On human rights, a plea for Canada to take some constructive criticism

Share

Politics Insider delivers premium analysis and access to Canada's policymakers and politicians. Visit the Politics Insider homepage for insight available only to subscribers.

Canada has a good record as a country where human rights are generally respected. So why is it so touchy about the topic?

That's a question left from a reading of a report on Canada released Wednesday by the human-rights watchdog Amnesty International.

Canada has a strong reputation as a "human-rights champion" on the world stage, Amnesty says, and still does laudable work. But it's a reputation that has been "strained by inconsistencies" in its approach to human rights around the world. And it doesn't help hold other countries to account when Canada reacts with vitriol or sullen silence when UN agencies or experts take issue with something in Canada, or when Ottawa doesn't bother to sign conventions like the one that allows prisons to be inspected for signs of torture.

The report, Human Rights Agenda for Canada, does take issue with the Canadian record. It calls for Canada to adopt a coherent national strategy to deal with the far higher levels of violence against aboriginal women. It criticizes newly restrictive and "punitive" measures for refugees, and the reduction of health-care services for asylum-seekers.

But pointing to flaws and making recommendations doesn't amount to a wholesale condemnation of Canada. "Just because we're putting out this report doesn't somehow mean that Amnesty International is now saying that we're in the same category as the Democratic Republic of Congo or Iran. Not at all," said Alex Neve, the Secretary-General of Amnesty International Canada.

Maybe that should be obvious, but it doesn't seem to be. One trend that Amnesty International points to is Ottawa's increasing tendency to attack or ignore UN criticisms on Canada's record.

When a UN Human Rights Council review of Canada's record made a series of recommendations, including the suggestion of a national strategy on violence against aboriginal women backed by 24 countries including friends like the Netherlands and Norway, the Canadian government responded by saying it accepted the recommendations it is in the process of implementing, but rejected those it isn't working on "whether or not Canada supports the underlying objectives." It was a bureaucratic way of saying mind your own business.

There's been a similar dismissive brush-off to UN representatives, most notably the UN rapporteur on access to food, Olivier De Schutter. When he reported 800,000 Canadians don't have enough money for secure access to healthy food, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney told him he wasted UN money visiting a developed country like Canada, and Tory MPs attacked him for days.

Now, there's no reason to reflexively agree with a UN rapporteur, and the federal government can disagree with UN reports. Sometimes they should. But the point, as Mr. Neve put it, is to engage the debate: to explain why Canada disagrees, or has a better way, in reasoned terms.

Why? Because international human-rights standards and reviews are meant for Canada, but they are even more important for countries like the DRC or Iran or North Korea, or those with greyer records in between. If countries like Canada dismiss reviews out of hand, it becomes easier for others, with far more reason to dodge criticism, to do so.

"The ways in which Canada has become testy and defensive is just so not in keeping with what Canada stands for," Mr. Neve said. "We want our voice to be strong and unwavering when we point the finger at others."

It's also baffling that Canada has shown some disregard for international conventions, like failing to sign the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, which essentially allows for inspections of prisons to try to uncover torture. That means Canadian diplomats can't go pressing other countries to sign it.

Canada does point the finger at others. The Harper government has been a vocal critic of the human-rights records of Sri Lanka and Iran – and stands applauded by Amnesty. But Amnesty argues Canadian credibility is chipped by inconsistency, because it doesn't use the same frank language with trading partners like China or Colombia, and refuses to "countenance" any criticism of Israel. The Harper government says Israel, a democracy, already faces disproportionate criticism, but Mr. Neve argues frank talk from a friend would have more weight and credibility.

At home, Canadians should hear their government responding seriously to international critiques. Different levels of government have spent money on programs aimed at violence against aboriginal women, but if Ottawa thinks it should rebuff the calls for a national strategy from other nations, it's worth explaining why. If we want other governments to be accountable, why is Canada so dismissive about meeting the same standard?

Campbell Clark is The Globe's chief political writer.