffs seek corporate accountability in Canada for violence, www.tahoeontrial.net. 42 The campaign “Open for Justice” focuses on this gap. See www.kairoscanada.org/take-action/open-for-justice/. 43 For more see http://this.org/blog/2011/11/01/corporate-accountability-bill-c-323/. Alternative Report on ICCPR: Canada 9 114th Session of the UN Human Rights Committee system to order remedy for foreign victims of human rights violations, including genocide and torture as well as environmental harms and violations of labor rights.44 Other proposed but defeated initiatives include Bill C- 298 to address the “Corporate Social Responsibility for the Activities of Canadian mining Corporations in Developing Countries”; and Bill C-438 on the “extraterritorial activities of Canadian businesses and entities.” Other legislative initiatives that sought to comply with international obligations requiring legal recourse for victims to access justice include, also from 2009, C-298, An Act respecting Corporate Social Responsibility for the Activities of Canadian Mining Corporations in Developing Countries, and C-438, An Act respecting the extraterritorial activities of Canadian businesses and entities, establishing the Canadian Extraterritorial Activities Review Commission. II. Restrictions on Freedom of Expression and Democratic ParticipationThe Committee has requested additional information about restrictions on the freedom of expression and right of peaceful assembly (arts. 19 and 21) and especially about punitive measures against civil society organizations and human rights defenders that promote women’s equality, the rights of Palestinians, and environmental protection and corporate accountability.45 Under its assessment of the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association (arts. 21 and 22), the Government asserts in its report to the Committee that it “supports the work of defenders of human rights worldwide and at home.”46 The Government also affirms that “non-violent social and political protest receives the highest level of legal protection in Canada.”47In this respect we would like to draw the Committee’s attention to three troubling developments that are manifestly contrary to Canada’s obligations under the Covenant: (A) the undermining of organizations that are seen as oppositional to federal objectives through punitive defunding and the removal of charitable status; (B) the concerted strategy to stigmatize and repress advocacy critical of the policies and actions of the Government of Israel; and (C) provisions of the proposed 2015 Anti-Terrorism Act that are inconsistent with Covenant obligations and which pose threats to the right of peaceful assembly.A. Punitive measures against civil society organizations Since Canada’s last review before the Human Rights Committee in 2006 there has been a drastic change in the relationship between the government and civil society. Dozens of organizations44 For more see, Charis Kamphuis, Canadian Mining Companies and Domestic Law Reform: A Critical Legal Account, German Law Journal, vol. 13, no. 9 (2012), p. 1473. 45 Human Rights Committee, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, List of issues in relation to the sixth periodic report of Canada, UN doc. CCPR/C/CAN/Q/6 (21 Nov. 2014), para. 18. 46 Human Rights Committee, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties, Sixth periodic report: Canada, UN Doc. CCPR/C/CAN/6 (28 Oct. 2013), para. 33. 47 Id. Alternative Report on ICCPR: Canada 10 114th Session of the UN Human Rights Committee and advocacy groups have had their funding cut or eliminated and organizations are being threatened with losing their charitable status.48Since 2003 federal policy has established that organizations can use up to 10% of their revenues in political activities and preserve their charitable status. In 2012 the government launched a special project to investigate possible violations of this rule and allocated CAD $13.4 million for the Canada Revenue Agency to audit civil society groups.49 This project is being implemented in such a way that it appears as a concerted effort to weaken those civil society actors and human rights defenders seen as oppositional to the ruling party—namely those focused on the environment, international development, human rights, and poverty.50 For example, in an open letter in September 2014, more than 400 academics spoke out against the audit of the charitable status of a policy think-tank. The rationale reported by the government for the audit was that the material on the website appeared to be biased and one-sided.51 A review of the targeted organizations52 suggests that these are not neutral actions. Instead the funding cuts and burdensome audit procedures send a message that those who are critical of the government’s policies will be punished.53 This approach to civil society organizations and human rights advocacy groups has had an observable chilling effect on the exercise of the right of freedom of expression. B. Stigmatization and Criminalization of the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction Movement48 For an extensive accounting of the federal government’s actions to limit the activities and public presence of groups seen as oppositional, see the recent Council of Canadians publication by Maude Barlow, “Broken Covenant: How Stephen Harper Set Out to Silence Dissent and Curtail Democratic Participation in Canada.” 49 Carroll Linnitt, $13.4M Allocated to Carry Audit of Canadian Charities Beyond 2017, Documents Show, DeSmog Canada, February 18, 2014, http://www.desmog.ca/2014/02/16/13-4m-allocated-carry-audit- canadian-charities-beyond-2017-documents-show; Jason Feteke, Federal government media monitoring keeps tabs on political opponents, Ottawa Citizen, September 23, 2014, http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/federal-government-media-monitoring-keeps-tabs-on-political- opponents. 50 See Dean Beeby, Canadian charities feel ‘chill’ as tax audits widen into political activities, July 10, 2014, Toronto Star, available at http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/07/10/canadian_charities_feel_chill_as_tax_audits_widen_into_political _activities.html. 51 The open letter is reprinted at: Academics' open letter calls for moratorium on political tax audits, CBC News, Sept. 14, 2014, http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/academics-open-letter-calls-for-moratorium-on-political-tax-audits-1.2765967. 52 For a list of some of the organizations that are being audited, see Dean Beeby, Canadian charities feel ‘chill’ as tax audits widen into political activities, July 10, 2014, Toronto Star, available at http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/07/10/canadian_charities_feel_chill_as_tax_audits_widen_into_political _activities.html. 53 Broken Covenant, p. 5 Alternative Report on ICCPR: Canada 11 114th Session of the UN Human Rights CommitteeThe Committee requested additional information regarding measures restricting the freedom of expression for groups promoting the rights of Palestinians in particular.54The objective of the campaign known as the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction Movement (BDS) is to generate economic pressure on the government of Israel in order to influence its policy decisions vis-à-vis the treatment of Palestinians.55 In its efforts to counter the advocacy of Canadian groups participating in the BDS Movement, the Canadian Government is erroneously conflating criticism of the actions and policies of the Israeli Government with anti-Semitic hate speech—hostility toward Jews as a group.56 The Governments of Canada and Israel recently signed a cooperation agreement for “coordinated, public diplomacy,”57 which specifically aims to counter the “calls for a boycott of the State of Israel, for the divestment of investments, and for sanctions to be imposed on Israel.”58 Although the agreement asserts a shared dedication to the values of “freedom of expression and assembly, democracy, and the rule of law,”59 the memorandum declares the BDS efforts “the new face of anti-Semitism.”60 An example of this misrepresentation and stigmatization of BDS advocacy can be seen in the Canadian Government’s intervention to a January 2015 United Nations General Assembly meeting on anti-Semitism, held in the wake of the attacks on Charles Hebdo journalists and a kosher supermarket in Paris.54 Human Rights Committee, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, List of issues in relation to the sixth periodic report of Canada, UN doc. CCPR/C/CAN/Q/6 (21 Nov. 2014), para. 18(a). 55 The conveners of the movement describe the campaign as taking a rights-based approach. See Movement homepage at http://www.bdsmovement.net/bdsintro. The Movement brings together a wide-range of civil society actors. The United Church for example describes its participation in the campaign as constructive, nonviolent, peaceful criticism of state actions and behaviors aimed at ultimately benefiting Israelis and Palestinians. See Canada BDS Hate Crime Charges: Israel Boycott Groups, Including United Church, Would Be Targeted By ‘Hate Propaganda’ Law, International Business Times, May 11, 2015, http://www.ibtimes.com/canada-bds-hate-crime-charges-israel-boycott-groups-including-united-church-would-be- 1916899. 56 See Open Letter from Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, March 12, 2105, published at CFSC expresses concerns with Canada-Israel MoU, http://quakerservice.ca/news/cfsc- expresses-concerns-with-canada-israel-mou/. 57 Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State of Israel regarding Public Diplomacy Cooperation, January 18, 2015, available at http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2015/01/18b-3.aspx? lang=eng. This agreement was part of a series of accords. For more, see Canada Strengthens Cooperation with Israel, News Release, January 18, 2015, http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news- communiques/2015/01/18b.aspx?lang=eng. 58 MOU regarding Public Diplomacy Cooperation, Jan. 18, 2015. 59 Id. 60 Id. Alternative Report on ICCPR: Canada 12 114th Session of the UN Human Rights CommitteeThe Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness cited Canada’s “unequivocal approach against groups that spread hatred of Jews, rewrite history, publicly deny historical facts and the scope of the extermination of Jews during the Holocaust, and are in favour of terrorist acts committed against the State of Israel.”61 He concluded: “Canada has a zero-tolerance approach to anti-Semitism and all forms of discrimination including in rhetoric towards Israel, and attempts to delegitimize Israel such as the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. This is because that [sic] those who threaten the existence of the Jewish people are a grave threat to us all.”62The stigmatization of all BDS advocacy as anti-Semitic is especially troubling given recent changes in Canada’s criminal code expanding the definition of hate crimes. Inquiry into what measures are envisioned as part of this zero-tolerance approach raises concerns about the government’s intentions to criminalize expression in the form of human rights defense and public policy advocacy.63 Asked to elaborate on the zero-tolerance approach, the official response of the office of the Public Safety Minister was a detailed list of Canada’s updated hate laws and an assertion that “Canada has one of the most comprehensive sets of laws against hate crime anywhere in the world.”64 The response referred to “hate propaganda” provisions in the Criminal Code that criminalize the promotion of hatred against an identifiable group and noted that “identifiable group” now includes any section of the public distinguished by “among other characteristics, religion or national or ethnic origin.”65 In 2014 the hate crime legislation in Canada was expanded to include “national origin” as a qualifying criterion for hate crimes. Previously the odious intent had to be proven to be directed at a race or religion. In France this qualifying criterion of “national origin” has recently been used to prosecute pro-BDS activists.66 Together these factors suggest an intention to restrict freedom of expression through actual or threaten criminalization.61 As delivered. Recording available at webtv.un.org. Canada’s Statement by Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Minister Steven Blaney, United Nations General Assembly Session on Anti-Semitism, January 22, 2015. His prepared statement is available at http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/4655897/canada-english.pdf 62 Id. 63 After several references to this “zero tolerance approach” in public statements, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) asked the office of the Public Safety Minister, Steven Blaney, for clarification as to how this approach would be enforced. See Ottawa cites hate crime laws when asked about its ‘zero tolerance’ for Israel boycotters, CBC News, May 11, 2015, available at http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-cites-hate- crime-laws-when-asked-about-its-zero-tolerance-for-israel-boycotters-1.3067497.. 64 See Ottawa cites hate crime laws when asked about its ‘zero tolerance’ for Israel boycotters, CBC News, May 11, 2015, available at http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-cites-hate-crime-laws-when-asked-about-its- zero-tolerance-for-israel-boycotters-1.3067497. 65 Id. 66 BDS a hate crime? In France, legal vigilance punishes anti-Israel activists, Haaretz, Feb. 15, 2014, http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/1.574361. Alternative Report on ICCPR: Canada 13 114th Session of the UN Human Rights CommitteeC. Expansion of counter-terrorism paradigm The proposed “Anti-Terrorism Act of 2015,” Bill C-5167 has raised serious concerns for the rights of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The government has sought to fast-track the Bill and restrict the time and opportunities for Canadian society to appreciate and debate what is at stake. The process for designing this bill does not satisfy the government’s duty to consult with First Nations peoples as to how their rights would be affected.68 There is shared concern among Indigenous peoples, environmental groups, the labor movement, and human rights organizations that Bill C-51 threatens the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression by aiming to protect only those demonstrations considered to be ‘lawful.’69 This new qualification is problematic given that the government has been unwilling to consider the need for an adequate oversight and review mechanism to assess the efficacy and legality of Canada’s national security activities.70 The likelihood of overreach with this bill is also supported combative approach and the stigmatization of oppositional groups. For example, the office of the Prime Minister was widely criticized in 2013 for referring to opposition groups as “enemy stakeholders.”71 This bill must also be considered in the context of drastic overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in prison: while indigenous people are only 4% of the Canadian population, they make up 25% of the prison population.72 Given the contextual factors, the ambiguity in the terminology employed in the bill, and the lack of institutionalized checks, oversight, and accountability, groups have are concerned that the application of the law would go beyond legitimate counter-terrorism efforts and instead overreach into protected spheres of speech and action.7367 Bill C-51, Anti-terrorism Act, 2015: An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, see https://openparliament.ca/bills/41-2/C-51/. On May 4, 2015 the bill passed in the House of Commons by a large margin. 68 See Perry Bellegarde, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), Assembly of First Nations, Presentation to The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security - Bill C-51, http://www.afn.ca/index.php/en/national-chief/highlights-from-the-national-chief/presentation-to-the-standing- committee-on-public-safety-and-national-s . 69 British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Press Release, Canadian human rights organizations urgently call for Bill C-51 to be withdrawn, March 30, 2015, available at: https://bccla.org/news/2015/03/release- canadian-human-rights-organizations-urgently-call-for-bill-c-51-to-be-withdrawn/ 70 Id. 71 Josh Wingrove, Tories facing heat for compiling ‘enemies’ lists for new ministers, July 16, 2013, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-tories-facing-heat-for-compiling-enemies-lists-for-new- ministers/article13240082/See also Broken Covenant, p. 5 72 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya, The situation of indigenous peoples in Canada, UN doc. A/HRC/27/52/Add (July 4, 2014), paras. 32-33. Alternative Report on ICCPR: Canada 14 114th Session of the UN Human Rights CommitteeWe urge the Committee to take up these three trouble trends with the Government of Canada. Measures restricting democratic space and curtailing the legitimate exercise of civil society and human rights defenders have a crippling effect on the overall human rights situation in the country.III. Rights of First Nations, Inequality, and Environmental PolicyA. Persistent discrimination in the human right to water and sanitation of indigenous peoplesThe Committee requested additional information regarding the deepening disparities between indigenous and non-indigenous communities in terms of poverty prevalence and enjoyment of basic human rights, such as housing, education, and health-care.74 In considering the human rights implications of systemic poverty, we urge the Committee to evaluate the disparities in terms of the enjoyment of the human right to water. The lack of guarantees for the right to water is among the starkest inequalities in Canada today between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities.75 The provinces and territories are responsible for municipalities’ drinking water, but the federal government is responsible for drinking water on First Nation reserves. There is a “long-standing and systemic failure to provide clean, safe drinking water to Indigenous communities.”76According to the most recent statistics of Health Canada, as of March 2015 there are 135 First Nation Communities under drinking water advisories.77 Many of these advisories have been in effect for more than a year, some for over a decade. First Nation reserves represent just 4% of the Canadian population they account for 10% of the all drinking water advisories in the country.78The disparities in guarantees for the right to water are related to the precarious situations and inequality cited by the Committee. As David Boyd summarized:73 For example Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs president Grand Chief Stewart Phillip testified to the Committee: “Bill C-51 is less about jihadist terrorists being under every bed ... and more about increasing the output of the tar sands and facilitating the heavy-oil pipeline proposals across this country and the megaproject agenda …. It will serve to severely undermine the constitutional and human rights of indigenous peoples” Grand Chief Stewart Phillip (President, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs) at the Public Safety and National Security Committee, Mar. 24, 2015, https://openparliament.ca/committees/public-safety/41-2/57/grand-chief-stewart- phillip-1/only/. 74 75 Assembly of First Nations, Report to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Oct. 14, 2013, p. 77, http://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/13-10-14_afn_report_to_un_special_rapporteur_final_en.pdf; Council of Canadians, UPR Submission, http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session16/CA/CC_UPR_CAN_S16_2013_CouncilofCanadiansBlu ePlanetProject_E.pdf 76 77 http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fniah-spnia/promotion/public-publique/water-dwa-eau-aqep-eng.php 78 Emma Lui, Council of Canadians, On Notice for a Drinking Water Crisis in Canada, March 2015, http://canadians.org/drinking-water. Alternative Report on ICCPR: Canada 15 114th Session of the UN Human Rights CommitteeFirst Nations individuals face elevated levels of waterborne disease compared to other Canadians; First Nations individuals living on reserves without running water experienced a higher incidence of H1N1 than the general Canadian population, as well as a higher incidence of illness and death; First Nations children suffered from a disproportionately high rate of H1N1 influenza…; and some First Nations communities that lack access to safe drinking water have disproportionately high suicide rates, indicating high levels of psychological distress.79These disparities are due in part to faulty or non-existent water treatment systems in these communities. Between 2009 and 2011, the Federal government conducted an assessment of the water and wastewater systems that serve First Nations communities across Canada80 and found:  Over a third of the systems for these communities were determined to be high risk, meaning that water quality was already poor enough to be detrimental to health and safety, or water systems were deficient enough to likely lead to harm to health for members of the communities.  25% of the First Nations population across Canada were found to be living in communities served by high risk water systems.  A total of 312 systems did not meet Canadian health standards for drinking water.In 2014 the Special Rapporteur confirmed the persistence of the “troubling water situation in First Nations reserves” and reported that more than half of the water systems for First Nations communities pose a medium or high health risk to their users.81The Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act,82 promoted by the Government and passed into law in June 2013, was vehemently contested by First Nations advocates.83 Regulation of the law is still pending. The potential for this law to generate positive results for the dire situation is limited however. There is a lack of legitimacy given the failure of the federal government to consult with First Nations during the process. The UN Special Rapporteur recognized these shortcomings and recommended that:With respect to legislation recently passed—including the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act…Canada should ensure that these laws are only implemented following meaningful consultation, with a view to obtaining the79 David R. Boyd, NO TAPS, NO TOILETS: FIRST NATIONS AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO WATER IN CANADA, 57:1 McGill LJ 81 (2011), p. 116. (internal citations omitted). 80 National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems, 2011, http://www.aadnc- aandc.gc.ca/eng/1313762701121/1313762778061. 81 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya, The situation of indigenous peoples in Canada, UN doc. A/HRC/27/52/Add (July 4, 2014), para. 24. 82 Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1330528512623/1330528554327 83 See e.g. Tsuu T’ina Nation, Presentation to Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs on Bill S-8, May 17, 203, abailable at http://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/water/bills-8tsuut'ina.pdf. Alternative Report on ICCPR: Canada 16 114th Session of the UN Human Rights Committee consent of the indigenous peoples to which they will apply, and with accommodation of their concerns.84Moreover, First Nations have not been allocated sufficient funding in order to comply with the requirements in the act.85 As the AFN pointed out, the Government’s 2011 National Engineering Assessment concluded that $4.7 billion was needed for water and wastewater over the next ten years, the equivalent of $470 million per year. However, recent federal budgets provide only $165 million annually, less than half of what the Government’s own report recommended.86The lack of appropriate pubic funding increases the likelihood of privatization of the water services87—an outsourcing of the government’s obligations toward the communities to third parties not accountable for remedying the inequalities described above.B. Collective rights and public participation in environmental decision- makingThe Committee requested further information about reports of “limited consultations with Aboriginal peoples when their land rights may be affected by government action” and reports that “Aboriginal peoples lack effective participation in the design of legislation that affects them, including the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the National Energy Board Act, the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and the Jobs and Growth Act.” This series of legislative reforms has been pushed through without sufficient democratic debate and importantly, without the participation of the First Nations despite the serious and direct impact on their rights. The Government used extensive omnibus budget implementation bills to enact sweeping non-budgetary changes gutting these environmental legislations. The massiveness and technical nature of the bills as well as the speed of the process made meaningful consultation and participation impossible. In November 2014 a Federal Court Judge heard a challenge brought against these bills by the Mikisew peoples. The Judge determined that because of the risk of harm to the rights of the First Nation peoples, a duty to consult arose on the part of the federal government vis-à-vis the presentation of these legislative initiatives. The Court ruled the government had breached this duty by failing to consult the Mikisew people. The ruling also concluded that the First Nation84 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya, The situation of indigenous peoples in Canada, para. 93. 85 Brent Patterson, Harper's privatization plan for First Nations water services, (May 21, 2015), http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/brent-patterson/2015/05/harpers-privatization-plan-first-nations-water-services. 86 Assembly of First Nations, Report to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Oct. 14, 2013, p. 78 (citing National Assessment of First Nations Water and Wastewater Systems, 2011, http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1313762701121/1313762778061). 87 Brent Patterson, Harper's privatization plan for First Nations water services, (May 21, 2015), http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/brent-patterson/2015/05/harpers-privatization-plan-first-nations-water-services Alternative Report on ICCPR: Canada 17 114th Session of the UN Human Rights Committee could not have effectively participated as “no notice was given and no opportunity to make submissions was provided.”88Overall the Bills C-38 and C-45 served “to reduce the scope, depth and frequency of federal environmental assessments and protection.”89 This has made key environmental policy and practice decisions less accessible for effective participation by indigenous peoples and other affected and concerned groups. Consequently, projects may proceed without human-rights impacts being adequately considered and mitigated. Fisheries Act: Irreparable harm and the Case of Sandy PondAlthough the case of Sandy Pond in Newfoundland does not directly involve the rights of a First Nation, it dramatically illustrates the risk of harm from the reform to the Fisheries Act and the challenges for exercising the rights to consultation and effective participation. The Fisheries Act was once the strongest pieces of Canadian legislation to protect water. However Schedule 2 of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations of the Fisheries Act gives mining companies the opportunity to have natural fish-bearing lakes, streams, and wetlands reclassified into “tailings impoundment areas.” This provision was originally intended only to apply to lakes that were already dead. Schedule 2 came into effect in 2002 with the listing of four lakes and all four had been previously used for tailings disposal by operating mines. Since 2006 however “Schedule 2” has reclassified healthy lakes as a “tailings impoundment areas” thus stripping them of the Act’s protections. There is limited access for the public to the decision-making spaces where the determination is made about which bodies of water to add to Schedule 2. As part of a development project in the Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland, the Sandy Pond was reclassified. Before being been reclassified as a Tailings Impoundment Area for toxic wastes, Sandy Pond had been “a pristine water body with healthy aquatic ecosystems,” “a deep isolated post-glacial lake known for trophy brook trout.”90 “During the limited public review of the Long Harbour project, weaknesses in baseline data were identified but never addressed. The destruction of Sandy Pond was also portrayed as the only viable alternative.”91 The Fisheries Act includes habitat compensation provisions but the Sandy Pond case also reveals the limitations of these. Two scientists recently studied the habitat compensation attempt for this case and determined conclusively that it “is inadequate compensation for the destruction of the unique ecosystem that was Sandy Pond.”92 A recent88 Full text of the decision is available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/250600865/Federal-Court-decision. 89 Id. 90 R. John Gibson & John D. Jacobs, Why Habitat Compensation under the Fisheries Act Fails – The Case of Sandy Pond, La Société Canadienne des Biologistes de l’Environnement BULLETIN Vol. 72 (2) Page 13 (May2015). 91 Lakes Not Waste Dumps: Background to the Sandy Pond Alliance Court Challenge, by MiningWatch Canada for the Sandy Pond Alliance, February 27, 2013. 92 R. John Gibson & John D. Jacobs, Why Habitat Compensation under the Fisheries Act Fails – The Case of Sandy Pond, La Société Canadienne des Biologistes de l’Environnement BULLETIN Vol. 72 (2) Page 13 (May2015). Alternative Report on ICCPR: Canada 18 114th Session of the UN Human Rights Committee assessment by a federal review panel concluded there were no good examples of compensation for the loss of an entire, productive lake ecosystem.Given the severity of these impacts, it is crucial that the public be enabled to participate meaningfully in these determinations. There are additional duties on the federal government in this respect when the rights of First Nation peoples may be impacted. Environment Canada has released the names of 29 natural water bodies that mining companies have applied to use as toxic waste dumps.The crucial role of the procedural guarantees in environmental assessments are clear in the case of “Schedule 2” bodies of water. Through robust environmental assessments and related citizen action, three bodies of water have been protected from Schedule 2.93Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012In late 2014 the Office of the Auditor General of Canada issued an audit on the implementation of the updated Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA 2012)94 and found important gaps affecting participation by the public in general and indigenous peoples in particular. The Audit concluded that, with one exception, the CEAA Agency “has not undertaken a systematic approach to engagement with Aboriginal peoples on policy issues.”95 The Agency’s internal guidelines had not been made public and this ran contrary to key elements of meaningful public participation, including access to information and transparency.96 Additional problems studied included a lack of transparency, whether input was actual considered,97 limitations on who can participate,98 and the ability to participate meaningfully.99An important change in the updated CEAA is that there are fewer environmental assessments, translating into fewer opportunities for participation. Upon the update to the CEAA, 3,000 assessments of projects that could have potential adverse impacts were immediately cancelled. The new rules give the Cabinet the broad discretion to determine which projects will be assessed.100 Ecojustice explains:93 Amazay (Duncan Lake), BC; Teztan Biny (Fish Lake), BC; Bamoos Lake, ON. 94 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Chapter 4: Implementation of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (Fall 2014), available at http://www.oag- bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/parl_cesd_201410_04_e.pdf. The audit sets out to be “an independent, objective, and systematic assessment of how well government is managing its activities, responsibilities, and resources.” 95 Id. para. 4.34 96 Id. p.11. 97 Para. 4.29. (“we found that in some cases, there was insufficient documentation to demonstrate how the factors were validated and weighed in the analysis, and how input from stakeholders and Aboriginal groups was used to inform the recommendations.” Para. 4.22 98 Namely the concept of “interested parties.” Audit report, paras. 4.36-4.39. 99 “Some Aboriginal groups indicated, for example, that they had little capacity in terms of staff, expertise, and funds to respond within the set timeframes, particularly when asked to respond to several requests at once. These factors may affect the meaningfulness of public and Aboriginal participation in the environmental assessment process.” Audit report, para 4.50 Alternative Report on ICCPR: Canada 19 114th Session of the UN Human Rights Committee“CEAA 2012 takes a “project list” approach, where an environmental assessment is only required for particular projects included in the list of “designated projects.” However, for most of those projects an assessment is not automatic, and will only be undertaken where the federal government exercises its discretion to conduct an assessment. This is in contrast to the former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which embodied a “trigger” approach, whereby an assessment was automatically required where a federal authority intended to participate in the project. A federal authority could be involved as a regulator granting a permit, by providing funding, by being a proponent, or by owning the land on which the project was located.”101A major concern is the practice of “substitution,” by which the updated CEAA allows for provincial assessments to replace the federal process. In practice this amounts to an abdication by the federal government of its role as the primary responsible for upholding the rights of First Nations. The CEAA 2012 establishes that the Minister is obligated to accept a substitution request if a province meets certain general criteria.102For First Nations, the agreement narrows the federal role in consultations on projects undergoing a substituted environmental assessment. There will be little, if any, space for federal agencies to participate in direct consultation with First Nations. Such a process is contrary to well-established legal principles of consultation and accommodation.”103IV. RecommendationsHuman Rights Conduct of Canadian Oil, Mining, and Gas Companies Operating Abroad The Government should:- guarantee the governmental support is conditioned on compliance with human rights standards and establish accessible and independent monitoring processes, such as the creation of an Ombudsperson empowered to investigate, report, and recommend reparations; 100 From Broken Covenant. For More on the changes to the CEAA in 2012, see Brenda Heelan, The Difference a Year Makes: Changes to Canadian Federal Environmental Assessment Law in 2012, Feb. 28, 2013, www.lawnow.org/canadian-federal-environmental-assessment-law/. 101 Ecojustice, CEAA Regulations, August 2012, http://www.ecojustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/August- 2012_FINAL_Ecojustice-CEAA-Regulations-Backgrounder.pdf. 102 For more see Environmental Assessment & the Canadian constitution: Substitution and Equivalency, by Brenda Heelan Powell, Environmental Law Centre, 2014, http://www.elc.ab.ca/media/94543/EAConstitutionBriefFinal.pdf. 103 First Peoples Law, Canada Steps Back from Aboriginal Consultation (2013) http://www.firstpeopleslaw.com/index/articles/137.php; see also “Importantly for First Nations, Canada’s agreement with B.C. allows Canada to delegate to B.C. the bulk of its duty to consult responsibilities including designing consultation plans, assessing potential impacts to Aboriginal title and rights and treaty rights, and developing mitigation and accommodation measures.” Haddock, Comparison of the British Columbia and Federal, Environmental Assessments for the Prosperity Mine, 2011, http://northwestinstitute.ca/images/uploads/NWI_EAreport_July2011.pdf Alternative Report on ICCPR: Canada 20 114th Session of the UN Human Rights Committee- refrain from entering into trade agreements that weaken host states abilities to govern in favor of human rights;- adopt a diplomatic strategy to promote human rights defenders abroad, including a strategy for receiving and responding to report of threats and attacks in contexts involving Canadian extractive sector;- guarantee access to effective remedy for harms committed.Restrictions on Freedom of Expression and Democratic ParticipationThe Government should: - promote a favorable environment for civil society activity and human rights defense;- establish proper, independent oversight mechanisms to check against arbitrary criminalization from an overly expansive application of hate crime or counter-terrorism concepts.Rights of First Nations, Inequality, and Environmental PolicyThe Government should: - ensure sufficient public funding for essential services including water to guarantee that the quality and dependability of these services are at least equal to that provided to other Canadians;- adopt a federal water strategy recognizing water as a human right and prioritizing non- discrimination, public participation, and the inclusion of First Nations and other communities in decision-making processes;- ensure that these recently passed legislation—including the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act and the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity omnibus legislation—are only implemented following meaningful consultation and the free, prior, and informed consent of the indigenous peoples to which they will apply, and with accommodation of their concerns;- promote effective public participation at key stages of environmental decision-making. Alternative Report on ICCPR: Canada 21 114th Session of the UN Human Rights CommitteeContributorsContact for this report:Franciscans International Americas Program [email protected]Contributing Organizations:Franciscans International [email protected] Website: www.franciscansinternational.org With Ordo Franciscanus Saecularis Canada and OFM Province of Christ the King (Franciscans of Western Canada) Website: www.franciscanfriars.caSisters of Mercy (NGO), Mercy International Association: Global Action [email protected] Website:www.mercyworld.orgBlue Planet Project of the Council of Canadians [email protected] Website: www.blueplanetproject.netUNANIMA International [email protected] Website: www.unanima-international.orgSisters of Charity Federation [email protected] Website: www.sisters-of-charity-federation.orgInternational Presentation Association of the Sisters of Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary [email protected] Website: www.internationalpresentationassociation.orgCongregation of the Mission [email protected] Website: http://cm-ngo.net/vincentianglobalnetwork.htmlNGO Mining Working Group [email protected] Website: www.miningwg.com Alternative Report on ICCPR: Canada 22 114th Session of the UN Human Rights Committee

114Th Session of the UN Human Rights Committee

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support