bout de papier, Vol. 14, No. 1 (1997) — Spring 1997 // Printemps 1997, pp. 10–12
The opening lines of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights assert that “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” They are carried forward by a call to “every individual and organ of society … to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance.”
At first blush, then, it seems surprising that human rights as an element in foreign policy has proven to be such a contentious issue over the years. After all, if the dignity of all humans is inherent and their rights inalienable, and if states are required to secure their universal observance, are we not duty bound to include a human rights dimension in our relations with other countries?
The answer should be obvious. But the real question lies elsewhere: it is not whether human rights should be a consideration in our bilateral and multilateral activities, but how we can most effectively meet our human rights obligations. What I should like to do in this short article is address myself to what the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) tries to do in a practical way to help ensure that human rights norms are respected throughout the world. But first, a little background.
When the CHRC was created nearly two decades ago, the world was a different place. The two major international human rights covenants — on Civil and Political Rights and on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights — had only recently come into effect. The dramatic changes that have since taken place in Eastern and Central Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America could scarcely have been anticipated. The ideological polarization of the Cold War made it difficult to deal with international human rights issues outside the context of East-West politics. And only a handful of countries, nearly all of them in the so-called western world, had established national institutions for protecting and promoting the rights of their citizens, such as human rights commissions and ombudsman’s offices.
Canada was one of these. Provincial governments had been creating human rights commissions since the late 1960s, in response to concerns about racial, religious and sex discrimination. It was not until 1977, however, that Parliament adopted the Canadian Human Rights Act, aimed at protecting the public from discrimination within federal jurisdiction. The Canadian Human Rights Commission was established to administer the legislation, with a two-pronged mandate: to deal with complaints, and to promote equality rights through education and information programs.
While the Canadian Human Rights Act clearly draws inspiration from the international instruments, it is largely national in scope. The drafters of the Act could not have known that the Commission created under the Act would ultimately be swept up in the global human rights revolution that would take place in the final decade of the 20th century. Since the early 1990s, the CHRC has actively participated in international meetings, has been represented on international missions and delegations, has been called upon to provide technical assistance to fledgling national human rights institutions, and has developed cooperative arrangements with institutions in such countries as Indonesia, India, Mexico and Cameroon.
It is not surprising that the Commission’s international involvement has parallelled a growing interest in the development and strengthening of similar types of agencies in other countries. As more and more countries have adopted domestic human rights legislation, or enshrined human rights protections in their constitutions, they have recognized the importance of developing mechanisms to translate human rights principles into practice. It has become increasingly obvious that legislation alone cannot guarantee respect for human rights without programmes aimed at informing citizens of their rights, and concrete mechanisms for redressing violations when and where they occur. And it is this understanding that is at the centre of the Commission’s international activities: independent national human rights agencies are necessary to ensure that international human rights norms are respected. Canada, whose human rights infrastructure is both well-developed and well-respected, has an obligation to share its expertise and help where it can to ensure that the citizens of all countries of the world enjoy the rights that are theirs as members of the human family. The Commission attempts to do so both multilaterally and bilaterally.
Multilateral initiatives While the CHRC had always received international visitors who were curious about our work and had traditionally played a role in the activities of UN bodies like the Human Rights Commission, the Commission’s more active involvement on the international front began in 1991, with its participation in a UN-sponsored workshop on national human rights institutions in Paris. While the term “national institution” was first used in the human rights context by the Economic and Social Council as early as 1946, the institutions themselves did not come together as a group until the Paris meeting. The main outcome of that meeting was the development of a series of principles underlying effective national human rights institutions: fundamental requirements such as representativity, accessibility and independence from the government of the day. These “Paris principles” have since been endorsed by both the UN Commission and the General Assembly, and are viewed as a standard by which existing or prospective institutions should measure themselves.
Less than two years later, in conjunction with the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, some thirty national institutions participated in a parallel meeting, designed to build upon the work that had begun in Paris. A number of national institutions, including Canada’s, had worked hard to ensure that national institutions were represented in Vienna. We believed that our presence at the World Conference would help demonstrate to the international community, in particular States that had not yet created them, that national institutions were an important part of the international human rights machinery. This in turn might put some pressure on those countries to move in that direction. We also hoped that bringing national institutions from around the world together to reaffirm their commitment to the Paris Principles would set an international benchmark for institutions that nations could not ignore. Finally, we hoped that through this sort of contact we could, both through the UN system and directly, find ways to support newer or more fragile institutions. To help with all of this, a coordinating committee was created with representatives of each region. Canada took part in the Committee from the beginning and the Canadian Chief Commissioner eventually became its Chairman.
At the Vienna conference itself, the Committee was successful in ensuring that the importance of national institutions was given appropriate recognition in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, building on resolutions that had previously been adopted at the UN Commission on Human Rights, ECOSOC and the General Assembly. This work was continued at further meetings in Tunis in December, 1993 and in Manila in April, 1995.
A major subject of discussion at both the Tunis and Manila meetings was the desire of national institutions to be recognized within the United Nations system. This was not an idle desire to achieve status for its own sake: independence is an important attribute of an effective human rights agency, and it is inappropriate for national institutions to speak as part of a state delegation. At the same time, national institutions are not non-governmental organizations and should not be treated as such. Together with ombudsmen they are unique institutions which should have an opportunity to play an active role in the UN effort to advance human rights. For this reason, participants in the Manila workshop adopted a recommendation calling on the UN Commission on Human Rights to recognize the role of national institutions and take appropriate measures to assure that they participate in their own right within the UN organs dealing with human rights issues.
The idea of the UN recognizing a separate status for national institutions has had its critics. Some countries, including a few that are generally supportive of human rights, have worried about phoney human rights institutions appearing to acquire UN endorsement. Others resist for motives that can only be described as less honourable. The position that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has taken is that institutions that more or less meet minimum standards, essentially those set out in the Paris Principles, should be given the opportunity to demonstrate their capacities. Those which are puppets will quickly be seen for what they are. The experience to date has been encouraging. Institutions which were viewed with some scepticism initially have shown themselves to be vigorous and effective in the defence of human rights, much to the surprise of earlier critics, and perhaps as well to the governments that created them in the first place.
This message seems slowly to be getting across. At its Fifty-Third session, the United Nations Human Rights Commission agreed that the participation of national institutions in UN human rights bodies would be appropriate and asked the Secretary- General to examine how this could be accomplished.
Bilateral initiatives During my tenure at the Commission and through our work on the coordinating committee, we became better acquainted with national institutions in various countries, and began to develop cooperative relations with them. Over the past two years, for example, agreements were signed with human rights commissions in Indonesia, India, Mexico and Cameroon, committing the Canadian Human Rights Commission to information and technical exchanges. These agreements have resulted in a number of concrete initiatives: in the past year, for example, the Commission co-sponsored a human rights education seminar in New Delhi with the Indian National Commission on Human Rights; exchanged information with the Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos of Mexico on the development of a complaints management system, and assisted Cameroon’s National Commission on Human Rights and Freedoms in the organization and funding of the First African Conference of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, held in February 1996 in Yaoundé.
The Commission also embarked on a major initiative involving Komnas Ham, the national human rights commission of Indonesia. Following my visit to Indonesia at Komnas Ham’s invitation, three of their commissioners came to Ottawa for a seminar on Canadian human rights mechanisms. In December 1995, a Canadian delegation went on a planning mission to Jakarta to explore first-hand the types of assistance Komnas Ham requires. Working with our Canadian partner organizations and CIDA, we developed a comprehensive assistance project aimed at strengthening the capacity of the fledgling Indonesian Commission to carry out its work. Elements of the project include the development of a system for tracking complaints; the establishment of human rights documentation centres at Komnas Ham and in two Indonesian universities; and the provision of educational material on human rights.
Further initiatives with the Indian Commission are planned. Together with our partners in this enterprise, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Human Rights Foundation and the Ottawa University Human Rights Research and Education Centre, and in consultation with the Indian Commission and a number of Indian NGOs, a proposal has been developed that includes continuing work in the public education sphere, a regional training program for human rights institutions, and cooperation in efforts to prevent child labour.
While relationships with institutions in Indonesia, India, Mexico and Cameroon make up the core of the CHRC’s bilateral programs, they are by no means the only international contacts the CHRC has established. Both our then-Deputy Chief Commissioner, Michelle Falardeau-Ramsay (now Chief Commissioner), and I have visited a number of countries to provide advice and assistance on issues related to equality rights. During the past several years, I personally have met with government and non-governmental representatives in visits to the Baltic States, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Mexico, Indonesia, China and Poland. The Commission also receives dozens of visitors from other countries each year: government officials, human rights practitioners, representatives of non-governmental organizations, lawyers and jurists, journalists and others.
In some cases, visits to the Commission have taken the form of internships, which allow a visitor to spend an extended period of time with the CHRC to learn about our work. For example, a member of the human rights commission of Bénin spent three weeks at the CHRC studying our complaint investigation procedures, communications programs and other aspects of our work. In the summer of 1996, we had a week-long visit from a Komnas Ham staff person, who also spent a week at the Quebec Human Rights Commission. And in January 1995, we organized a 10-day training session for a lawyer from the Czech Helsinki Committee, whose organization deals with human rights complaints as there is no ombudsman or human rights commission in the Czech Republic.
Over the past few years, the Commission has participated in a number of other programs providing international human rights training, including the Canadian Human Rights Foundation’s annual summer course; Radio-Canada’s “Journalisme en Démocratie” program, a CIDA-funded initiative aimed at journalists in francophone Africa; the Yeltsin Democracy Fellowship program, the Ukrainian internship program organized by Carleton University’s school of public administration, and the journalism fellowship program sponsored by the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development.
Guiding principles The CHRC’s international activities have been guided by a number of fundamental principles. It is recognized that all national human rights institutions are different, and that both their structure and the issues they deal with will depend on the social, cultural, economic and political circumstances in any given country. Foreign visitors to the CHRC are often surprised, for example, that the Canadian Human Rights Act deals exclusively with equality rights, and does not touch on such fundamental matters as freedom of speech, freedom of association and the right to a fair trial. The day-to-day problems the Commission does deal with, such as pay equity, accessibility for the disabled, sexual harassment and hate propaganda, may seem less pressing in countries where violations of fundamental civil liberties are the prime concern.
At the same time, there are a number of issues that are common to virtually all human rights institutions, that allow them to benefit from our experience and we from theirs. Techniques of investigation and documentation of human rights complaints, for example, are equally applicable regardless of whether the complaint deals with racial discrimination or police corruption. Every institution needs a system for tracking its complaints, so that complainants can be kept informed on the status of their situation and to ensure effective management of the process. And every institution is involved in communications activities aimed at getting human rights information out to the public at large. What struck me when I met, as Commissioner, with my counterparts in other countries was not that we dealt with different issues — that is a given — it was how much our organizations actually have in common.
Responsibility for the promotion and protection of human rights does not rest on the shoulders of one agency alone. Governments obviously have a role to play in securing the rights set out in the international conventions. National institutions, as I have already said, are also important actors in this field; but so too are other members of any civil society. Our approach in Canada and abroad is to promote cooperation among these sectors, and, in particular, to encourage bonds between national institutions and the NGO and academic community. This is in part because those interested in encouraging social change can achieve more through cooperation than confrontation. In addition, institutions and members of the NGO and academic community must understand each other’s roles, and appreciate each other’s limitations, if misunderstandings are to be avoided. It is to demonstrate this point, as much as because we require their special expertise, that Canada’s Human Rights Commission has chosen to work closely with Canadian human rights activists in pursuing our bilateral objectives.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention that I would be unable to carry out the Commission’s international work if it were not for the cooperation of both Foreign Affairs and CIDA. I was gratified by the cooperation and assistance we receive from Foreign Affairs personnel: the Human Rights division, the various geographic desks, and our missions in all the countries we work with. To those foreign service officers who have worked long and hard with me and my staff to facilitate these projects, I offer my thanks.
As your readers may already be aware, I retired from the Commission — and from forty years in the public service, many of them at External Affairs – in December 1996. While I cannot set priorities for the new Chief Commissioner, I am hopeful that she will take an interest in international human rights and ensure that the CHRC’s work in this area is carried forward. As more and more countries work toward improving their human rights machinery, Canada will be increasingly called upon to share its experience. While our activities may take different forms in the future, the CHRC will inevitably be part of that process.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 14, No. 1 (1997) — Spring 1997 // Printemps 1997, pp. 10–12. Read the rest of this issue →
