¹ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, GA Res. 2200/A (XXI), 999 U.N.T.S. 171 [hereinafter ICCPR].

² Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, GA Res. 2200/A (XXI), 999 U.N.T.S. 302.

³ The ICCPR entered into force after the deposit of thirty-five instruments of ratification (Article 49) on March 23, 1976.

⁴ The Canadian government, after obtaining the support of the provinces, acceded to the ICCPR in May 1976 (see Privy Council Decision no. 1976–1156). The ICCPR formally entered into force in August 1976.

⁵ In general terms, the rights and freedoms set out in Parts 1 and 3 of the ICCPR, supra note 1, cover the right of all people to self-determination (Article 1 ); the right to life (Article 6); the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 7); the prohibition of slavery, servitude, and forced or compulsory labour (Article 8); the liberty and security of the person (Article 9); the humane treatment of persons deprived of their liberty (Article 10); non-imprisonment for failure to fulfil a contractual obligation (Article 11); freedom of movement and residence (Article 12); the non-expulsion of aliens lawfully in the territory of a state party (Article 13); the right to a fair trial (Article 14); the prohibition of the retroactive application of criminal law (Article 15); equal recognition of persons before the law (Article 16); the right to privacy (Article 17); freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (freedom 18); freedom of opinion and expression (Article 19); the prohibition of propaganda for war or advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred (Article 20); the right to peaceful assembly (Article 21); the right to freedom of association (Article 22); rights relating to the protection of the family and children (Articles 23 and 24); certain political rights of citizens (Article 25); equality before the law and equal protection of the law (Article 26); and rights of ethnic, religious, and lin-guistic minorities (Article 27).

⁶ Article 50 of the ICCPR stipulates that the provisions of the ICCPR apply to all parts of federal states.

⁷ ICCPR, supra note 1 at Article 2(2). Article 2(2) does not require that a party incorporate the ICCPR into its law. See Human Rights Committee [hereinafter HRC], General Comment 3, HRI/Gen/1 /Rev.3 ( 1997), para. 1 as well as the committee decision in A. and S.N. v. Norway, Comm. No. 224/1987, para. 6.2. See also Harris, D., “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Kingdom: An Introduction,” in Harris, D. and Joseph, S., eds., The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and United Kingdom Law (Oxford, 1195 1 at 5.Google Scholar

⁸ Article 2(3) of the ICCPR provides:

Each State Party to the Covenant undertakes:

• (a)

  (a) To ensure that any person whose rights and freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;

• (b)

  (b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities ofjudicial remedy;

• (c)

  (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

For further discussion of Article 2 (3), see Walker, W. M., “The Remedies of Law of the ICCPR: Current Trends and a Conceptual Framework for the Future” (1988) 20 N.Y.U.J. Int’l L. & P. 525.Google Scholar

⁹ Article 28 provides for the establishment of the HRC. For discussion of the composition and role of the HRC, see McGoldrick, D., The Human Rights Committee:Its Role in the Development of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Oxford, 1996), 44–55.Google Scholar The committee’s two main functions are to consider reports from, and complaints against, state parties. While the former is obligatory for all states parties, the latter is optional and exists in two forms: interstate communications under the ICCPR (Article 41) and individual communications under the Optional Protocol. On October 29, 1979, Canada made a declaration pursuant to Article 41 of the ICCPR accepting the committee’s jurisdiction over interstate complaints. Canada’s declaration is subject to a condition of reciprocity. Thus, Canada will only accept petitions directed against it if the petitioning state has made a similar declaration at least twelve months earlier. See ( 1979) 1147 U.N.T.S. 316.

¹⁰ For discussion of federal and provincial governmental participation in the reporting procedure as set out in Article 4o of the ICCPR, see Turp, D., “La preparation des rapports periodiques du Canada en application des traites relatifs aux droits et libertes” (1986) 23 C.Y.I.L. 161.Google Scholar

¹¹ For a general overview of the reporting obligation, see Opsahl, T., “The Human Rights Committee,” in Alston, P., ed., The United Nations and Human Rights (Oxford, 1992), 369 at 397–419Google Scholar; McGoldrick, supra note 9 at 62–104; and Nowak, M., United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (Kehl 1993) at 546–76.Google Scholar

¹² ICCPR, supra note 1 at Article 4o. Subsequent periodic reports are usually requested every five years. The five-year periodicity is a matter of practice that can be changed. See HRC, Decision on Periodicity, Doc. A/ 36/4o, Ax. V., amended by Decision on Periodicity, Doc. A/374o, Ax.IV, CCPR/C/ 19/Rev. 1 (July 22, 1981), as amended on July 28, 1982, August 26, 1982. For subsequent periodic reports, the committee has adopted a practice of stating, at the end of its con-cluding observations, a date by which the following periodic report should be submitted. See Consolidated Guidelines for State Reports under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, CCPR/C/66/GUI/Rev. 2, at para B.2 (the consolidated guidelines replace all earlier versions of the reports issued by the committee, which are effective after December 31, 1999) [hereinafter Consolidated Guidelines]. A procedure also exists for special reports in cases of emergency. See Report of the Human Rights Committee to the General Assembly, A/ 49/4o, vol. 1, paras. 45–7 as well as p. 111 [hereinafter Report of the HRC]; and Rule 66 of the Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee, CCPR/C/3/Rev.5, 13–14 [hereinafter Rules of Procedure].

¹³ ICCPR, supra note 1 at Article 40(1).

¹⁴ Ibid. at Article 40 (2). See also Rule 66 (1) of the Rules of Procedure, supra note 12, and Article C.4 of the Consolidated Guidelines, supra note 12, elaborating that reports “should explain the nature and extent of, and reasons for every such factor and difficulty, if any such exist; and should give details of the steps taken to overcome these.”

¹⁵ Consolidated Guidelines, supra note 12 at Article D. 1

¹⁶ Ibid. at Article D.2.1.

¹⁷ Ibid. at Article D. 2.2.

¹⁸ Ibid. at Article D.2.3.

¹⁹ Ibid. at Article D.2.4.

²⁰ Ibid. at Article E.1 . From a structural point of view, the reports should follow the articles of the ICCPR. See ibid. at Article E.2.

²¹ Ibid. at Article E.4.

²² Ibid.

²³ Ibid. at Article G.1.

²⁴ State parties are supplied in advance with a list of issues that will be addressed by the HRC during the consideration of their report (ibid. at Article G.2). The committee guidelines suggest that a state party’s delegation should be composed of persons who possess the required knowledge and competence to adequately respond to the HRC’s questions and comments (Ibid. at Article G.3).

²⁵ Rules of Procedure, supra note 12 at 14.

²⁶ ICCPR, supra note 1 at Article 40(4). See also Rule 70(3) of the Rules of Procedure, supra note 12 at 15, and of the Consolidated Guidelines, supra note 12 at Article G.4.

²⁷ The observations of the HRC are additional to the comments made by individual members. The committee’s concluding observations are included in the HRC’s reports to the General Assembly. The committee’s concluding observations provide a general evaluation of a state party’s report. The observations make note of positive developments that may have occurred during the period under review, factors and difficulties affecting the implementation of the ICCPR, and specific issues of concern relating to the application of the provisions of the ICCPR. They also include suggestions and recommendations to the state party concerned. See Consolidated Guidelines, supra note 12 at Article G.4.

²⁸ See ibid. at Article E.1.

²⁹ Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant, Initial Reports of States Parties Due in 1977 — Canada, CCPR/C/1/Add. 43 [hereinafter First Report]. The report was examined March 25, 26, and 28, 1979. Summary Records of the Human Rights Committee, CCPR/C/SR 205–8 and 211 [hereinafter First Examination].

³⁰ Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant, Initial Reports of States Parties Due in 1977 — Canada, CCPR/C/1/Add. 62 [hereinafter Supplementary Report]. The report was examined October 31 and November 1 and 2, 1984. Summary Record of the Human Rights Committee, CCPR/C/SR 558–60 and 562 [hereinafter Supplementary Examination]. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 [hereinafter Charter].

³¹ Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant, Second Periodic Reports of States Parties Due in 1988 — Canada, CCPR/C/51/Add. 1 [hereinafter Second Report].

³² Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant, Third Periodic Reports of States Parties Due in 1990 — Canada, CCPR/C/64/Adda [hereinafter Third Report]. The Third Report was submitted, at the request of the United Nations Secretariat, as an update of the second report.

³³ Canada’s second and third reports were examined together on October 23 and 24, 1990. Summary Record of the Human Rights Committee, CCPR/C/SR 1010–13 [hereinafter Second and Third Examinations].

³⁴ Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant, Fourth Periodic Reports of States Parties Due in 1995 — Canada, CCPR/C/ 1o3/Add.5 [hereinafter Fourth Report]. The Fourth Report was examined on March 26, 1999. Summary Record of the Human Rights Committee, CCPR/SR. 1737–8 [hereinafter Fourth Examination]. The HRC’s concluding observations were adopted on April 6, 1999. Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Canada, CCPR/C/79/Add. 1o5 [hereinafter Concluding Observations].

³⁵ For a summary of the HRC’s consideration of Canada’s first report, see Report of the Human Rights Committee to the General Assembly, A/35/40, paras. 154–96.

³⁶ First Report, supra note 29 at 3.

³⁷ Ibid. In responding to questions raised by HRC members, the Canadian delegate clarified that “[u]nder the Canadian Constitution, international agreements were concluded by the federal Government” (the Governor General acting on the advice of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet) “but international agreements did not alter domestic law. If the federal law had to be amended in order to comply with an international obligation, it lay with Parliament to legislate for that purpose. If the subject of the law to be changed was within provincial jurisdiction, only the provincial legislatures had the power to make the amendments required” (First Examination, supra note 29 at 211, para.3).

³⁸ First Report, supra note 29 at 5. See also Supplementary Report, supra note 30 at question 2.

³⁹ First Report, supra note 29.

⁴⁰ Ibid. at 6.

⁴¹ Ibid.

⁴² See, for example, First Examination, supra note 29 at 205, paras. 17, 33, and 47; at 206, paras. 4, 13, 25, and 43; at 207, paras. 1, 19, 29, and 33; and at 208, para. 1.

⁴³ See ibid. at 205, para. 21; and at 208, para. 1.

⁴⁴ ICCPR, supra note 1 at Article 1 states that

• 1.

  1. All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

• 2.

  2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own subsidence.

• 3.

  3. The State Parties to the present Covenant … shall promote the realization of the right to self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

⁴⁵ See First Examination, supra note 29 at 205, para. 23; and at 206, para. 26.

⁴⁶ See ibid. at 205, paras. 23 and 35; at 206, para. 3; at 207, para. 21; and at 208, para. 3. For the response of the Canadian delegation, see First Examination, supra note 29 at 211, para. 10. The supplementary report submitted by Canada did not address the question of Canadian compliance with Article 1 of the ICCPR (see Supplementary Report, supra note 30). During discussions of this report, M. Al Douri maintained that it was regrettable that “the Canadian Government had not seen fit to devote more attention either in the initial or the supplementary report to Article 1 of the Covenant” (Supplementary Examination, supra note 30 at 559, para. 40). In responding to this criticism, the Canadian representative maintained that the “Canadian attitude to Article 1 of the Covenant had been fully covered in the initial report” (Supplementary Examination, supra note 30 at 559, para. 44).

⁴⁷ Articles 2 and 26 of the ICCPR prohibit discrimination “on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, birth or other status.” For HRC criticism, see First Examination, supra note 29 at 206, paras. 2, 15, 27, and 28; at 207, para. 6; and at 208, para. 2. Concern was particularly shown over the fact that political opinions were not among the prohibited grounds of discrimination in Canada. See First Examination, supra note 29 at 2o5, para. 24; at 206, paras.1o, 17, and 36; and at 207, para. 6. For the Canadian response, see First Examination, supra note 29 at 211, para. 9; and Supplementary Report, supra note 3o at 62. See also Yearbook of the Human Rights Committee 1985–6, CCPR/5/Add. 1, at 41–2 and 63; and Supplementary Examination, supra note 3o at 562, para. 32.

⁴⁸ ICCPR, supra note 1 at Article 14(6), provides that

when a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his convictions have been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage ofjustice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attribut-able to him.

⁴⁹ Questions of non-compliance with Article 14(7) of the ICCPR were also raised as it appeared possible that, in Canada, if Parliament so chose, a person could be convicted twice for the same offence. Article 14(7) of the ICCPR states that “no one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.” For HRC inquiries, see First Examination, supra note 29 at 205, paras. 30, 55, and 59; at 206, paras. 23, 30, and 50; and at 207, para. 13. For the Canadian response, see Supplementary Report, supra note 30 at 62, para. 61; Supplementary Examination, supra note 30 at 562, para. 25.

⁵⁰ War Measures Act, S.C. 1914, Sess. 2, c. 2.

⁵¹ Article 4 of the ICCPR deals with permissible derogations to ICCPR obligations in times of public emergencies. For HRC discussions, see First Examination, supra note 29 at 205, para. 25; and at 208, para. 4.

⁵² Article 9(2) of the ICCPR posits that “anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.” For the HRC’s inquiries, see First Examination, supra note 29 at 205, paras. 27 and 40; at 206, para. 48; and at 207, paras. 10 and 32. See also Supplementary Examination, supra note 3o at 562, para. 31. For the Canadian position, see First Examination, supra note 29 at 211, para. 46; Supplementary Report, supra note 30 at 62, para. 52.

⁵³ Article 20(1) of the ICCPR sets out that “any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.” For HRC comments, see First Examination, supra note 29 at 205, para. 62; at 206, paras. 7, 32, and 39; and at 207, paras. 3 and 27. For the Canadian position, see Supplementary Report, supra note 30 at 62, para. 65; Supplementary Examination, supra note 30 at 562, para. 45.

⁵⁴ Article 15 of the ICCPR expressly prohibits retroactive criminal laws. For the HRC’s comments see First Examination, supra note 29 at 2o5, paras. 43 and 60; and at 207, para. 25. For the Canadian response, see Supplementary Report, supra note 30 at 62, paras. 61–2.

⁵⁵ See First Examination, supra note 29 at 206, paras. 15, and 26; at 207, para. 28. See also Supplementary Examination, supra note 3o at 56o, paras. 23 and 37. For Canadian explanations, see Supplementary Report, supra note 30 at 62, paras. 69–70.

⁵⁶ See First Examination, supra note 29 at 206, paras. 12, 51; at 207, paras. 28, 31. See also Supplementary Examination, supra note 30 at 560, para. 24. For the Canadian response, see First Examination, supra note 29 at 211, paras. 11–24; Supplementary Report, supra note 30 at 62, paras. 70–3; Supplementary Examination, supra note 30 at 562, paras. 24, 41–4.

⁵⁷ See First Examination, supra note 29 at 205, para. 35; at 207, paras. 4, 37.

⁵⁸ For an account of the issues raised during the HRC’s examination of Canada’s supplementary report, see Report of the Human Rights Committee to the General Assembly, A/4o/4o, at paras. 176–250.

⁵⁹ See Supplementary Report, supra note 30.

⁶⁰ See Supplementary Examination, supra note 30 at 558, paras. 5–7. Section 2 of the Charter (recognition of fundamental freedoms) corresponds generally to the provisions of Articles 18, 19, 21, and 22 of the ICCPR. Sections 3 to 5 of the Charter (guarantee of democratic rights) correspond to Article 25 of the ICCPR. Section 6 of the Charter (guarantee of freedom of movement and residence) has its counterpart in Article 12 of the ICCPR. Sections 7 to 14 of the Charter (guarantee of legal rights) are comparable to Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, and 15 of the ICCPR. Section 15 of the Charter (recognition of the right to equality) is the counterpart of Article 26 of the ICCPR. As for Articles 16 to 22 (status and use of French and English languages) and 23 (educational rights), they con-tribute to the implementation of Articles 26 and 27 of the ICCPR.

⁶¹ Supplementary Examination, supra note 3o at 558, para. 12.

⁶² In its supplementary report, the federal government addressed the question of what would be the international and domestic implications if Canada did not carry out the obligations it had assumed in acceding to the treaty (See Supplementary Report, supra note 30 at 62, para. 40, question 5). It set out that, from a domestic point of view, if Canada did not give effect to the provisions of the treaty, individuals who had suffered as a result could submit written communica-tions to the HRC. However, if Canada ignored its international obligations, notwithstanding its accession to the ICCPR and the Optional Protocol, the only remedy available would be of a “political” nature. Pressure could be put on the federal and provincial governments to comply with their respective undertak-ings. In international law, failure by Canada to comply with the undertakings given by it in acceding to the ICCPR would imply that a communication could be submitted against Canada by an individual (under the protocol) or by a state (pursuant to Article 41 of the ICCPR). It would also be possible for a state member of the United Nations to bring the question of Canada’s failure to comply with its obligations under the ICCPR to the attention of the General Assembly. Possibly, Canada’s non-compliance with its obligations under the ICCPR could also confer on other states that were parties to the treaty, the right to seek compensation from Canada for damages resulting from such non-compliance.

⁶³ See Supplementary Examination, supra note 30.

⁶⁴ See Supplementary Examination, supra note 30 at 558, paras. 43, 44, and 49; at 559, paras. 3, 8. For the Canadian position, see Supplementary Examination, supra note 30 at 559, paras. 34–5.

⁶⁵ See Ibid. at 558, paras. 35 and 43. For the Canadian response, see Ibid. at 559, paras. 25–6.

⁶⁶ See Ibid. at 558, paras. 46, 49; Ibid. at 561, para. 37.

⁶⁷ Section 33 of the Charter states that “Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.”

⁶⁸ See Supplementary Examination, supra note 30 at 558, paras. 48, 50; at 559, paras. 9, 11. For the Canadian justification for inclusion of section 33, see Supplementary Examination, supra note 30 at 559, paras. 27–9. The Canadian representative sought to appease the worries of the HRC by affirming that

⁶⁹ The state parties to the ICCPR have the right, in certain circumstances, to take measures derogating from the obligations they assumed by adhering to the treaty. Article 4 of the ICCPR states that

• 1.

  1. In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Convention may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

• 2.

  2. No derogation from Articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.

For a discussion on Article 4, see Fitzpatrick, J., Human Rights in Crisis: TheInternational System for Protecting Rights during States of Emergency (Philadelphia, 1994) at 88–105.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See also HRC, General Comment 5, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.3 (1997), where the HRC stated that

• 1.

  1. Article 4 of the Covenant has posed a number of problems for the Committee when considering reports from States parties. When a public emergency which threatens the life of a nation arises and it is officially proclaimed, a State party may derogate from a number of rights to the extent strictly required by the situation. The State party, however, may not derogate from certain specific rights and may not take discriminatory measures on a number of grounds. The State party is also under an obligation to inform the other States parties immediately, through the Secretary-General, of the derogations it has made including the reasons therefore and the date on which the derogations are terminated …

• 3.

  3. The Committee holds the view that measures taken under Article 4 are of an exceptional and temporary nature and may only last as long as the life of the nation concerned is threatened and that, in times of emergency, the protection of human rights becomes all the more important, particularly those rights from which no derogations can be made. The Committee also considers that it is equally important for States parties, in times of public emergency, to inform the other States parties of the nature and extent of the derogations they have made and of the reasons therefore and, further, to fulfil their reporting obligations under Article 40 of the Covenant by indicating the nature and extent of each right derogated from together with the relevant documentation.

⁷¹ For a summary of the issues raised during a review of Canada’s second and third reports, see Report of the Human Rights Committee to the General Assembly, A/46/40, paras. 45–101 [hereinafter Report of the HRC].

⁷² Third Report, supra note 32 at 1, para. 10.

⁷³ Ibid. at para. 144.

⁷⁴ Ibid. at para. 145.

⁷⁵ Ibid. at para. 327.

⁷⁶ Ibid. at para. 11.

⁷⁷ Ibid. at para. 149 and Second and Third Examinations, supra note 33 at 1010, para. 68. Canadian Multiculturalism Act, S.C. 1988, c. 31.

⁷⁸ See, for example, Second and Third Examinations, supra note 33 at 1010, paras. 61, 62, 69; and at 1013, paras. 13, 17, 30, and 31.

⁷⁹ See Second and Third Examinations, supra note 33 at 1013, para. 21. After reading both reports, the HRC distributed a series of questions to the Canadian representatives. These questions were to be answered during oral discussions. Two inquiries targeted the issue of self-governance. The committee, referring to paragraph 1o of the second report, wanted to know if there had been progress in the effort to reach agreement on providing a constitutional basis for self-government by aboriginal people. With reference to paragraph 63 of the third report, the committee also wanted explanations on the content of the self-government proposals being negotiated with Indian communities as well as an estimation of the prospects for a successful outcome of those negotiations. See Second Report, supra note 31 at 1; and Third Report, supra note 32 at 1. For Canada’s response to these questions, see Second and Third Examinations, supra note 33 at 1010, para. 32; at 1012, paras. 24–5; at 1013, paras. 5–7.

⁸⁰ See Report of the HRC, supra note 71 at 25 and Second and Third Examinations, supra note 33 at 1013, para. 24.

⁸¹ In its second report, under the heading of Article 1, Canada had simply stated that it subscribed to the principles set forth in the article. See Second Report, supra note 31 at 1, para. 12. For criticism of the lack of information provided by the Canadian government on the implementation of Article 1, see Second and Third Examinations, supra note 33 at 1010, paras. 46, 48, and 65; at 1013, paras. 35, 36. In reply to these criticisms, the Canadian representative stated that the issue of the implementation of Article 1 “had been adequately dealt with in Canada’s initial report and the supplementary information submitted with it.” While agreeing that the government “could have updated the information provided in the early reports,” he “nevertheless felt that there were a number of other sources from which the Committee could have obtained the information requested.” See Second and Third Examinations, supra note 33 at 1010, para. 82.

⁸² See, for example, Second and Third Examinations, supra note 33 at 1011, paras. 9, 10, 11, 16, 39, and 60; at 1013, paras. 17, 19, 31, and 36. For the Canadian response, see Second and Third Examinations, supra note 33 at 1o11, paras. 18, 19, 20.

⁸³ See ibid. at 1011, paras. 84, 85; at 1013, paras. 31, 39. For the Canadian position on this question, see ibid. at 1011, para. 86.

⁸⁴ See, for example, ibid. at 1013, paras. 20, 27.

⁸⁵ See, for example, Ibid. at 1010, paras. 53, 67, 69, 92, and 98; at 1013, paras. 13, 17, 33, and 36. For the Canadian response, see ibid. at 1011, para. 3.

⁸⁶ Committee member Aguilar Urbina stated that “the derogation clause provided in Article 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms … went further than what was provided for in Article 4 of the ICCPR (ibid. at 1013, para. 13). As for Mrs. Higgins, she explained that she “shared the opinions expressed by most members of the Committee on the subject of Article 33 … which provided for a derogation clause that did not appear to be compatible with Article 4 of the ICCPR (ibid. at para. 18).

⁸⁷ See ibid. at 1010, para. 55; at 1013, para. 22.

⁸⁸ See, for example, ibid. at 1010, para. 41; at 1013, paras. 12, 25.

⁸⁹ See, for example, ibid. at 1010, paras. 44, 46, 53, 62, 66, and 97.

⁹⁰ See ibid. at 1013, paras. 14, 23, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, and 40.

⁹¹ See Fourth Report, supra note 34 at 5. Canada’s fourth report covers the period from 199o to 1994. Given the lapse of time since the period covered by the Fourth Report and examination of the report by the HRC, Canada provided information to the committee highlighting some recent developments relating to the implementation of the ICCPR. See Advanced Notes for the Presentation to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, available at <www.pch.gc.ca//ddp-hrd/english/AdnotesE.htm> [hereinafter Advanced Notes].

⁹² Fourth Report, supra note 34 at 5, para. 4.

⁹³ Ibid.

⁹⁴ Ibid. at para. 5.

⁹⁵ Ibid. at para.22.

⁹⁶ Ibid.

⁹⁷ See, for example, Second and Third Examinations, supra note 33 at 1010, para. 43; at 1011, para. 7.

⁹⁸ Fourth Report, supra note 34 at 5, para. 30.

⁹⁹ See, for example, Second and Third Examinations, supra note 33 at 1010, para. 90.

¹⁰⁰ Emergencies Act, S.C. 1988, c. 29.

¹⁰¹ Fourth Report, supra note 34 at 5, para. 37.

¹⁰² Ibid. at para. 275.

¹⁰³ Ibid. at paras. 276–8.

¹⁰⁴ Ibid. at paras. 290–3.

¹⁰⁵ Ibid. at para. 3oo. See also Advanced Notes, supra note 91 at 13. Nunavut Act, S.C. 1993, c. 28.

¹⁰⁶ Fourth Report, supra note 34 at 5, para. 289.

¹⁰⁷ Ibid. at para. 288.

¹⁰⁸ Ibid. at para. 6. See also paragraph 299 where the government elaborates that a policy framework is being developed for negotiations on implementation of the right of self-government, which may involve treaties and constitutional status. This process is said to replace the community-based self-government process described in previous reports.

¹⁰⁹ Ibid.

¹¹⁰ Ibid. at para. 287.

¹¹¹ Ibid.

¹¹² Advanced Notes, supra note 91 at 12.

¹¹³ Fourth Report, supra note 34 at 5, para. 20.

¹¹⁴ Ibid. at paras. 33–4.

¹¹⁵ Ibid. at para. 34.

¹¹⁶ Concluding Observations, supra note 34.

¹¹⁷ Ibid. at para 3.

¹¹⁸ Ibid. For discussion of this issue within the Canadian report, see Fourth Report, supra note 34 at 5, paras. 17–19.

¹¹⁹ Concluding Observations, supra note 34 at para. 4.

¹²⁰ Ibid. at para. 5.

¹²¹ Ibid. at para. 6. For details of the act, see Advanced Notes, supra note 91 at 8–9. Employment Equity Act, R.S.C. 1995, c. 44.

¹²² See, for example, the statements of Elizabeth Evatt and Roman Wieruszewski in Human Rights Committee Begins Consideration of Canada’s Fourth Periodic Report, HR/CT/529 at 8.

¹²³ Concluding Observations, supra note 34 at para. 7.

¹²⁴ Ibid. at para. 8.

¹²⁵ Ibid.

¹²⁶ Ibid. at para. 11.

¹²⁷ Ibid. at para. 19. After noting that the Indian status of women who had lost status because of marriage was reinstated in 1985 following amendments to the Indian Act, the HRC affirmed that these amendments seemed insufficient as they affected only women and their children, not subsequent generations. It thus recommended that the issue of denial of membership be further looked into (ibid.). For further discussion of this issue, see the HRC decision in Lovelace, Comm. no. 24/1977, Sel. Decs. vol. 1 at 83.

¹²⁸ Concluding Observations, supra note 34. The HRC recommended that human rights legislation be amended in order to guarantee access to a competent tribunal and to an effective remedy in all cases of discrimination (ibid.).

¹²⁹ Ibid. at para. 10. In order to ensure full implementation of ICCPR rights, the HRC recommended that consideration be given to the establishment of a public body responsible for overseeing implementation of the ICCPR and for reporting on any deficiencies (ibid.)

¹³⁰ Ibid. at para. 14. The HRC “urged” Canada to revise its policy of compliance “so as to ensure that all such requests are heeded” (ibid.). The HRC decision of Nq, Comm. no. 469/1991, in Report of the Human Rights Committee to the General Assembly, A/49/40 at 189 provides one example of Canadian non-compliance. In Nq, despite a request for a stay from the committee, the author of the communication was extradited to the United States. Canada was never able to comply with the committee’s view that the author’s extradition would constitute a violation of Article 7 of the ICCPR, since extradition had already occurred when the decision was rendered (Report of the HRC, supra note 12 at para. 7).

¹³¹ Ibid. at para. 13. After referring to its general comment on Article 7, the HRC recommended that Canada revise its policy “in order to comply with the requirements of Article 7 and to meet its obligation never to expel, extradite, deport or otherwise remove a person to a place where treatment or punishment that is contrary to Article 7 is a substantial risk” (ibid.).

¹³² Ibid. at para. 15.

¹³³ Ibid. at para. 16. The HRC recommended that all practices intruding on the right of privacy be eliminated (ibid.).

¹³⁴ Ibid. at para. 17. Reference was made to the Act to Prevent Unionization with Respect to Community Participation under the Ontario Works Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 25, which was passed by the Ontario legislature. Such legislation was said to affect implementation of Article 22 of the ICCPR (ibid.).

¹³⁵ Ibid. at para. 18. This could lead to non-compliance with section 24 of the ICCPR (ibid.).

¹³⁶ Ibid. at para 12. Canada was asked to take whatever positive measures were necessary to address the problem of homelessness, as was required by Article 6 of the ICCPR (ibid.).

¹³⁷ Ibid. at para. 20. The HRC recommended that Canada assess the impact on women of recent changes in social programs and that action be undertaken to redress any discriminatory effects of these changes (ibid.).

¹³⁸ See Supplementary Examination, supra note 3o. See also the HRC’s decision in McIntyre, Comm. nos. 359/1989 and 385/1989, in Report of the Human Rights Committee to the General Assembly, A/48/4o, paras. 7.2–7.3 and 10.2–10.3.

¹³⁹ See Fourth Report, supra note 34 at 5.

¹⁴⁰ See ibid. at paras. 29, 65, 69, 81, and 111.

¹⁴¹ See, for example, the HRC’s comments in Information Service, Human Rights Committee Concludes Consideration of Reports of Canada, Press Release HR/2664, October 1990, at p. 7.

¹⁴² This date was set by the HRC at the end of its concluding observations. See Concluding Observations, supra note 34 at para. 21.

¹⁴³ These areas have been singled out because they have been the subject of numerous HRC criticisms throughout the years.

¹⁴⁴ In its concluding observations, the HRC expressed concern over the fact that the Canadian delegation (despite its large numbers) was unable to furnish the necessary information in regard to compliance with the ICCPR by the provincial authorities. See Concluding Observations, supra note 34 at para. 2.