UN Human Rights Committee Review 2026

• Article 6 (Right to life), read with Article 2(1): Failure to ensure timely, equitable access to essential health care, including sexual and reproductive health services, creating preventable risks to life.

• Article 26 (Equality and non-discrimination), read with Articles 6 and 2: Discriminatory barriers faced by migrants, refugees, undocumented persons, and people with precarious status in accessing health care and abortion services.

• Article 6 (Right to life), read with Article 7 (Freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment): Systemic weakening of the public health system (underfunding, privatization, workforce shortages) resulting in delayed or denied care with serious health consequences.

• Article 6 (Right to life), read with Article 17 (Right to privacy): Laws, policies, and information-sharing practices that deter migrants from seeking health and abortion care due to fear of surveillance, enforcement, or immigration consequences.

• Article 2(3) (Right to an effective remedy), read with Articles 6 and 26: Failure to implement the Human Rights Committee’s Views in Toussaint v. Canada, including refusal to provide follow-up measures to prevent recurrence.

• Article 6(1) (Right to life): Expansion of medical assistance in dying (MAID) alleged to facilitate premature death rather than protect life, particularly for persons facing socio-economic deprivation.

• Article 6(1) (Right to life): Failure to ensure that MAID is not used as a substitute for access to adequate health care, disability supports, housing, and social assistance.

• Article 26 (Equality and non-discrimination), read with Article 6: Disproportionate impact of MAID on persons with disabilities and other marginalized groups, undermining equal protection of the right to life.

• Article 6(1) (Right to life): Insufficient safeguards to ensure free, informed, and non-coerced decision-making in contexts of poverty, isolation, or lack of services.

• Article 2(1) (Obligation to respect and ensure rights), read with Articles 6 and 26: Alleged failure to adopt positive measures to protect vulnerable persons from systemic pressures toward state-facilitated death.

• Articles 7, 9 & 13 (Freedom from torture; liberty and security; procedural guarantees in expulsion): Refugee and asylum law reforms (Bill C-12, Safe Third Country Agreement) undermining access to asylum, due process, and protection from refoulement.

• Articles 2, 7, 9, 10 & 12 (Effective remedy; freedom from ill-treatment; liberty; humane treatment; freedom of movement): Immigration detention practices, including indefinite detention, prison-like conditions, and lack of independent CBSA oversight.

• Articles 2, 3, 6 & 26 (Effective remedy; equality of men and women; right to life; non-discrimination): Systemic discrimination affecting Indigenous peoples, migrants, racialized communities, women, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ persons, including violence, unequal access to housing, health care, and protection.

• Articles 6, 19, 21 & 22 (Right to life; freedoms of expression, assembly, and association): Criminalization and repression of harm reduction, protests, land defence, and labour organizing, increasing risks to life and democratic participation.

• Articles 2 & 6, read with the Optional Protocol (Good-faith implementation; right to life): Failure to implement Human Rights Committee Views and interim measures (including Toussaint v. Canada), arms transfers and climate policies contributing to foreseeable loss of life, and lack of accountability for extraterritorial harms.

• Article 6 (Right to life), read with Article 17 (Privacy, family, and the home): Canada’s support for Enbridge’s continued operation of Line 5 and failure to properly regulate a Canadian corporation under its jurisdiction is described as enabling foreseeable risks of catastrophic oil spills and climate harm affecting Great Lakes ecosystems and Indigenous communities’ life with dignity.

• Article 17 (Privacy, family, and the home): A major Line 5 spill is described as threatening drinking water for millions, damaging lands and waters central to Indigenous subsistence and wellbeing, and causing serious and foreseeable disruption to Indigenous relationships with territory and natural resources.

• Article 27 (Minority/Indigenous cultural rights): Line 5 is described as jeopardizing Indigenous cultural and religious life tied to the Great Lakes, including sacred sites and treaty-protected fishing, hunting, and gathering; an oil spill could wipe out fisheries central to Anishinaabe culture and economy.

• Article 27 (Effective participation and free, prior and informed consent): Canada is described as backing Line 5 (including the tunnel project) and advocating against shutdown efforts despite Indigenous opposition, without securing the free, prior and informed consent of affected Indigenous Peoples.

• Article 27 (Participation in decision-making): Canada’s invocation of the 1977 Transit Pipelines treaty, closed-door negotiations with the United States, and litigation interventions are described as excluding affected Indigenous Nations from decisions about Line 5’s future, despite requests to participate.

• Articles 2, 3, 26 & 27 (Non-discrimination; gender equality; minority/Indigenous rights): Systemic mass incarceration and discriminatory correctional decision-making, particularly the severe over-incarceration, over-classification, and prolonged detention of Indigenous women, Black women, and gender-diverse people.

• Articles 7 & 10 (Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; humane treatment in detention): Continued use of solitary confinement and solitary-equivalent practices (SIUs, lockdowns, modified movement), inhumane living conditions, and punitive responses to disability and mental distress.

• Article 6 (Right to life): Foreseeable and preventable loss of life in custody due to isolation, inadequate health care, extreme heat, unsafe water, accelerated aging, and the risk that MAID is accessed in conditions of state-created suffering and coercion.

• Article 2(3) & Article 14 (Effective remedy; fair process), read with Article 17 (Privacy): Lack of binding independent oversight of corrections, ineffective grievance and accountability mechanisms, barriers to access to justice, and privacy breaches affecting health care and legal rights.

• Articles 9, 10 & 26 (Liberty; humane treatment; equality): Failure to pursue decarceration and non-custodial, community-based alternatives, including inadequate implementation of Indigenous-led alternatives, perpetuating discriminatory detention rather than reducing reliance on imprisonment.

• Articles 2, 6 & 7 (Effective protection; right to life; non-refoulement): Canada–US Safe Third Country Agreement exposes asylum seekers to chain refoulement, arbitrary detention, and foreseeable risk to life and ill-treatment in the United States.

• Articles 2, 6, 7, 9, 13 & 14 (Effective remedy; life; security; liberty; expulsion; fair hearing): Bill C-12 restricts access to refugee determination, denies independent oral hearings, and increases refoulement risk through inadequate PRRA procedures.

• Articles 6, 7, 9, 12, 17, 23 & 26 (Life; ill-treatment; liberty; freedom of movement; privacy; family; non-discrimination): Refugee cessation regime causes automatic loss of status and removal despite ongoing risk, arbitrarily severing family and community ties.

• Articles 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 17, 23, 24 & 26 (Remedy; life; liberty; humane treatment; family; child protection; equality): Immigration detention is arbitrary, indeterminate, discriminatory, and conducted in carceral conditions, including detention of children and deaths in custody.

• Articles 2(3) & 9(4) (Effective remedy; review of detention): Lack of meaningful judicial oversight, statutory time limits, transparency, and independent monitoring (including failure to ratify OPCAT) undermines accountability and protection of rights.

• Article 19 (Freedom of expression) & Article 21 (Peaceful assembly), read with Article 20(2) (Advocacy of hatred): Bill C-9 removes the Attorney General consent requirement before hate-speech prosecutions, creating risk of vexatious prosecutions and chilling effects.

• Article 21 (Peaceful assembly), read with Article 19: Bill C-9 creates new intimidation/obstruction offences near religious/cultural and other “primary use” sites with limited exceptions and up to 10 years’ imprisonment; provisions could capture picket lines and legitimate protests targeting political activities hosted at such venues.

• Article 21 (Peaceful assembly): Ontario municipal “bubble zone” bylaws and Quebec Bill 13 impose broad protest restrictions (including 50–100m zones and bans near officials’ residences) and overbroad bans on carrying items that “may” be used to intimidate or cause damage; submission calls for repeal/amendment and measures to address patterns of abusive policing during demonstrations.

• Article 19 (Freedom of expression), read with Article 20(2): Federal online harms and AI regulation remains unfinished after Bill C-63 and the failed AI and Data Act; submission urges timely new legislation aligned with international standards and a robust consultation process.

• Article 19 (Freedom of expression): Criminal defamation offences (Criminal Code ss. 300–301) retain imprisonment penalties and have produced confusion despite provincial rulings striking s. 301; submission recommends full repeal.

• Article 19 (Freedom of expression – right to seek and receive information): Federal Access to Information Act provides weak right to information (narrow scope, frequent delays, fees, overbroad exceptions, Cabinet-confidence exclusion, limited public-interest override, limited sunset clauses, weak enforcement and whistleblower protections); submission calls for an independent review and reforms to align with international standards, including universal requester access and expanded coverage (PMO, ministers’ offices, Parliament/courts, publicly funded bodies).

Article 25 (Participation in public affairs; vote and be elected): CVIA argues Canada should legislate (not merely administer) key access measures—especially campus/institutional voting—so voting access is a guaranteed entitlement rather than contingent on Elections Canada operational choices.

Article 25 (Genuine elections; free formation of political opinion): Canada has mechanisms to respond to foreign interference/misinformation (CEIPP), but CVIA says public awareness is weak and notification thresholds are vague, undermining transparency and voter confidence.

Articles 25 + 2(1) & 26 (Equal and effective enjoyment; non-discrimination/substantive equality): CVIA flags campaign-finance rules that may entrench wealth-based advantages (e.g., self-financing allowances) and third-party transparency gaps, potentially skewing equal political participation.

Articles 25 + 2(1) & 26 (Equal access to political participation in practice): CVIA links provincial civic-education shortfalls—insufficient teacher training, jurisdictional fragmentation, and resource/language/cultural disparities in rural/northern/Indigenous communities—to unequal ability to participate meaningfully in democratic life.

rticles 19, 21 & 22 (Freedom of expression; peaceful assembly; association), read with Articles 2(1) & 26 (Non-discrimination/equality) and 2(3) (Effective remedy): CLAIHR/JFAC allege a pattern of disproportionate and discriminatory restrictions on Palestinian solidarity speech, protest, and organizing—creating a chilling effect and unequal treatment compared with pro-Israel expression and assemblies.

Articles 19 + 20(2) (Expression; prohibition of advocacy of hatred), with Articles 2(1) & 26 (Non-discrimination): The submission argues Canada misapplies “hate-motivated” designations and hate/terrorism framing to political speech (e.g., criticism of Israeli policy, “From the river to the sea”), conflating advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism, and thereby over-criminalizes protected political expression.

Articles 21 & 9 (Peaceful assembly; security of the person), with Articles 2(1), 26 and 7 (Non-discrimination; ill-treatment): It alleges discriminatory and excessive policing of pro-Palestinian assemblies—raids, arrests, use of force (tear gas/batons), restrictive by-laws (“bubble zones”), and punitive by-law enforcement (e.g., megaphone fines)—contrary to necessity/proportionality principles.

Articles 19, 25 & 26 (Expression; participation in public affairs; equality): The report describes censorship and disciplinary measures in public institutions (legislatures, universities, public agencies/employers) targeting pro-Palestinian expression (e.g., keffiyeh restrictions; employment/academic reprisals), undermining equal participation and institutional neutrality.

Articles 9 & 12 (Liberty/security; movement), linked to Article 19 (Expression): It cites border/immigration actions allegedly used to chill Palestine-related speech (e.g., detention/questioning of invited speakers; entry bans), characterizing these as arbitrary or discriminatory interferences.

Articles 19, 21 & 22, read with Article 2 (Positive obligations): The submission argues Canada fails to maintain a rights-enabling environment, pointing to public-official rhetoric that stigmatizes protesters/advocates and contributes to impunity and unsafe civic space, while insufficiently condemning violence/threats against Palestine supporters.

• Article 1 (Self-determination), read with Article 27 (Indigenous/minority rights): The Building Canada Act fast-tracks “national interest” projects affecting Indigenous lands and territories while setting a lower standard of “consultation,” not free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) and “consultation and cooperation” consistent with UNDRIP.

• Article 25 (Participation in public affairs): Indigenous Peoples were given six days to review the draft Building Canada Act before tabling and it became law 20 days later, described as an inadequate process for legislation with dramatic impacts on Indigenous rights.

• Article 2(3) (Effective remedy): Recommendation to establish effective procedures and mechanisms—monitoring, oversight, and recourse—to ensure Indigenous rights are considered before approval of resource extraction and development projects, and that projects proceed only on the basis of FPIC.

• Article 26 (Equality and non-discrimination), read with Article 2: Concern that limiting UNDRIP enforceability in British Columbia would create a discriminatory double standard in human rights protection for Indigenous Peoples.

• Article 14 (Access to courts and fair process), read with Article 2(3): Concern that proposed amendments to British Columbia’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act to restrict court use of UNDRIP would limit access to justice and redress for human rights violations and undermine the rule of law and judicial independence.

• Articles 2, 3, 26 (Non-discrimination; equality), read with Arts. 6, 9 & 25: Persistent systemic racism and intersectional discrimination affecting racialized and Indigenous communities, compounded by inadequate disaggregated data collection, undermining effective protection, participation, and accountability.

• Articles 2, 3, 6, 7 & 26 (Non-discrimination; gender equality; right to life; freedom from violence): Gender-based violence, particularly against Indigenous, Black, racialized, migrant and precarious-status women, persists amid weak implementation, inconsistent funding, lack of independent oversight, and failure to fully implement MMIWG Calls for Justice.

• Articles 7, 9, 12, 13 & 24 (Ill-treatment; liberty; movement; expulsion; child protection), read with Arts. 2 & 26: Immigration policies and program pauses disproportionately harm racialized migrants and refugees, prolonging precarious status, family separation, loss of health care, and exposure to exploitation.

• Articles 6, 7, 9, 13 & 14 (Life; non-refoulement; liberty; expulsion; fair process): Bill C-12 restricts access to refugee determination, replaces independent hearings with PRRAs lacking procedural safeguards, expands executive powers, and heightens risks of arbitrary detention and refoulement.

• Articles 9, 10 & 24, read with Arts. 2 & 26 (Liberty; humane treatment; child protection): Immigration detention remains potentially indefinite, includes children, lacks time limits, disaggregated data, and independent CBSA oversight, contrary to international standards.

• Articles 2, 24 & 26 (Non-discrimination; protection of the child; equality): Canada Child Benefit eligibility tied to immigration status excludes children in racialized and precarious-status families, perpetuating child poverty and discriminatory denial of income supports.

• Articles 18, 19, 25 & 26 (Freedom of religion/expression; participation; equality): Quebec’s Bill 21 disproportionately restricts religious freedom and access to public employment for racialized religious minorities, particularly Muslim women, in violation of Covenant obligations despite domestic reliance on the notwithstanding clause.

• Arts. 2, 6, 7 & 26: Rising hate crimes and physical/sexual/psychological violence against LGBTQ+ people, with inadequate prevention, data, and victim supports.

• Arts. 7 & 24 (with Art. 2): Ongoing medically unnecessary, non-consensual surgeries on intersex children, enabled in part by the Criminal Code s. 268(3) exception.

• Arts. 2, 17, 24 & 26: Discriminatory provincial measures restricting gender recognition for minors (medical letter/parental consent), plus Quebec limits on inclusive language; increasing reliance on the notwithstanding clause.

• Arts. 7, 9, 10 & 26: Harmful treatment of trans people in detention (including placement by anatomy) and insufficient safeguards.

• Arts. 2, 7 & 26: Unequal access to gender-affirming health care (coverage gaps, long waits, lack of trained providers).

• Arts. 19, 20 & 26 (and Art. 24 in schools): Growing disinformation, stigma, and bullying/cyberbullying—especially in schools—without adequate public education and protective measures.

• Article 1 (Right to self-determination): Federal and Ontario “fast-tracking” legislation (Building Canada Act; Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act; Special Economic Zones Act) undermines Indigenous self-determination by bypassing consultation, accommodation, and free, prior and informed consent in decisions affecting lands and resources.

• Article 1, read with Articles 2(1) & 27: Executive powers to suspend or override environmental, regulatory, and permitting regimes prevent Indigenous peoples from freely pursuing their economic, social, and cultural development, particularly in Treaty No. 9 territory (e.g., Ring of Fire).

• Article 25(a) (Right to take part in public affairs): “Henry VIII” clauses and broad executive discretion shift decision-making from legislatures to Cabinets, eliminating meaningful parliamentary scrutiny and public participation in project designation and approval.

• Article 25(a), read with Article 2(1): Designation of projects of national interest and special economic zones precludes effective participation by Indigenous peoples and affected communities, politically disenfranchising those most impacted by major resource and infrastructure projects.

• Articles 1 & 25 (read together): Accelerated legislative frameworks systematically erode democratic accountability and Indigenous consent mechanisms, contrary to Canada’s ICCPR obligations and related international standards (including UNDRIP).

• Articles 2, 6 & 26 (Effective remedy; right to life with dignity; substantive equality): Canada’s refusal to recognize social and economic rights as justiciable undermines women’s equality, exposes women—especially Indigenous, racialized, disabled, migrant, and single mothers—to poverty, insecurity, and foreseeable threats to life.

• Articles 2, 6 & 26 (Positive obligations; equality): Inadequate social assistance, housing, child care, disability benefits, and care-economy protections perpetuate women’s poverty and economic dependence, constraining autonomy, safety, and political participation.

• Articles 2 & 26 (Equal protection; effective remedy): Chronic underfunding of civil legal aid and barriers to access to justice disproportionately deny women—particularly survivors of violence—effective remedies and equal protection of the law.

• Articles 2, 6 & 26 (Life; security; non-discrimination): Endemic gender-based violence, including femicide and sexual violence, persists due to failures in prevention, policing, accountability, and social supports; economic inequality and violence are mutually reinforcing.

• Articles 2, 6, 26 & 27 (Equality; culture): Ongoing sex discrimination in the Indian Act (including the second-generation cut-off) constitutes forced assimilation, violates equality and cultural rights, and exacerbates violence and marginalization of Indigenous women and their descendants.

• Articles 2, 6 & 26 (Effective protection; equality): Failure to implement CEDAW/MMIWG recommendations and the National Action Plan reflects lack of coordinated action, timelines, funding, and independent accountability, leaving systemic harms unremedied.

• Article 2 (Non-discrimination), read with Article 3 (Equality of rights of men and women): The Indian Act maintains structural discrimination based on sex and Indigenous origin through a complex, hierarchical registration regime that reproduces unequal outcomes for Indigenous women and their descendants.

• Articles 2 & 26 (Non-discrimination; equal protection of the law): Ongoing inequalities in transmission of “Indian status” under section 6, including differentiated categories of registration, restrict access to rights, essential services, community belonging, and political participation.

• Article 26 (Equality before the law): The second-generation cut-off in cases of exogamy produces disproportionate, intergenerational impacts for descendants of women excluded before 1985, limiting their ability to transmit status to their children.

• Articles 2 & 26 (Effective equality): Incremental legislative reforms (C-31, C-3, S-3, and proposed S-2) do not remove the structural foundations of discrimination and postpone full compliance with the Covenant.

• Articles 2 & 26 (Substantive equality and protection): Status exclusion and insecurity increase social, economic, and legal precariousness and contribute to conditions enabling gender-based violence, particularly for Indigenous women living off-reserve amid jurisdictional gaps.

• Articles 2, 6 & 26 (Effective protection; right to life; non-discrimination): Canada’s response to the national emergency of violence against Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people remains fragmented, under-funded, and slow, failing to meet positive obligations to prevent foreseeable loss of life.

• Articles 6, 9 & 26 (Life; security of the person; equality): Failure to promptly implement an Indigenous-led Red Dress Alert system undermines timely protection of life and safety; lack of funding and timelines persists despite demonstrated need and government endorsement.

• Articles 2, 6 & 7 (Effective remedy; life; freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment): Delays and politicization in the recovery of remains of missing and murdered Indigenous women subject families to ongoing suffering; searches should be governed by human-rights-based, arm’s-length decision-making, not partisan discretion.

• Articles 2, 26 & 27 (Equality; non-discrimination; cultural rights): Ongoing discrimination in the Indian Act (second-generation cut-off and status categories) continues forced assimilation, displacement, and denial of identity, disproportionately harming Indigenous women and increasing vulnerability to violence.

• Articles 2, 6 & 26, read with Article 1 (Positive obligations; equality; self-determination): Canada has failed to fully implement CEDAW and National Inquiry Calls for Justice, including reforms to Indian status, reparations, and adequately resourced, Indigenous-led accountability mechanisms, contrary to its Covenant obligations.

• HIV non-disclosure criminalization (Arts. 2, 3, 6, 9, 26): Use of sexual-assault law (incl. aggravated sexual assault) to prosecute non-disclosure even without transmission/intent; alleged to deter testing/care, intensify stigma, and disproportionately impact Indigenous women, survivors of sexual violence, and Black communities.

• Harm reduction barriers (Arts. 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 26): Provincial restrictions/closures and reported federal exemption hurdles for SCS and limits on needle/syringe programs; framed as violating life/security amid the toxic drug crisis, disproportionately harming Indigenous people, women, and rural/remote communities.

• Immigration “excessive demand” (IRPA s. 38(1)(c)) (Arts. 2, 3, 6, 9, 26): Cost-based medical inadmissibility and mandatory screening alleged to perpetuate disability/HIV discrimination via stigma, delays, added costs, and refusal/removal risk, despite calls to repeal.

• Sex work criminalization (Arts. 2, 3, 6, 9, 26): PCEPA and immigration prohibitions alleged to increase violence by pushing work into isolation, restricting safety-enhancing supports, and heightening surveillance/over-policing—especially for Indigenous, Black, and migrant sex workers.

• Drug criminalization + custody impacts (Arts. 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 26): Continued prohibition of possession/trafficking framed as driving racialized incarceration (notably Indigenous/Black women), increasing overdose risk, and compounding rights violations in detention.

• Prison health/harm reduction gaps (Arts. 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 26): Limited prison needle exchange/SCS, restricted OAT, lack of direct naloxone, and no sterile equipment in provincial/territorial custody—linked to higher HIV/HCV and overdose deaths, disproportionately affecting incarcerated women and Indigenous women.

• VAW + shelter exclusion (Arts. 2, 3, 6, 7, 26): “Zero-tolerance” shelter rules and inadequate gender-/culturally appropriate supports for women (incl. trans/gender-diverse) who use drugs alleged to deny equal protection and increase exposure to violence and death.

• Use of Charter s.33 (“notwithstanding clause”) to override Charter ss. 2 and 7–15 without substantive judicial review (Arts. 2(2)–2(3) effective implementation/remedy; 14 access to justice; 26 equality; and the underlying rights overridden, incl. 18–22, 7–15).

• Recent invocations/threats of s.33 affecting freedom of religion, expression, association, labour rights, and political participation (Arts. 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, read with 2 and 26).

• Use of s.33 to shield measures impacting trans and gender-diverse youth (names/pronouns in schools) (Arts. 17 privacy; 19 expression; 24 protection of children; 26 non-discrimination; 2 effective protection).

• Quebec Bill 1 (Quebec Constitution Act, 2025): creation of a hierarchy privileging collective rights of the “Quebec nation” over individual, minority, and Indigenous rights (Arts. 2, 25, 26, 27).

• Bill 1 derogation mechanisms insulating legislation from judicial review and limiting access to constitutional challenges (including bans on use of public funds to litigate) (Arts. 2(3) effective remedy; 14 access to an independent tribunal).

• Bill 1 imposition of a single national identity and “common language” (French), with a policy of “national integration” (Arts. 27 minority language/culture; 19 expression; 17 private life/identity; 26 equality).

• Bill 1 gender-equality framing limited to “women and men,” excluding gender diversity (Arts. 2(1), 3, 26).

• Bill 1 treatment of Indigenous peoples as integrated into the “Quebec nation,” denying distinct peoples’ status, self-determination, and decision-making authority (Arts. 1 self-determination; 25 participation; 27 cultural rights; 26 equality).

• Bill 1 territorial sovereignty and integrity provisions overriding Indigenous land, language, and governance rights, including limits on participation and consent (Arts. 1, 25, 27, read with 2).

• Expansion of MAiD to persons with disabilities whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable (“Track 2”) exposes persons with disabilities to state-facilitated premature death and withdraws equal protection of life outside end-of-life contexts. (Arts. 6 & 26)

• Failure to protect the right to life of persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others, including by offering MAiD in place of suicide prevention and adequate social, health, housing, and disability supports, contrary to the positive obligations under the right to life. (Art. 6)

• Discriminatory targeting of disability as the sole gateway to MAiD for non-dying persons, entrenching ableist assumptions that disability-related suffering justifies death and constituting direct discrimination in law and practice. (Art. 26)

• Disproportionate and intersectional impact of Track 2 MAiD on women with disabilities, driven by poverty, social isolation, sexism and ableism in health care, caregiving norms, and exposure to male violence, resulting in a heightened risk of premature death. (Arts. 6 & 26)

• Inadequacy of MAiD safeguards and absence of effective pre-death oversight, with no requirement to ensure that necessary supports are provided and accountability mechanisms operating primarily after death. (Arts. 6 & 2(3))

• Planned and ongoing expansion of MAiD (including to sole underlying mental illness, advance requests, and potential substituted decision-making) creating foreseeable, gendered, and disability-based risks to life and equality. (Arts. 6 & 26)

• Sex discrimination in Indian Act registration and status continues to deny First Nations women and their descendants equal recognition and access to associated rights, benefits, and cultural belonging, despite repeated UN recommendations since 1981. (ICCPR arts. 2, 3, 26, 27)

• Canada has failed to implement binding UN remedies and follow-up arising from McIvor and Grismer v Canada and other treaty-body decisions, resulting in ongoing denial of equality, effective remedies, and protection of cultural rights. (ICCPR arts. 2(2)–(3), 26, 27)

• The second generation cut-off, 6(2) status, and the two-parent rule remain the central sources of discrimination, causing the systematic loss of Indian status after two generations of out-parenting and operating as a legislated extinction and forced assimilation scheme. (ICCPR arts. 2, 3, 26, 27)

• These rules perpetuate historic sex discrimination in practice, disproportionately affecting matrilineal descendants and particularly disadvantaging women with 6(2) status where paternity is unknown, unacknowledged, or unsafe to disclose, including in cases of sexual violence. (ICCPR arts. 2, 3, 26, 27)

• Enfranchisement-related exclusions and loss of band membership continue to sever women and their descendants from their communities, lands, culture, and identity, requiring restoration of both status and membership as an equality and cultural rights obligation. (ICCPR arts. 2, 3, 26, 27)

• Continued piecemeal reform and delayed implementation—including risks to the Senate’s amendments to Bill S-2 and chronic under-resourcing of registration processes—perpetuate discrimination in both law and practice. (ICCPR arts. 2(2)–(3), 26, 27)

• Bars to compensation and lack of full reparations deny effective remedies for decades of sex-based discrimination; Canada must remove all liability shields and provide compensation, apology, and guarantees of non-repetition. (ICCPR arts. 2(3), 26, 27)

• Article 6 (Right to life), read with Articles 2 & 26: Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG) crisis reflects systemic failure to prevent killings and disappearances and to ensure equal protection for Indigenous women and girls.

• Article 2 (Non-discrimination; duty to ensure rights): Chronic underfunding and mismanagement of the First Nations and Inuit Policing Program leaves communities without equitable, dedicated policing, including unspent federal funds and understaffed positions.

• Article 6 (Right to life): Canada’s response to MMIWG lacks binding timelines and effective implementation of the 2019 National Inquiry’s Calls for Justice; most calls remain unimplemented five years on.

• Article 7 (Freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment): High levels of physical and sexual violence against Indigenous women, combined with slow and dismissive institutional responses, create degrading treatment and ongoing trauma for victims and families.

• Article 26 (Equality before the law and equal protection): Discriminatory outcomes in policing, courts, and corrections, including extreme overrepresentation of Indigenous women in custody and gaps in oversight and disaggregated data collection, undermine equal protection and accountability.

• Canada fails to ensure accountability for overseas human rights abuses by Canadian corporations, relying on voluntary Responsible Business Conduct mechanisms that lack enforceability and do not deliver effective remedies to affected individuals and communities. (ICCPR art. 2, esp. 2(3))

• The Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise (CORE) lacks independence, stability, and powers, including the absence of a permanent ombudsperson, inadequate funding, and no authority to compel documents or testimony, leaving complaints unresolved and remedies ineffective. (ICCPR art. 2(3))

• CORE’s remedial framework is insufficient: without compulsory investigative or enforcement powers, companies can refuse cooperation with minimal consequences, preventing meaningful findings, accountability, or cessation of harm. (ICCPR art. 2(3))

• Canada’s National Contact Point (NCP) is structurally incapable of providing effective oversight or remedies, due to lack of independence, absence of fact-finding authority, reliance on voluntary mediation, and vulnerability to political and corporate pressure. (ICCPR art. 2(3))

• Taken together, the limitations of the CORE and the NCP deny victims access to effective remedies, contrary to Canada’s obligation to ensure Covenant rights are protected and enforceable in the context of corporate activities under Canadian jurisdiction. (ICCPR art. 2(3))

• Expansion of non-criminal detention (Arts. 9, 10): Bill 48 authorizes police/designated officers to detain people in public for perceived “intoxication” plus “danger” or “disturbance,” extending detention from 24 to 72 hours in “protective care centres,” creating a broad administrative detention regime lacking clear necessity and proportionality limits.

• Arbitrariness and lack of safeguards (Arts. 9(1)–(4), 10): Vague terms (“intoxicated,” “danger,” “disturbance”) and wide discretion enable unpredictable, discriminatory enforcement without prompt, independent review or guaranteed access to counsel, undermining effective challenge to detention.

• Involuntary medical assessment and withdrawal (Arts. 6, 7, 10, 17): Extended detention permits involuntary medical examination outside established mental health safeguards and foreseeably imposes unmanaged drug withdrawal, risking cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and heightened overdose risk upon release, engaging the right to life.

• Privacy, bodily autonomy and discriminatory impacts (Arts. 17, 26): Perception-based intoxication assessments and public-space enforcement intrude on dignity and privacy and foreseeably target Indigenous and racialized communities, unhoused people, persons with disabilities, and other marginalized groups.

• Children and lack of less restrictive alternatives (Arts. 24, 26): The Act lacks explicit child-specific safeguards (last resort, shortest duration, best interests) and relies on coercive detention despite available voluntary, evidence-based harm reduction and community-based alternatives, rendering the differentiation unreasonable and discriminatory.

Articles 7, 9 & 10 (ill-treatment; liberty and security; humane treatment of detainees): Canada continues to subject federally incarcerated persons to solitary confinement as defined by the Mandela Rules, including prolonged solitary confinement exceeding 15 days, causing serious psychological harm and worsening mental health, notwithstanding its obligation to prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Articles 7, 9 & 10 (procedural safeguards; legality and oversight of detention): The replacement of administrative segregation with Structured Intervention Units (SIUs) under Bill C-83 fails to meet constitutional and international standards identified by the British Columbia and Ontario Courts of Appeal (2019), including the absence of a binding definition of solitary confinement, no cap on duration, inadequate independent review within 5 days, and ineffective external oversight focused on formal compliance rather than the legitimacy of confinement.

Articles 2(3), 7, 9 & 10 (effective remedy; accountability): Canada has failed to conduct the mandatory parliamentary review of Bill C-83 required by law and has ignored extensive empirical findings of the SIU Implementation Advisory Panel (2020–2024) demonstrating that SIUs reproduce solitary confinement in practice, deny required out-of-cell time and meaningful human contact, disproportionately harm persons with mental health disabilities, and permit isolated confinement to persist across the federal prison system, including outside SIUs.

Articles 7, 9 & 10 (ill-treatment; liberty and security; humane treatment of detainees): Canada continues to subject federally incarcerated persons to solitary confinement as defined by the Mandela Rules, including prolonged solitary confinement exceeding 15 days, causing serious psychological harm and worsening mental health, notwithstanding its obligation to prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Articles 7, 9 & 10 (procedural safeguards; legality and oversight of detention): The replacement of administrative segregation with Structured Intervention Units (SIUs) under Bill C-83 fails to meet constitutional and international standards identified by the British Columbia and Ontario Courts of Appeal (2019), including the absence of a binding definition of solitary confinement, no cap on duration, inadequate independent review within 5 days, and ineffective external oversight focused on formal compliance rather than the legitimacy of confinement.

Articles 2(3), 7, 9 & 10 (effective remedy; accountability): Canada has failed to conduct the mandatory parliamentary review of Bill C-83 required by law and has ignored extensive empirical findings of the SIU Implementation Advisory Panel (2020–2024) demonstrating that SIUs reproduce solitary confinement in practice, deny required out-of-cell time and meaningful human contact, disproportionately harm persons with mental health disabilities, and permit isolated confinement to persist across the federal prison system, including outside SIUs.

• Effective remedy gap (Arts 2(3), 14, 26): Human rights/complaint systems are too slow, legalistic, and under-powered—high screening/dismissals, short deadlines, opaque decisions, weak enforcement, and little capacity for systemic remedies.

• Substantive equality failure (Arts 2, 3, 26): Canada is not addressing intersectional discrimination (race/Indigeneity, gender identity, disability, migration status, poverty), producing unequal access to safety and justice.

• Due diligence re violence (Arts 2, 6, 7, 9): Canada relies on crisis response over prevention—seen in GBV, policing/mental-health crises, and tech-facilitated harms.

• Policing accountability (Arts 6, 7, 9, 14, 26): Lack of consistent national standards; oversight/investigations perceived as slow, opaque, and ineffective, especially in deaths/serious injury cases.

• Youth & digital harms (Arts 17, 19, 24): No coherent rights-based digital protection regime for youth; reporting/remedies are inaccessible and oversight is missing; youth excluded from policymaking.

• Need for a resourced, trauma-informed remedy systems with systemic powers; a substantive equality framework; a national due-diligence prevention approach; national policing/use-of-force standards + truly independent oversight; rights-based youth digital regulation; meaningful participation; stronger federal–provincial coordination, disaggregated data, and follow-up.

• Positive obligations under the right to life (Art 6, read with Arts 2(3) & 26): Canada must accept that Article 6 requires positive measures to address systemic and foreseeable conditions that threaten life and dignity, consistent with the Committee’s jurisprudence (GC 6; GC 36).

• Refusal to implement Article 6 as interpreted by the Committee (Arts 2, 6): Canada rejects that the right to life includes positive measures or a life with dignity, refuses to give effect to the Committee’s Views (including Toussaint), and denies that Article 6 applies to systemic socio-economic and environmental risks.

• Denial of effective remedies domestically (Arts 2(3), 6): Governments consistently argue that the Charter contains no positive obligations to address life-threatening conditions (e.g., homelessness, health care, substance use, climate), undermining access to remedies for right-to-life violations.

• Systemic threats to life requiring positive measures (Art 6): Ongoing and worsening risks to life arising from homelessness; denial of essential health care (including for migrants); toxic drug deaths and restrictions on safe consumption services; violence against Indigenous women and girls and non-implementation of Calls for Justice; lack of disability supports leading to MAiD driven by deprivation; unsafe water and sanitation in First Nations; widespread food insecurity; and climate-related deaths and health harms.

• State responsibility across all levels of government (Arts 2, 6, 26): Federal, provincial, and territorial authorities must adopt coordinated positive measures and ensure effective remedies to protect life without discrimination, particularly for Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, migrants, and people living in poverty.

• Focus (LOI 13 / Art 6; LOI 24 / Arts 2, 25–27): Canada is failing to protect the right to life of girls—especially Indigenous girls—through climate inaction, fossil-fuel expansion, and denial of positive obligations; and is failing to secure meaningful Indigenous participation/FPIC for extractive projects, particularly for Indigenous women and girls.

• Article 6 / climate: Canada has never met climate targets, is warming faster than the global average, and is already experiencing lethal impacts (heat domes, wildfires, floods). Canada is said to be expanding oil and gas, rolling back protections, and subsidizing fossil fuels while rejecting GC 36 (para 62) and fighting youth climate claims (notably La Rose) on non-justiciability/“policy choice” grounds.

• Toxics/environmental injustice: Extractive industries and pollution disproportionately harm Indigenous/racialized communities; the submission emphasizes specific health and reproductive harms to Indigenous women and girls (including bioaccumulation and impacts linked to oil sands/transport).

• FPIC/consultation (Indigenous rights): Canada is said to treat consultation as “process not outcome,” failing to obtain FPIC for major projects (e.g., TMX, Coastal GasLink, Site C) and being repeatedly criticized by CERD; Indigenous women and girls are described as systematically excluded despite disproportionate harms (culture/health impacts, criminalization of land defenders, and increased sexual violence/trafficking linked to resource camps).

• Canada should ccease new fossil-fuel development and end subsidies; align policy with science/1.5°C; recognize Article 6 climate obligations and provide effective remedies (including revising Canada’s stance in La Rose); and require FPIC with gender- and age-specific participation and protections for Indigenous girl/women land defenders.

• Derogations and remedies (Arts 2(1)–(3), 4; also 9, 12, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26): repeated, pre-emptive use of notwithstanding clauses hollows out rights protection, insulates rights-infringing laws from judicial scrutiny, and undermines access to effective remedies.

• ICCPR derogation discipline (Art 4; Arts 2(3), 18, 26): current practices violate the Covenant’s strict limits on derogation, which require measures to be exceptional, necessary, temporary, demonstrably justified, and subject to review.

• Bill 1 – Québec Constitution Act, 2025 (Arts 25, 19, 21–22, 14, 2(3)): the constitution-making process lacks meaningful public participation, and the bill normalizes use of the notwithstanding clause while chilling constitutional litigation by restricting publicly funded bodies from challenging designated laws.

• Secularism and “values” legislation (Arts 18, 26, 3; also 19, 17, 27): Bill 21 and 2025 Bills 94 and 9 (and Bill 84) impose discriminatory limits on freedom of religion, disproportionately harming religious minorities—especially Muslim women—through bans, narrowed accommodation standards, and exclusion from employment and education.

• Police accountability (Arts 6–7, 9, 14, 2(3), 26): deaths caused by police, weak independence and transparency of oversight bodies, and reforms limiting third-party complaints erode accountability and public confidence.

• Detention, prisons, and migrants (Arts 6–7, 9–10, 14, 13, 24, 17, 2(3), 26): detention conditions include deaths, extreme isolation and solitary confinement, inadequate health care, and disproportionate impacts on Indigenous people and persons with disabilities; migrant detention and proposed asylum reforms expand discretionary detention, weaken procedural guarantees, and increase risks of refoulement.

• Implementation and remedies (Arts 2(1)–(3), 25, 26): absence of a coherent national framework for implementing ICCPR obligations results in inconsistent protection of rights across federal, provincial, and territorial jurisdictions and weak accountability to rights holders.

• National mechanism for implementation and follow-up (Arts 2(1)–(3)): lack of a legislated, adequately resourced National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up (NMIRF) leaves coordination informal, opaque, and ineffective, despite decades of UN recommendations.

• Federalism and accountability (Arts 2(1), 50): reliance on federalism to deflect responsibility enables uneven compliance across provinces and territories, including outright denial of binding ICCPR obligations by some jurisdictions.

• Transparency, data, and monitoring (Arts 2(1)–(3), 26): failure to track, publish, and measure implementation of UN recommendations—through indicators, timelines, and disaggregated data—prevents meaningful assessment of compliance and equality impacts.

• Civil society and Indigenous participation (Arts 2(3), 25, 27): absence of structured, funded, and ongoing engagement with civil society and Indigenous peoples limits participation in implementation processes and undermines democratic legitimacy.

• Access to justice and domestic effect (Arts 2(3), 14): insufficient legal pathways and institutional support to give domestic effect to Covenant rights restrict access to effective remedies under the Charter and other domestic law.

• Duty to ensure rights and provide remedies (Arts 2(1)–(3); also 6–7, 9, 14): Canada denies any legal obligation to protect Covenant rights of people harmed abroad by Canadian mining companies and rejects any duty to provide remedies in Canada for overseas abuses.

• Corporate accountability for overseas operations (Arts 2(1), 26; also 6–7, 9): serious allegations linked to Canadian mining projects abroad persist (killings, assaults, forced evictions, threats against defenders, forced labour, environmental harm), with inadequate Canadian action to prevent or address abuses.

• Failure to implement repeated UN recommendations (Arts 2(1)–(3)): longstanding concerns by treaty bodies and Special Procedures about Canadian extractive companies abroad remain unresolved, including calls for effective independent complaint mechanisms and legal frameworks enabling remedies.

• Non-judicial mechanisms are ineffective (Arts 2(3), 14): the OECD National Contact Point lacks independence, does not investigate, make findings, or recommend remedy; the CORE is non-functional due to prolonged absence of an Ombudsperson and lacks promised powers to compel evidence.

• Judicial barriers to transnational civil claims (Arts 2(3), 14): Canadian courts routinely block foreign plaintiffs through jurisdiction and forum non conveniens hurdles, including dismissal of recent Barrick/North Mara cases despite corporate headquarters in Canada.

• Required reforms (Arts 2(1)–(3), 14): appoint and empower CORE (including compulsion powers under the Inquiries Act) and enact binding human-rights/environmental due diligence legislation with a statutory cause of action enabling foreign plaintiffs to have claims heard on the merits in Canadian courts.

• MMIWG2S+ violence and accountability gap (Arts 2(1)–(3), 3, 6, 7, 26): slow, uneven implementation of the 231 Calls for Justice leaves Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people exposed to grave, ongoing violence; “piecemeal” programs remain inadequate without enforceable, culturally appropriate accountability mechanisms.

• Call for Justice 1.7: Ombudsperson and Tribunal (Arts 2(3), 14, 26; also 6–7): Canada has not established the permanent, national Ombudsperson and Tribunal recommended to ensure federal accountability and rights-based oversight, despite a timeline calling for an operational office by December 31, 2025.

• Disaggregated, accurate data on violence (Arts 2(1), 3, 6, 26; also 24): absence of national protocols to record and disaggregate Indigenous identity (First Nations, Inuit, Métis, urban, and 2SLGBTQI+) undermines prevention, monitoring, and effective response; prioritize co-developed national data strategy and Indigenous data governance.

• Implementing UNDRIP through domestic law (Arts 1, 2(1)–(3), 25, 26; also 27): Canada must make laws consistent with UNDRIP through transparent, mandatory review processes and meaningful consultation and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples, including clear timelines and reporting.

• Resource development, impact assessment, and gendered safety impacts (Arts 6–7, 2(1)–(3), 3, 26; also 24, 27): ensure thorough, transparent project review that includes gender-based socio-economic impacts and mitigation (policing, health, social services) and prevents approvals where projects heighten risks to Indigenous women, girls, and gender diverse people.

• Notwithstanding clause and denial of remedies (Arts 2(3), 4, 14, 19, 21, 22, 26): increased use or threats to use section 33 to shield discriminatory laws (including those affecting gender-diverse youth) removes meaningful judicial scrutiny and deprives rights-holders of effective remedies.

• Article 6 (Right to life), read with Article 2 (Effective protection): Failure to adopt and implement coordinated positive measures with clear goals and timelines to reduce and eliminate homelessness, despite deaths and severe health impacts among people experiencing homelessness.

• Articles 6, 17 & 26 (Life; protection of the home; non-discrimination): Forced encampment evictions, denial of adequate services, and degrading treatment; lack of transparency on how federally funded community action plans are assessed for human-rights compliance.

• Article 2(3) (Effective remedy), read with Articles 6 & 17: Limited access to timely, equitable eviction processes and legal representation; eviction decision-makers fail to apply proportionality and order evictions that foreseeably push tenants into homelessness.

• Articles 2 & 26 (Non-discrimination; equality before the law): Financialization of rental housing accelerates displacement through rent increases and evictions, erodes affordable stock, and disproportionately harms Indigenous Peoples, Black and racialized communities, persons with disabilities, and low-income renters.

• Articles 2 & 26 (Non-discrimination), read with Article 17: Failure to recognize homelessness/housing status as a prohibited ground of discrimination; underfunded human rights tribunals and lack of implementation frameworks for National Housing Strategy Act review-panel recommendations (including the Neha panel on women and gender-diverse people).

• Domestic implementation gap (Art. 2(1)–(3)): Canada lacks a transparent, accountable national mechanism to implement, monitor, and publicly report on ICCPR compliance across federal, provincial, and territorial levels, with full participation of Indigenous women and their organizations.

• Self-determination and participation (Arts. 1, 2, 3, 25, 27): Indigenous women are excluded from decision-making frameworks (including nation-to-nation and distinctions-based processes) that shape laws, policies, funding, and resource development affecting their rights, undermining self-determination and equal participation.

• Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (Arts. 2, 3, 6, 7, 26): The MMIWG crisis continues unabated; implementation of the National Inquiry’s Calls for Justice is slow and underfunded, accountability is lacking, and justice system responses devalue Indigenous women’s lives, resulting in persistently extreme rates of violence and homicide.

• Indian Act discrimination (Arts. 2, 3, 26, 27): Ongoing sex-based discrimination—including the second-generation cut-off, 1985 cut-off, two-parent rule, barriers to band membership restoration, and bars to compensation—violates equality, cultural rights, and access to effective remedies.

• Criminal justice overrepresentation (Arts. 2, 14, 26, 27): Indigenous women face systemic over-policing, denial of bail, harsher outcomes, mandatory minimums, and escalating incarceration rates, despite repeated UN and domestic recommendations to decarcerate and expand community-based alternatives.

• Conditions of detention and solitary confinement (Arts. 2, 6, 7, 10, 23, 26, 27): Indigenous women experience discriminatory security classification, prolonged isolation (including SIUs), inadequate mental-health care, family separation, and excessive use of force, violating humane-treatment obligations and the right to life.

• Non-implementation of Committee Views (Arts. 2(3), 6, 26): Canada refuses to give effect to Toussaint v. Canada, continuing to deny irregular migrants access to essential health care where life or irreversible harm is at risk, in breach of positive obligations under the right to life and non-discrimination.

• Access to effective domestic remedies (Art. 2(3), read with Arts. 6 and 26): Individuals found by the Committee to be victims of Covenant violations lack assured access to Canadian courts to seek Charter remedies informed by Committee Views, undermining the effectiveness of the Optional Protocol procedure.

• Interpretation of Charter rights in conformity with the ICCPR (Arts. 2(1), 2(3), 6, 26): Canadian courts and governments resist interpreting sections 7 and 15 of the Charter consistently with the Covenant, despite the presumption of conformity and authoritative treaty-body jurisprudence.

• Failure to Apply Inter-Dependence doctrine (Arts. 6, 26, 2(3)): Claims requiring positive measures (health care, housing, childcare) to protect life or substantive equality are dismissed as non-justiciable without "freestanding" socio-economic rights to health care, housing or subsidized childcare, producing a two-tiered application of the right to life and equality that disadvantages people in poverty, migrants, and women.

• Equality and discrimination on immigration status and sex (Art. 26, with Arts. 6 and 3): Canada denies that immigration status is a prohibited ground of discrimination and resists positive measures to address systemic inequality affecting migrants and women, including access to essential health care and affordable childcare.

• Good faith and pacta sunt servanda (Arts. 2(3), 6, 26; Art. 26 VCLT): Canada treats implementation of Committee Views as discretionary, contrary to good-faith treaty performance; domestic courts, as recognized in Toussaint (ONSC 2022), can and should review whether Canada’s responses meet good-faith obligations.

• Arbitrary detention and exposure to torture of Canadian citizens abroad: Canada fails to repatriate citizens arbitrarily detained in northeast Syria (and at risk of rendition to Iraq), leaving them in conditions amounting to torture, inhuman treatment, and foreseeable threats to life, without judicial review or due process (Arts 6, 7, 9; non-derogable).

• Denial of the right to enter one’s own country: Canada arbitrarily deprives detained citizens of the right to return to Canada by refusing repatriation despite practical ability to secure release and repeated requests from detaining authorities (Art 12(4)).

• Non-refoulement and causal responsibility: By refusing repatriation and acquiescing in transfers to Iraq where torture, ill-treatment, unfair trials, and the death penalty are foreseeable, Canada breaches its duty to prevent irreparable harm and remains a link in the causal chain of violations (Arts 6, 7, 2(3)).

• Discriminatory treatment of detained Canadians: Canada applies a discriminatory policy framework that effectively excludes Muslim men from repatriation, creating a two-tier system of citizenship and denying equal protection of the law on grounds including religion, sex, and perceived political opinion (Arts 2(1), 26, 17).

• Family separation and violations of children’s rights: Canada conditions the repatriation of Canadian children on forced separation from their non-citizen mothers, undermining family unity and exposing children to ongoing arbitrary detention and serious harm (Arts 17, 23(1), 24).

• Lack of effective remedies and accountability: Canada provides no effective remedy for prolonged arbitrary detention, deaths in custody, or discriminatory refusal to repatriate, including failure to investigate the death of a Canadian detainee and to ensure access to redress (Art 2(3)).

• Deaths in custody and lethal police force: Preventable deaths in police custody, prisons, immigration detention, and other custodial settings, and rising deaths caused by police use of force, reflect failures to protect the right to life and prevent cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (Arts 6, 7).

• Absence of national monitoring and transparency: Canada lacks a national, standardized, and comprehensive system to record and publicly report deaths in custody and police killings, undermining prevention, accountability, and effective oversight (Arts 2(3), 6, 9).

• Racialized, Indigenous, and disability-related impacts: Indigenous, Black, and other racialized people, as well as people with mental health and substance-use issues, are disproportionately subjected to police violence, deaths in custody, and inadequate protection, engaging equality and non-discrimination obligations (Arts 2(1), 3, 26).

• Inadequate investigations and civilian oversight: Investigations into deaths caused by police or occurring in custody lack independence, timeliness, transparency, and effectiveness; oversight bodies are structurally compromised and recommendations are routinely ignored (Arts 2(3), 6, 14).

• Detention conditions and medical neglect: Custodial deaths linked to suicide, drug toxicity, medical neglect, isolation, and use of force—including restraints and chemical agents—demonstrate systemic failures to ensure humane treatment and protect life in detention (Arts 6, 7, 9, 10).

• Lack of remedies and harm to families: Families of those who die in custody or through police force face barriers to information, participation, accountability, and redress, including delayed or abandoned inquests and intimidation, denying effective remedies and access to justice (Arts 2(3), 14, 17).

Medically unnecessary, non-consensual “sex-normalizing” medical interventions on intersex children remain lawful in Canada, permitting irreversible surgeries and hormonal treatments without the child’s free and informed consent, resulting in serious physical and psychological harm. (ICCPR arts. 7, 9, 17, 24)

• Section 268(3)(a) of the Criminal Code permits intersex genital mutilation by exempting procedures aimed at “normal sexual appearance or function”, denying intersex children protection afforded to others and violating bodily integrity, privacy, and security of the person. (ICCPR arts. 7, 9, 17, 24)

• Canada fails to provide effective remedies for intersex individuals subjected to non-consensual interventions, as the legality of these practices creates a barrier to accountability, redress, and reparations. (ICCPR art. 2(3))

• Intersex children lack equal protection under Canadian law, as discrimination based on sex characteristics is not explicitly prohibited, resulting in unequal treatment and denial of substantive equality. (ICCPR art. 26)

• The absence of formal recognition and data collection on intersex populations undermines protection and accountability, limiting evidence-based policy responses and perpetuating systemic invisibility. (ICCPR arts. 2, 24, 26)

rticle 2(3) (effective remedy): Canada fails to ensure access to effective remedies for overseas human rights abuses linked to Canadian corporations, relying on voluntary responsible business conduct mechanisms that lack enforceability and do not produce tangible remedial outcomes.

Article 2(3) (effective remedy): The Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise (CORE) lacks authority to compel documents or testimony, suffers from prolonged vacancies, limited resources, and insufficient institutional independence, and is unable to conduct effective investigations or secure remedies for affected individuals and communities.

Article 2(3) (effective remedy): The National Contact Point (NCP) lacks independence, investigative capacity, and remedial authority, relies on voluntary mediation without fact-finding, and has demonstrated vulnerability to political and corporate pressure, resulting in the absence of meaningful accountability for corporate-related Covenant violations abroad.

Articles 2(3), 7 & 8 (effective remedy; freedom from ill-treatment; slavery and forced labour): Victims of human trafficking in Canada face systemic barriers to obtaining restitution and reparations, as criminal courts rarely order restitution, often fail to give reasons when restitution is denied, and impose evidentiary thresholds that are unrealistic for trafficking survivors, undermining access to effective remedies for serious Covenant violations.

Articles 2(3), 7 & 8 (effective remedy; freedom from ill-treatment; slavery and forced labour): Canada lacks consistent and accessible compensation mechanisms for trafficking survivors, relying on uneven provincial victim compensation schemes and limited civil causes of action that impose high thresholds for proving exploitation, resulting in unequal and inadequate access to compensation across jurisdictions.

Articles 2(3), 7, 8 & 26 (effective remedy; freedom from ill-treatment; slavery and forced labour; equality): Survivors face significant gaps in rehabilitation and protection, including uneven access to specialized victim services, limited and temporary immigration protections, barriers created by employer-specific work permits, and the absence of a national framework to address coerced or fraudulent debts incurred through trafficking, disproportionately affecting migrant workers and other marginalized groups.

Articles 19, 2(3) & 26 (freedom of expression; effective remedy; equality before the law): Canada’s whistleblower protection framework unduly restricts protection based on employment status, excluding contractors, consultants, volunteers, interns, and most private-sector workers, resulting in unequal protection and deterring disclosure of matters of public interest.

Articles 19 & 2(3) (freedom of expression; effective remedy): Whistleblower protections are weakened by a “good faith” requirement, inadequate confidentiality safeguards, lack of protection for anonymous disclosures, and the enforceability of non-disclosure agreements, all of which chill protected expression and expose whistleblowers to retaliation.

Articles 2(3) & 26 (effective remedy; equality before the law): Reprisal protections are ineffective due to narrow definitions of retaliation, high burdens of proof placed on whistleblowers, discretionary gatekeeping that severely restricts access to adjudication, absence of interim relief, limited remedies and legal assistance, and prolonged delays, resulting in the denial of timely, effective, and equal access to justice across federal, provincial, and territorial regimes.

Articles 19 & 21 (freedom of expression; peaceful assembly): Academic freedom in Canada is increasingly constrained by state interference in university decision-making, including ministerial intervention in curricula, appointments, research priorities, and governance, as well as political pressure on universities to discipline students and faculty for protected expression. These measures undermine institutional autonomy and restrict teaching, research, and extramural expression on matters of public interest.

Articles 19 & 2(3) (freedom of expression; effective remedy): Academic freedom protections are fragmented and uneven, with courts frequently deferring to universities as private actors and declining to apply Charter scrutiny to restrictions on campus expression and assembly. This deference limits access to effective remedies for violations of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, particularly in the context of campus protests, resulting in inconsistent protection across provinces.

Articles 19, 26 & 27 (freedom of expression; equality; minority rights): Academic freedom is further constrained by institutional governance practices, donor influence, and unequal access to protections. Unionized faculty benefit from collective agreement safeguards, while students, contract instructors, and non-unionized staff often lack effective remedies. In Quebec, proposed constitutional reforms and the implementation of Bill 32 raise additional concerns regarding linguistic minority rights, equality, and the narrowing of academic freedom through vague definitions and ministerial oversight.

Articles 9, 14 & 2(3) (liberty; fair trial; effective remedy): Canada’s post-conviction framework for addressing wrongful convictions relies on exceptional and discretionary mechanisms rather than a rights-based system. Access to case re-opening under s. 696.1 of the Criminal Code is controlled by executive review within the Department of Justice, with no direct right to independent judicial reconsideration upon discovery of new evidence of innocence, limiting effective access to remedies and judicial protection against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

Articles 14 & 9 (fair trial; liberty): Canada lacks enforceable legal rights to post-conviction DNA testing, uniform preservation of biological evidence, and post-conviction access to police and investigative files. Evidence retention practices vary across jurisdictions, there is no mandatory minimum retention period, and post-conviction disclosure is discretionary and inconsistent, impairing the ability of incarcerated persons to establish innocence through scientific or newly discovered evidence.

Articles 2(3), 9 & 26 (effective remedy; liberty; equality): Compensation for wrongful conviction is ad hoc and non-statutory, with no uniform entitlement, eligibility criteria, or procedures, resulting in unequal outcomes for exonerated persons. Preventive safeguards—such as mandatory recording of interrogations and scientifically validated eyewitness identification procedures—are not required by law, relying instead on judicial guidance and non-binding practices, contributing to continued risk of wrongful conviction and unequal protection before the law.

National Human Rights Institutions

• Right to life, dignity, and socio-economic conditions (Arts. 1, 6; also 2, 26): Medical assistance in dying, homelessness and encampments, and climate impacts expose systemic failures to protect life where people—especially persons with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, and those in poverty—lack access to housing, health care, supports, and safe living conditions.

• Indigenous peoples’ rights and self-determination (Arts. 1, 2, 24, 26): Ongoing inequities in services, discrimination under the Indian Act, slow implementation of UNDRIP, TRC Calls to Action, and MMIWG Calls for Justice, and the persistence of forced or coerced sterilization undermine equality, dignity, and access to justice.

• Deprivation of liberty and detention conditions (Arts. 2, 7, 9, 10, 14, 26): Over-incarceration, racial profiling, deaths in custody, de facto solitary confinement through SIUs, inadequate mental health care, institutionalization of persons with disabilities, and failure to ratify OPCAT violate liberty, humane treatment, and effective remedy obligations.

• Equality and non-discrimination across systems (Arts. 2, 3, 26): Systemic discrimination affects Indigenous peoples, Black and racialized communities, persons with disabilities, women, 2SLGBTQI+ persons, migrants, and older persons across policing, prisons, health care, housing, employment, and social protection.

• Democratic participation and civic space (Arts. 19, 20, 25, 26): Barriers to accessible voting for persons with disabilities, rising online hate, religious intolerance (including the impacts of Quebec’s secularism law), and discrimination based on gender identity and expression restrict participation, expression, and equality.

• Migration, technology, and implementation gaps (Arts. 2, 9, 12, 14, 17, 19, 26): Immigration detention remains arbitrary and discriminatory, AI and digital technologies risk amplifying bias without effective governance, and Canada lacks a coordinated national framework to implement and monitor international human rights obligations and Committee recommendations.

• Arbitrary detention under the Adult Guardianship Act (Art. 9): Emergency powers under s.59 of the AGA are used to detain adults against their will, sometimes for weeks or months, without clear legal authority, time limits, or safeguards against arbitrariness, contrary to Article 9 and General Comment No. 35.

• Lack of procedural protections and access to justice (Arts. 9, 14): Detained adults are frequently not given timely or written reasons for detention, meaningful notice of rights, access to counsel, or any prompt mechanism to challenge the legality of their detention, including habeas corpus.

• Absence of oversight, transparency, and data (Arts. 2(3), 9): There is no independent oversight body, no mandatory reporting, no provincial data standards, and no regular public reporting on detentions under the AGA, undermining accountability and effective remedies.

• Unlawful and extended detentions beyond emergencies (Art. 9): Detentions continue after any genuine emergency has passed, are used for care planning or risk management rather than imminent harm, and occur without seeking court authorization, as illustrated by A.H. v. Fraser Health Authority.

• Discriminatory impacts on marginalized groups (Art. 26): Detention practices disproportionately affect seniors, unhoused people, and persons with disabilities, including those with mental health or substance use issues, resulting in systemic discrimination.

• Anti-Indigenous discrimination (Arts. 2(1), 26; also 24, 25): Indigenous peoples in Ontario face persistent systemic discrimination across child welfare, health care, policing, corrections, and access to services, reflecting ongoing colonial harms and insufficient implementation of reconciliation obligations.

• Indigenous children and child welfare (Arts. 2(1), 24, 26): Indigenous children remain grossly over-represented in child welfare investigations and out-of-home placements, driven by systemic bias, poverty-related surveillance, and inadequate, non-transparent race-based data collection.

• Criminal justice and policing (Arts. 2(3), 6, 7, 9, 14, 26): Racial profiling, disproportionate use of force, and systemic anti-Black and anti-Indigenous discrimination persist in policing and corrections, undermining equality, liberty, security of the person, and access to effective remedies.

• Detention and solitary confinement (Arts. 7, 9, 10): Continued use of prolonged segregation, particularly of people with mental health disabilities, constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and arbitrary detention despite binding legal limits.

• Hate, creed, and emerging discrimination (Arts. 2(1), 18, 20, 26): Rising hate incidents, creed-based discrimination, and the rapid deployment of artificial intelligence threaten equality, freedom of religion, privacy, and non-discrimination without adequate human rights safeguards.

• Gender-based violence (Arts. 2(1), 3, 7, 26): Sexual and gender-based harassment and violence disproportionately affect women, Indigenous women, 2SLGBTQ+ people, and persons with disabilities, forming a continuum of discrimination that threatens life, security, and substantive equality.

• Encampments, homelessness, and the right to life (Arts. 2(1), 6, 7, 21, 26): Forced encampment evictions, inadequate and inaccessible shelters, and denial of basic services place unhoused people—particularly Indigenous, disabled, and gender-diverse individuals—at serious risk to life, security, and dignity, and violate a human-rights-based approach to housing and public space.

• Implementation and remedies (Arts 2(1)–(3), 25, 26): absence of a coherent national framework for implementing ICCPR obligations results in inconsistent protection of rights across federal, provincial, and territorial jurisdictions and weak accountability to rights holders.

• National mechanism for implementation and follow-up (Arts 2(1)–(3)): lack of a legislated, adequately resourced National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up (NMIRF) leaves coordination informal, opaque, and ineffective, despite decades of UN recommendations.

• Federalism and accountability (Arts 2(1), 50): reliance on federalism to deflect responsibility enables uneven compliance across provinces and territories, including outright denial of binding ICCPR obligations by some jurisdictions.

• Transparency, data, and monitoring (Arts 2(1)–(3), 26): failure to track, publish, and measure implementation of UN recommendations—through indicators, timelines, and disaggregated data—prevents meaningful assessment of compliance and equality impacts.

• Civil society and Indigenous participation (Arts 2(3), 25, 27): absence of structured, funded, and ongoing engagement with civil society and Indigenous peoples limits participation in implementation processes and undermines democratic legitimacy.

• Access to justice and domestic effect (Arts 2(3), 14): insufficient legal pathways and institutional support to give domestic effect to Covenant rights restrict access to effective remedies under the Charter and other domestic law.