UN Human Rights Treaties

UNITED NATIONS
E
Economic and Social
Council
Distr.GENERAL
E/C.12/36/3
25 April 2006
ENGLISH ONLY
COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL
AND CULTURAL RIGHTS
Thirty-sixth session
Geneva, 1-19 May 2006
Compilation of Summaries of Canadian NGO Submissions
to the
UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
in Connection with the Consideration of the
Fourth and Fifth Periodic Reports of Canada *
March 31, 2006
* In accordance with the information transmitted to States parties regarding the processing of their reports,
the present document was not formally edited before being sent to the United Nations translation services.
GE.06-41441
E/C.12/36/3
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................5
JOINT SUBMISSIONS .....................................................................................................................6
Available Resources and Retrogressive Measures .........................................................................6
Restructuring Fiscal Arrangements ................................................................................................6
No Process for Follow-up on Review or Ongoing Domestic Review of ICESCR Compliance ....7
ACTO – ADVOCACY CENTRE FOR TENANTS IN ONTARIO .................................................9
CERA – CENTRE FOR EQUALITY RIGHTS IN ACCOMMODATION .....................................9
The Right to Adequate Housing in Canada: Article 11(1).............................................................9
1. No National Housing Strategy ...............................................................................................9
2. Failure to Implement Affordable Housing Program ..............................................................9
3. Homelessness .......................................................................................................................10
4. Forced Eviction and Lack of Security of Tenure Provisions ...............................................10
5. Inadequate Shelter Allowance Rates ....................................................................................11
6. Failure of Human Rights Legislation to Give Claimants Access to a Hearing....................11
ALTERNATIVES NORTH .............................................................................................................12
The National Child Benefit Supplement (Article 9).....................................................................12
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL.....................................................................................................14
1. THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES – ICESCR ARTICLES 1, 2, 9, 10, 15 ...........14
2. THE RIGHTS OF MIGRANTS – ICESCR ARTICLES 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12.............................15
3. UPHOLDING ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS ABROAD – ICESCR
ARTICLE 2 .................................................................................................................................15
4. PRIVATE COMPANIES - ICESCR ARTICLE 2..................................................................16
5. THE RATIFICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION GAP – ICESCR ARTICLE 2..............16
6. STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT– ICESCR ARTICLE 2 ...........................................16
THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF FOOD BANKS AND......................................................16
FOOD SECURE CANADA.............................................................................................................16
The Right to Adequate Food ........................................................................................................16
Food Insecurity Amidst Affluence ...............................................................................................17
Increased Reliance on Food Banks...............................................................................................17
Causes of Food Poverty................................................................................................................17
Recommendations ........................................................................................................................18
CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES....................................................................................20
Issue Number 1: Denial of family reunification as a punishme nt for immigrants who failed to
disclose dependants on a previous immigration application, thereby preventing their
examination by the visa officer (Articles 9 and 10). ....................................................................20
Issue Number 2: Canada discriminates against people who are poor, on the basis of social
condition by denying family reunification under four circumstances (Articles 2 and 10)...........20
Issue Number 3: Significant delays in family reunification, particularly for refugee families,
which are primarily caused by five factors (Articles 9 and 10): ..................................................21
Issue Number 4: Canada discriminates in the provision of social safety-net benefits on the basis
of immigration status, even where the benefits in question form part of contributory insurance
schemes funded by payroll deductions (Article 11). ....................................................................21
CANADIAN FEMINIST ALLIANCE FOR INTERNATIONAL ACTION..................................22
E/C.12/36/3
Page 3
Articles 2 and 3: Restructuring Fiscal Arrangements...................................................................22
Articles 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15: Aboriginal Women..............................................................23
Article 11: Women and Social Assistance ...................................................................................24
Articles 7 and 10: Child Care .......................................................................................................24
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN AND THE LAW ......................................................25
Articles 2 and 3: Legal Aid and Court Challenges .......................................................................25
Article 9: Women and Employment Insurance and Maternity and Parental Leave .....................26
Article 7: Pay Equity....................................................................................................................26
Article 7: More Women in the Low Paid Work Sector ................................................................27
CANADIAN HEALTH COALITION.............................................................................................28
The Rise of Privatization and the Lack of Enforcement (Article 12)...........................................28
The Erosion of Public Health Protection (Article 12)..................................................................29
The Lack of Pharmaceutical Coverage (Article 12) .....................................................................29
The Inadequacy of Long-Term Care (Article 12) ........................................................................30
The Unaddressed Health Problems of the Homeless (Article 12)................................................30
CHARTER COMMITTEE ON POVERTY ISSUES ......................................................................31
A. Charter Interpretation Consistent with the Covenant ..............................................................31
i) Gosselin: The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living ......................................................31
ii) Chaoulli v. Québec (Attorney General): Right to Health.....................................................32
iii) Auton: Obligation to Meet Needs of Children with Autism ...............................................32
B. Absence of Rights and Effective Remedies in Social Programs .............................................33
C. Forced Evictions and Security of Tenure ................................................................................33
D. The North American Free Trade Agreement...........................................................................34
CHILD CARE ADVOCACY ASSOCIATION OF CANADA ......................................................34
Early Learning and Child Care Section as it relates to Article 10: Protection of the Family,
Mother and Child..........................................................................................................................34
COUNCIL OF CANADIANS WITH DISABILITIES ...................................................................35
Unemployment (Article 6) ...........................................................................................................35
Poverty (Articles 2 and 11)...........................................................................................................36
Women with Disabilities (Articles 2 and 3).................................................................................36
Access to Education and Training (Articles 2 and 13) .................................................................37
Reductions in Support Services (Articles 11 and 12)...................................................................37
Homelessness (Article 11)............................................................................................................38
Transportation (Article 11) ...........................................................................................................38
FEMINIST ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN’S ADVANCEMENT, RIGHTS AND DIGNITY38
Articles 2(2) & 3: Poor Women Marginalized by the State and Targeted for Violence..............39
Articles 9 & 11 (1): No Social Security for Poor & Homeless Women.......................................40
Article 10: Poor Mothers Targeted By Child Protection Agencies ..............................................41
Article 12: Poor Women Harmed in the Psychiatric System .......................................................41
KAIROS: CANADIAN ECUMENICAL JUSTICE INITIATIVES ...............................................42
Articles 2 and 3. Enjoyment of Rights Without Discrimination .................................................42
Article 7. Right to Just and Favourable Conditions of Work ...................................................42
Article 9. Right to Social Security............................................................................................43
Article 11. Right to an Adequate Standard of Living.............................................................44
LIGUE DES DROITS ET LIBERTÉS ............................................................................................45
Respecting, protecting and implementing economic, social and cultural rights (Art. 2) .............45
E/C.12/36/3
Page 4
Violations of the right to just and favourable conditions of work (Art. 7)...................................45
Violations of the right to organize (Art. 8) ...................................................................................46
Violation of the right to social security (Art. 9) ...........................................................................46
Violation of the right to an adequate standard of living (Art. 11) ................................................46
Violation of the right to health (Art. 12) ......................................................................................47
The primacy of economic and social rights..................................................................................47
LOW INCOME FAMILIES TOGETHER ......................................................................................47
The LEAD Project Report ............................................................................................................47
Ontario List of Issues....................................................................................................................48
NATIONAL ANTI-POVERTY ORGANIZATION .......................................................................49
1. Review Process........................................................................................................................49
2. Article 6 – Right to Work Freely Chosen.................................................................................49
3. Article 7 – Just and Favourable Conditions of Work… including Fair Wages........................50
4. Article 9 – The Right to Social Security ..................................................................................50
5. Article 10 – Protection and Assistance for the Family and Dependent Children.....................50
6. Article 11 – The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living .....................................................51
NATIONAL WORKING GROUP – ...............................................................................................52
WOMEN AND HOUSING IN CANADA ......................................................................................52
THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE HOUSING FOR WOMEN IN CANADA:...............................52
ARTICLES 2(2), 3 and 11(1) .......................................................................................................52
1. Women’s Homelessness is Different than Men’s – Women Try to Stay Off the Streets to
Avoid Violence and the Apprehension of their Children. ............................................................52
2. Women Do Not Have Access to Subsidized Housing. Within the Private Market they
Experience Discrimination. ..........................................................................................................53
3. Low-Income Women Cannot Afford Housing in Canada. Income Support Programs such
as Social Assistance and Employment Insurance are set at Inadequate Levels. ..........................53
4. Women Are Forced to Stay in Abusive Relationships Because They Have Few Housing
Options. .......................................................................................................................................54
5. Low-Income Women are Discriminated Against by the Federal Government’s Home
Ownership Program. .....................................................................................................................54
NATIVE WOMEN’S ASSOCIATION OF CANADA...................................................................55
Article 1: Right to Self-Determination........................................................................................55
Articles 2(2) & 3: Non-Discrimination and Equal Rights between Men and Women as it relates
to Matrimonial Property Rights, Membership/Status Rules, Human Rights Legislation and
Participation of Indigenous Women.............................................................................................55
Article 10: Protection of the Family, Mother and Child .............................................................57
Article 11: The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living ...........................................................57
Article 12: The Right to Health....................................................................................................58
POVERTY AND HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE..............................................................................58
The Rights of Women in the Province of British Columbia ........................................................58
Article 2(2) – Non-discrimination................................................................................................59
Discrimination Against Women ...............................................................................................59
Access to Justice .......................................................................................................................59
Article 11 – The right to an adequate standard of living ..............................................................59
Women’s Poverty......................................................................................................................59
Cutbacks to Social Assistance and the Impact on Women....................................................... 60
E/C.12/36/3
Page 5
INTRODUCTION
This is a compilation of four page summaries of longer submissions prepared by the
Canadian NGOs listed below. The summaries were compiled in order to provide the Committee
with an overview of the issues addressed and to identify the most pressing issues relating to the
consideration of Canada’s Fourth and Fifth Periodic Reports. Given the complexity of the issues,
the NGOs urge the Committee to also consider their longer submissions, which contain additional
information and identify other important issues.
•Advocacy Centre for Tenants in Ontario/Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation
•Alternatives North
•Amnesty International
•The Canadian Association of Food Banks/Food Secure Canada
•Canadian Council for Refugees
•Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action
•National Association of Women and the Law
•Canadian Health Coalition
•Charter Committee on Poverty Issues
•Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada
•Council of Canadians with Disabilities
•Feminist Organization for Women’s Advancement, Rights and Dignity
•KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives
•Ligue des droits et libertés
•Low Income Families Together
•National Anti-Poverty Organization
•National Working Group – Women and Housing in Canada
•Native Women’s Association of Canada
•Poverty and Human Rights Centre
E/C.12/36/3
Page 6
JOINT SUBMISSIONS
Available Resources and Retrogressive Measures
Canada is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The Government of Canada recently
recorded its eighth consecutive annual surplus. Canada is the only G7 country expected to post a
surplus in 2006.1 Canada also has the lowest debt burden of all G-7 countries.2
Canada has the resources, institutions and infrastructure necessary to eradicate poverty
among women, men and children and to maintain adequate social programs and services to
support the realization of all Covenant rights.
However, as is outlined in the summaries of NGO submissions included in this
compilation, Canadian governments have cut away programs and services, reduced the level of
benefits, narrowed eligibility rules, and made harsher the lives of the poorest, particularly women,
Aboriginal people, people of colour, African-Canadians, immigrants and refugees, and peole with
disabilities.3
Restructuring Fiscal Arrangements
Between 1995 and 2005 Canada undertook the restructuring of its social programs, and the
fiscal arrangements between the federal government and the provinces and territories.
Nearly 12 billion dollars a year was lost in federal funds for critical programs between
1995 and 1998.4 Canada justifies the 1995 8.2 billion dollar cut to the federal transfer payments to
the provinces and territories for social programs on the grounds that cuts were necessary to reduce
the federal deficit. The fact that the deficit was retired in three short years, two years earlier than
expected, has raised questions about whether the drastic cuts to social spending were ever
necessary. 5 Another explanation was also offered by the Honourable Paul Martin, then Finance
Minister. In his 1995 Budget Speech he said that it was his intention to make a permanent change
not only to “how government works but what government does.”6
Program spending fell from 16 per cent of GDP to 12 per cent of GDP in the deficit era, the
three years between 1995 – 1998. Indeed, the federal government has maintained a low level of
program spending despite posting a budgetary surplus every year since 1997.7 This low level of
federal involvement in the economy and society is historically unprecedented and completely
incongruent with modern society, according to leading economists.8
In the era of back to back surpluses from 1997 to 2004, when the federal government had
the opportunity to remedy the many areas of noncompliance with the Covenant identified by the
1 Government of Canada, Department of Finance, News Release, September 21, 2005 http://www.fin.gc.ca/news05/05-060e.html.
2 Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Press Release, Getting the Most Bang for Our Bucks, February 9, 2005,
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&do=Article&call=1012....
3 Social Watch. Report on Canada 2005. http://www.socialwatch.org/en/informeImpreso/pdfs/canada2005_eng.pdf /
4 Yalnizyan, A. 2005. Canada’s Commitments to Equality: A Gender Analysis of Ten Federal Budgets
(1995 – 2004) at 6. Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action. http://www.fafiaafai.
org/images/pdf/CanadaCommitmentsEquality.pdf
5 Ibid.
6 Budget 1995 Speech, http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget95/speech/SPEECH3E.html, (date accessed: October 9, 2005)
7 More money has been put into transfers to the provinces and territories in recent years, but until the most recent Health Accord, it
was one-time money, not stable increases to the base amount of the transfers, and most of it was designated for health care.
8 Yalnizyan, A. at 100.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 7
Committee in its last review, the national government spent only 42 billion on new departmental
spending compared to 152 billion dollars on tax reductions and tax-related benefits.9 Social
programs and services remain enfeebled.10
We submit that in light of the assessment of available resources, Canada has taken
retrogressive measures, contrary to its obligations under Article 2. The explanations offered by
Canada to the Committee at its last review for the dramatic steps backward in the realization of
Covenant rights are certainly no longer valid. Yet the pattern of retrogression has continued.
The NGOs contributing to the compilation jointly submit that in light of Canada’s present
economic prosperity, many of the failures of Canadian governments to comply with obligations
under the Covena nt should be understood as deliberately retrogressive. Further, because of the
disproportionately harsh impact of cuts to social programs on those already marginalized and poor,
we submit that it has also violated its obligations of non-discrimination and equality in Articles
2(2) and 3.
No Process for Follow-up on Review or Ongoing Domestic Review of ICESCR Compliance
The 4th and 5th Periodic Reports make no systematic effort to provide information on how
the federal and provincial governments have on their own or jointly followed up on and addressed
the specific concerns and recommendations emanating from the 1998 review.
A common theme in all of the NGO submissions is the shocking disregard by Canadian
governments of the serious concerns and recommendations of the CESCR. There has been no
effective follow-up to the Committee’s 1998 review. In fact, there is no mechanism in place
through which effective follow-up to concerns and implementation of recommendations is
possible.
In the 1998 review process, issues of federal-provincial mechanisms for addressing
compliance with the ICESCR arose repeatedly. The Canadian delegation referred to the
Continuing Committee on Human Rights Officials (CCOHRO) as the body through which the
federal and provincial/territorial governments work jointly to ensure compliance with the
Covenant.
When the federal and provincial governments of Canada agreed to ratification of the
ICESCR in 1975, they also agreed to hold federal/provincial/territorial minister’s conferences
(F/P/T conferences) twice a year in order to coordinate the implementation of the ICESCR. 11 The
last F/P/T conference was held in the late 1980’s.
In its 2003 review of Canada, the Commitee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against
Women reccommended that "the state party search for innovative ways to strengthen the currently
existing consultative federal-provincial-territorial Continuing Committees of Officials for human
rights as well as other mechanisms of partnership ..." However, no action has been taken on this
recommendation. The Continuing Committee on Human Rights Officials (CCOHRO) was also
9 Yalnizyan, A. at 95 – 97.
10 Ibid. at 94.
11 Canadian Heritage, Human Rights Program, “How Canada Works with the United Nations”
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/pdp-hrp/inter/un_e.cfm
E/C.12/36/3
Page 8
established to oversee coordination between the different levels of government. As noted by the
Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, however,
the CCOHRO offers no opportunity for any public debate or follow-up to the
observations, findings, and recommendations of the treaty bodies – nor was such a
role ever intended for it. … This is not its job. The real problem for Canada is that
no other official body or institution of government is performing this function
either.12
The Senate Committee made a variety of recommendations to improve the domestic
implementation of and compliance with international human rights obligations, including that the
Canadian Human Rights Act should make express reference to the ICESCR and that the practise
of regular F/P/T conferences dealing with compliance with international human rights be
reinstated. Most importantly, the Committee emphasized the need for parliamentary
accountability, through a parliamentary human rights committee. Not one of these
recommendations has been followed up on by the government.
All NGOs are united in their concern about the absence of any effective mechanisms of follow-up
to the Committee’s concerns and recommendations, or ongoing assessment of progress in
implementing obligations under the Covenant, at both the federal and provincial/territorial levels,
and through FPT conferences and other inter-governmental bodies. We urge the Committee in its
dialogue with the Canadian Delegation to insist that this issue be given the highest priority.
12 Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-
E/huma-e/rep-e/rep02dec01-e.htm
E/C.12/36/3
Page 9
ACTO – ADVOCACY CENTRE FOR TENANTS IN ONTARIO13
CERA – CENTRE FOR EQUALITY RIGHTS IN ACCOMMODATION14
The Right to Adequate Housing in Canada: Article 11(1)
1. No National Housing Strategy
The Government of Canada has still not adopted or implemented a national housing
strategy or policy aimed at reducing homelessness and poverty, despite the fact that in
1998 the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter ‘the
Committee”) recommended that it do so.15 As a result, within Canada there is no coherent
policy of national standards to ensure that the right to adequate housing is enjoyed by all
and particularly by poor and disadvantaged groups, such as low-income women.16
The Government of Canada should adopt a national housing strategy that includes principles of
equality and non-discrimination to reduce homelessness and poverty.
2. Failure to Implement Affordable Housing Program
In 2001 the Government of Canada responded to the housing crisis in Canada by establishing the
Affordable Housing Program (AHP) through which the Affordable Housing Framework
Agreement was reached. Under this Agreement, each province and territory then signed a bilateral
housing deal with the Government of Canada. By January 2005, the Government of Canada
revealed that of the $1 billion (Cdn) promised through the AHP only $200 million (1/5th) had been
committed to new housing, after more than 3 years into the 5 year program. Only 10,500 homes
have been funded through this program, constituting just 10% of what the Government of Canada
promised and far short of what is needed nationally. In some provinces, such as Ontario, virtually
no new affordable housing units have been created.17 The shortage of new subsidized housing has
put pressure on the waiting lists for subsidized housing. In Ontario alone, there were 124,785 low-
13 ACTO is a legal aid clinic in Ontario that undertakes legal and law reform advocacy with the goal of broadening the
legal rights of low-income persons in respect of their need for adequate, affordable housing.
14 CERA is a non-profit organization in Ontario that focuses on challenging housing-based discrimination and barriers
that keep disadvantaged individuals and families from accessing and retaining the housing they need.
15 Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN CESCR, 1998, UN Doc.
E/C.12/1/Add.31 at par. 46.
16 The lowest income women in Canada are: Aboriginal, single-mothers, in receipt of social assistance, disabled,
older, young, immigrants and refugees, and visible minority.
17 Though an accountability and communications mechanism is attached to the Agreements, only Ontario has released
information on units built: 24 new affordable units created in 2002, 23 new units in 2003 and 18 new units in 2004.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 10
income households on the active municipal waiting lists for subsidized housing at year-end
2004.18 In 2005 Parliament agreed to put a further $1.6 billion (Cdn) toward an affordable
housing fund. The new government, elected in January 2006, has yet to indicate whether it will
honour this agreement.
The Government of Canada is strongly urged to spend the original monies promised to the
provinces and territories under the Affordable Housing Framework Agreement on subsidized
housing for those most in need. The Government of Canada is also urged to implement the 1.6
billion affordable housing fund.
3. Homelessness
In its 1998 Concluding Observations on Canada, the Committee expressed concern about
“homelessness and inadequate housing as a national emergency”. Although it is not possible to
accurately count the homeless,19 estimates range from 100,000 to 250,000 persons.20 In
December 1999 the Government of Canada introduced its National Homelessness Initiative.
Initially, about $753 million was targeted to ten municipalities. When NGOs noted that
homelessness is not simply a city pheno menon, the Government of Canada extended the program
to the entire country, without adding any additional funding. The National Homelessness
Initiative was initially funded for three years, then renewed for an additional three years. It is due
to expire in 2006. In the transition period between program renewals, there have been significant
administrative issues. For instance, in the transition from the first to the second phase in 2003, a
delay in negotiating federal-provincial and federal-territorial protocols meant that services had to
be suspended and staff laid-off until the issues could be resolved. This disruption in service has a
serious and negative impact on homeless people.
The Government of Canada should establish a long-term, adequately resourced strategy to address
the causes and consequences of the homelessness crisis in Canada.
4. Forced Eviction and Lack of Security of Tenure Provisions
Please see submission by the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues
18 Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association, 2005 Assessment of Waiting List Statistics For All Service Manager Areas
in Ontario, July 2005, p 2.
19 For example, the group of homeless is comprised of the individuals sleeping outside, as well as individuals who
sleep in shelters and church basements, in cars and on other people’s floors and couches, and people at risk of
homelessness. These are referred to as the absolute houseless, the concealed homeless and the at risk population:
David Hulchanski, A New Canadian Pastime? Counting Homeless People, (Toronto: CUCS U. of T. , Dec. 2000)
20 See for example: David Hay, Housing, Horizontality and Social Policy, (Ottawa, Canadian Policy Research
Networks Inc., March 2005).
E/C.12/36/3
Page 11
5. Inadequate Shelter Allowance Rates
Across the country, the shelter allowance component of welfare entitlements continue to be far
lower than average market rents. For example, in 2005, a mother with two children in Ontario
received a maximum shelter allowance of $554, but the average cost of a two-bedroom apartment
was $1,052 in the Toronto-region and $903 on a province-wide basis. 21
The Government of Canada should address homelessness by “increasing shelter allowances and
social assistance rates to realistic levels.”22
6. Failure of Human Rights Legislation to Give Claimants Access to a Hearing
Human rights commissions in most Canadian jurisdictions 23 have a statutory ‘veto’ power to
decide, on a discretionary basis, whether a complaint will be permitted to go forward to the
adjudicative tribunal. As a result, the majority of complaints alleging discrimination24 will be
blocked from proceeding to a hearing. Complainants have no independent right of access to
adjudication and to an ordered remedy for discrimination. In 1998, this Committee recommended
that governments in Canada implement legislative amendments, at the federal and
provincial/territorial level, to allow access to an adjudicative tribunal for human rights claimants.25
The Human Rights Committee expressed similar concerns in 1999. To date, British Columbia is
the only province that has made legislative changes of this nature. Unfortunately, the province has
enacted new legislation which grants a right of access to a hearing tribunal, but which also
abolishes the human rights commission, violating the Paris Principles. In early 2006, the Ontario
Ministry of the Attorney General announced that it will reform Ontario’s Human Rights legislation
to allow complaints to be filed directly with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.
Federal, provincial and territorial governments should take positive measures to reform the human
rights enforcement process and remove the human rights commission veto over hearing access so
that claimants have the ability to take their claims directly to a hearing on the merits. Claimants
also must be afforded appropriate legal supports to take claims forward to a hearing.
21 Rental Market Report – Ontario Highlights and Rental Market Report – Toronto CMA,Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation, December 2005. Social assistance rates were increased by 3% in 2005.
22 CESCR, Concluding Observations (1998), at par. 46.
23 With the exception of Quebec and British Columbia.
24 In Canada, human rights codes protect against discrimination in accommodation, employment, and services.
25 CESCR, Concluding Observations (1998), at par. 51. The absence of a right to adjudication and to effective
remedy is also a violation of at least one of the Effectiveness Factors developed to support the Paris Principles. The
Effectiveness Factors recognize “accessibility” as a necessary feature of an effective human rights system. When
claimants have no independent right of access to an adjudicated remedy, a human rights system cannot claim to be
accessible.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 12
ALTERNATIVES NORTH
Formed in 1993, Alternatives North is a coalition of groups and individuals united in an
active commitment to build, strengthen and defend social and economic justice locally, nationally
and around the world. The coalition is based in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada.
Alternatives North is a member of the National Anti Poverty Organization.
The National Child Benefit Supplement (Article 9)
The Committee on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights stated in the December 1998 report
& recommendations (#18 & # 44) that the clawback of the National Child Benefit Supplement
(NCBS) should be prohib ited. To date, Canada has not complied.
The following is a summary of the document presented to the Government of the
Northwest Territories (GNWT) in February 2004. The document was prepared by a coalition of
concerned groups coming together under the banner of Alternatives North to call on the GNWT to
discontinue its practice of clawing back the National Child Benefit Supplement from families on
Income Support.
It is our position that people relying on Income Support do not have sufficient income to
support themselves or their families and that clawing back the NCBS has negatively impacted
these families. The NWT should take a leadership role and abide by the International Covenant on
Economic, Social & Cultural Rights.
•“Given differences in social assistance and child benefit programs and a post CAP (Canadian
Assistance Plan) world of few restrictions on welfare rules:
o There were five different models that provinces and territories chose for their social
assistance offset. The following chart (Append ix II) oversimplifies these models
but provides a useful sketch of the differences.
o The models are not transparent or clear and have led many to think both rightly and
wrongly, that the NCBS is clawed back in a small minority of jurisdictions.
o Rightly: as this is technically true.
o Wrongly: as all jurisdictions except New Brunswick and now Manitoba have an
offset of some description.”26
•Advocacy groups & non-government organizations (NGO’s) from the community to the
national level have not seen any positive gains from the clawback and all are fighting to stop
it. Many of these groups work at the grassroots level and see the negative impacts and
ineffectiveness of the clawback.
Almost every province and territory claws back the NCBS from families accessing Income
Support. This Child Benefit is taken from the poorest of the poor and reinvested into programs
26 A Primer on the National Child Benefit Supplement “Clawback”. St Christopher House July 2003 page 18, 19.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 13
designed to help low income families, but which the majority of the families living in poverty or
on Income Support cannot access.
The NCBS is also included in the calculation for income in the Child Care Subsidy Benefit
eligibility assessment. This means that very few families are eligible to receive subsidy. In fact in
2005, only 20 families in the City of Yellowknife (population 20,000) were able to access the
Child Care Subsidy Benefit and none were able to receive full cost coverage. The budget for the
Child Care Subsidy is 1 million dollars and under- utilized because families attending post
secondary education, accessing healing programs, or working are unable to access it. This simply
sets up more barriers for those trying to escape poverty.
The value of reinvestment of the NCBS to the Government of the Northwest Territories
was $800,000 in 2004. This amount will increase as the supplement increases. The lucrative
nature of this reinvestment provides no incentive for the provincial/territorial governments to stop
the clawback or reform their income security programs.
Negative Impact of Clawback:
•One of the stated goals of the NCBS is to decrease the number of children living in poverty.
However, since the money is not going directly to those on Income Support, the current
system actually creates barriers, and in some cases, long term dependency, as the longer a
parent stays on Income Support, the greater the erosion and depletion of their assets.
•Those that benefit the least from the NCBS are women who are both in receipt of Income
Support and members of those groups most marginalized from and underpaid within the
labour force.27
•The surest way to reduce the long-term impacts of child poverty is to leave enough income in
the hands of parents so they can provide a basic standard of living for their children.
However, because of the NCBS clawback, families on Income Support cannot meet their basic
needs.
•NWT families on Income Support have empty fridges for part of the month and children going
to school without lunches. Parents fear allegations of child neglect when they can’t provide a
school lunch for their child, when the real problem is lack of money. Families relying on
Income Support usually can only afford fresh fruit for half of the month.
•Lack of money to cover basic needs keeps families in a constant state of crisis and impedes
their ability to transition to employment through productive choices. Many also go further and
further into debt.
•Because the National Child Benefit supplement is included in the “income” calculation, many
women are no longer eligible for Income Support. This distorts the statistics for GNWT as to
the number of recipients and their dependents, and, it appears that Income Support was
successful in moving another family off assistance.
•To quote from the National Council of Welfare regarding the clawback: “(We) cannot see
how making poor people poorer is good public policy, and it is absolutely impossible for us to
understand in the case of poor families with children.”28
27 The Framing of Poverty as “Child Poverty” and its Implications for Women.” Status of Women Canada 2002.
28 National Council of Welfare. Another Look at Welfare Reform. Ottawa, Ont. Autumn 1997, p. 114.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 14
Conclusion:
•It is important to return to the point that the GWNT is using money aimed at the lowest
income earners to subsidize programs that it claims are universally accessible. However, we
have argued that indeed there are significant barriers to participation in these programs by
social assistance recipients.
•The reality is that children living in poverty are in this state because their parents are also
living in poverty. This idea of taking children off welfare creates this fictitious separation
between the child and parent- it clearly undermines children’s respect for their parents.
•While we recognize the funding shortages that the GNWT faces, we must note that in the last
legislative assembly, the GNWT cut the personal income tax levels resulting in a decrease in
its funding levels. In addition, it continues to maintain one of the lowest corporate taxation
regimes in the country. Any system of progressive taxation would support the principal that
those who are better off are asked to pay more. Instead, we impose what amounts to a
significant tax grab on those least able to pay. We do not want to see funding for early
intervention programs cut but rather call on the GWNT to reallocate spending or determine
new sources of revenue.
•The GNWT should join with the other territories and demand additional funds from the
Canada Social Transfer (CST) to enable it to stop the clawback and to continue funding the
beneficial early childhood and early intervention programs.
•Another option is to fund these programs through Canada’s National Plan of Action for
Children (CAPC) initiatives when the funding for this Plan is outlined.
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Amnesty International’s brief makes recommendations in six areas: indigenous peoples; migrants;
trade and investment; development assistance; implementation; and enforcement. Amnesty calls
on the Canadian government to:
1. THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES – ICESCR ARTICLES 1, 2, 9, 10, 15
•Collaborate with indigenous peoples to establish effective approaches to the timely resolution
of disputes over lands and territories consistent with the human rights of indigenous peoples,
including recognizing, respecting and protecting a land and resource base adequate to ensure
the full realization of their rights.
•In consultation with indigenous peoples, establish clear, written policies, to ensure that no
resource extraction activities that could impact on their rights will be licensed on land to which
they have title or use rights, or where title and use rights have not been legally resolved, unless
they give their free, prior informed consent.
•Ensure the collection and dissemination of accurate data on violent crime aga inst indigenous
women.
•In collaboration with indigenous peoples, establish a coordinated plan of action to address
violence against indigenous women, including social and economic factors that place
E/C.12/36/3
Page 15
indigenous women in situations of heightened risk and the role of racism in perpetuating
violence.
•End the disparity in funding for indigenous child and family services and ensure that the best
interests of indigenous children are protected by effective preventative and early intervention
programs.
•Ensure that all levels of government adopt such measures as are necessary to ensure that
indigenous peoples are consulted in the formulation and implementation of any policy that
could affect their rights and well-being.
2. THE RIGHTS OF MIGRANTS – ICESCR ARTICLES 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12
•Identify and rectify instances in which economic, social and cultural rights are denied or not
equally guaranteed to individuals because they are not Canadian citizens.
•Amend the Seasonal Agricultural Workers program to include an impartial process of appeal,
available to all workers before any decision to repatriate is made.
•Ensure that all migrant workers are fully covered by minimum labour standards, including the
right to form trade unions and bargain collectively, and have equal access to employment
insurance.
•Reform the Live- in Caregiver program, including by reconsidering the live- in requirement and
by adopting measures to ensure the safety of women (including, for example, by instituting a
system of monitoring visits, help- lines, or access to a specialized centre for such women), to
reduce the vulnerability of women to abuse and exploitation.
•Remove obstacles to speedy family reunification for all refugees immediately upon
recognition, including especially refugee minors, or otherwise reduce delays in obtaining
permanent residency for such refugees, as well as for individuals coming from “moratorium
countries”.
•Ensure that individuals in Canada, regardless of their immigration status, have equal access to
adequate health care services.
•Ensure that all individuals in immigration detention have access to adequate physical and
mental health care.
3. UPHOLDING ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS ABROAD – ICESCR
ARTICLE 2
•Take steps towards the fulfilment of its obligations of international cooperation and assistance,
including through ensuring that development cooperation respect, protect and fulfil obligations
under the ICESCR, bearing in mind the internationally agreed consensus that industrialised
countries should devote 0.7% of GDP to Official Development Assistance.
•Conduct meaningful consultations with those likely to be affected by new trade rules,
including women, people living in extreme poverty and other vulnerable populations.
•Undertake human rights impact assessments of trade rules both during the process of
negotiations and after negotiations are concluded.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 16
•Work to ensure that relevant UN agencies and organizations build on existing expertise and
best practices worldwide in order to identify an effective model of human rights impact
assessment, which includes an appropriate methodology and human rights indicators and
benchmarks.
4. PRIVATE COMPANIES - ICESCR ARTICLE 2
•Provide strong support for the development of UN-human rights standards applicable to
companies, and an effective monitoring and implementation mechanism regarding the
responsibilities businesses carry with respect to human rights.
•Become a participant and urge Canadian companies to become participants in the Voluntary
Principles on Security and Human Rights; and urge Canadian companies to implement the
Voluntary Principles in their policies and practices abroad.
•Require Canadian companies to conduct periodic evaluations concerning the impact of their
own activities on human rights, and ensure that before they take any action that may impact on
the enjoyment of fundamental human rights there is opportunity for genuine consultation with
those affected; timely and full disclosure of information on the proposed measures; reasonable
notice of proposed actions ; legal recourse and remedies for those affected; and legal assistance
for obtaining remedies.
5. THE RATIFICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION GAP – ICESCR ARTICLE 2
•Ensure that the intended meeting of federal, provincial and territorial Ministers responsible for
human rights goes ahead in the near future and that the meeting adopts a new coordinated,
inter-governmental and publicly accountable approach to overseeing implementation of and
compliance with Canada’s international human rights obligations.
6. STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT– ICESCR ARTICLE 2
•Ensure that ICESCR rights are fully incorporated into federal and provincial law.
•Provide effective remedies for the enforcement of those rights, including by administrative
tribunals and courts.
•Support the development and eventual adoption of an Optional Protocol to the ICESCR.
THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF FOOD BANKS AND
FOOD SECURE CANADA
The Right to Adequate Food
In both its 1993 and 1998 reviews of Canada the Committee expressed concern about evidence of
hunger and growing reliance on charitable food banks, and recommended a concerted effort to
E/C.12/36/3
Page 17
eliminate the need for food banks. In its 1998 Review the Committee was “perturbed to hear the
number of food banks almost doubled between 1989 and 1997.”
Laudably, in 1998, as a response to the World Food Summit, the Federal Government introduced
Canada’s Action Plan for Food Security. Yet, the evidence of continuing and widespread food
insecurity indicates the Federal and provincial governments’ continued lack of compliance with
the right to adequate food in article 11 of the Covenant. Canadian governments have failed to
make a concerted effort to eliminate hunger and the need for emergency food assistance since
Canada’s last review, during a period of massive Federal Government budget surpluses. As the
gathering body of research makes clear, the problem of hunger and food poverty constitutes a
hidden national crisis in Canada.
Food Insecurity Amidst Affluence
In 2001 the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) fo und that 3.7 million people or 14% of
the population lived in households reporting food insecurity. In 2004, using a more restrictive
measure than used previously, CCHS reported 2.1 million people or 6.8% of the population
struggling with different levels of food insecurity (Power and Tarasuk, 2006).
•28% of people in low and middle income households had not had enough to eat at some point
in the year 2000 (ibid).
•On reserve First Nations household food insecurity in Canada’s north varies between 40% -
83% (INAC, 2001 and 2002)
Increased Reliance on Food Banks
823,856 people turned to a food bank in one month of 2005, an increase of 24% since 1997 and
118% since 1989. The first food bank in Canada opened in 1981. Today they number 650.
40.7% of food bank users are children and young people (CAFB, 2005). Food bank usage
presents a considerable underestimate of food insecurity in Canada. 38.8% of food banks report
difficulty in meeting demand. (Ibid.)
Causes of Food Poverty
Food poverty in Canada is the result of complex forces and springs from a number of interrelated
causes including:
•corporate globalization and economic restructuring, including production of commodities for
export rather than food for the local population;
•failures to regulate market forces to ensure food security;
•social spending cutbacks and harsh reductions in benefit levels;
E/C.12/36/3
Page 18
•eligibility for welfare based, not on financial or social need but on attachment to the labour
market and stringent work requirements;
•social assistance benefits thousands of dollars below the official Low Income Cut-offs (poverty
lines) and insufficient to put food on the table;
•government failure to ensure that the real costs of eating (diet/nutrition) and housing are
included in social assistance and ‘employment insurance’ rates and lack of affordable housing;
•fragmented food policy (federal or provincial); and
•the failure by governments in Canada to ensure meaningful accountability to their international
obligations to respect, protect and fulfill the right to food.
In light of the significant incidence of food insecurity in Canada, the now institutional reliance on
food banks, and the increased resources available to the state, the right to food is being violated in
Canada. Vulnerable populations and, in particular, single unemployable persons, lone parent
female headed households and Aboriginal peoples are at most risk.
Recommendations
For the right to food to be fully implemented, a commitment to new courses of action is required:
All levels of government in Canada should accept their obligations to recognize and act in
compliance with the right to adequate food and adopt concrete mechanisms of
accountability to ensure that these obligations are met.
.
Social and economic rights, including the right to food, should be constitutionally
recognized as justiciable rights under the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
as well as under federal and provincial/territorial human rights legislation. As former
Supreme Court Justice and the current UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise
Arbour, has stated: ‘Ultimately, the potential to give economic, social and cultural rights
the status of constitutional entitlement represents an immense opportunity to affirm our
fundamental Canadian values, giving them the force of law’ (Arbour, 2005).
Canada, in conjunction with the provincial and municipal governments and the Assembly
of First Nations, should adopt a National Action Plan for Food Security requiring the full
participation of all relevant ministries, including federal and provincial justice departments
and with the full representation of civil society. The plan should set verifiable goals,
indicators, benchmarks, timeframes and accountability and comprise remedy and
monitoring mechanisms.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 19
The erosion of Canada’s welfare state should be reversed, informed by implementation of
the proposed Canada Social Transfer, earmarking federal funds for provincial safety net
programmes with national conditions and federal monitoring, including adequate minimum
wage incomes and social security benefits.
Food policy councils should be established and food policy charters adopted at the
municipal level, recognizing the human right to food and the importance of developing just
and sustainable local food systems.
Civil society organizations working to advance food security within a framework of
sustainability and social justice should be provided adequate funding.
The human right to food and nutrition, as set out in the ICESCR, General Comment No. 12 and the
UNFAO Council Voluntary Guidelines provide an essential philosophy and springboard necessary
to inform and shape the achievement of national, provincial and household food security in
Canada. As the eminent French historian, Fernand Braudel, once wrote: ‘Today’s society, unlike
yesterday’s, is capable of feeding its poor. To do otherwise is an error of government.’ (Braudel,
1985).
Graham Riches
Professor and Director
School of Social Work and Family Studies
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC Canada V6T 1Z2
References:
Arbour, L. (2005), LaFontaine-Baldwin Symposium 2005 Lecture, Quebec City.
Braudel, F. (1985), The New History. World Press Review 32:3, pp.30-32.
CAFB (2005), Time for Action. HungerCount 2005. Canadian Association of Food Banks,
Toronto.
INAC (2003-04), Food Mail Pilot Project Baselines Surveys, Ottawa: Indian and Northern Affairs
Canada
Power, E. and Tarasuk, V. (2005), The impact of income and healthy eating in Canada.
Presentation to Health Canada Policy Forum, Health Canada, Ottawa, March 23.
Riches, G., Buckingham, D., MacRae, R. and Ostry, A. (2004), Right to Food Case Study:
Canada, Rome: United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 20
CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES
Issue Number 1: Denial of family reunification as a punishment for immigrants who failed to
disclose dependants on a previous immigration application, thereby preventing their
examination by the visa officer (Articles 9 and 10).
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulation 117(9) (d) was implemented in June of 2003.
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) s. 65, appeal rights to the Immigration
Appeal Division have been removed for these cases. If a person failed at any time to declare a
family member on an application for immigration, and the family member was not examined by
the visa office, they cannot be reunited through the family sponsorship process. The section
applies regardless of the circumstances which lead to the failure to disclose and without regard to
the best interests of any children affected. There is no hearing to assess the underlying reasons and
a separate application process has to be undertaken to have a review which takes into account
humanitarian and compassionate considerations. Families are separated forever, because the
sponsorship prohibition is forever, and there is no appeal.
This makes Canada not in compliance with CESCR Article 10(1) and articles 9(1) and 10(1) of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Identification in List of Issues: Regulation 117(9) (d) was identified in the list of issues for the
fifth Report.
Number of people affected? Canada has provided no statistics on the number of families affected
by the regulation.
Recommended Action: The Committee should recommend the repeal of IRP Regulation 117(9)
(d)
Issue Number 2: Canada discriminates against people who are poor, on the basis of social
condition by denying family reunification under four circumstances (Articles 2 and 10).
1. Directly where the sponsor is on social assistance. IRP Regulation 133(1) (k)
2. Where there is a risk the sponsored person will need social assistance. IRPA s.39
3. Where a sponsor previously sponsored someone who received social assistance and the
amount has not been repaid. IRP Regulation 133(1) (g) and (h)
4. Indirectly through the imposition of processing fees which are beyond the means of poor
people. IRP Regulation 175, 176, 295(1) (2).
This direct and indirect discrimination against people who are poor makes Canada not in
compliance with CESCR articles 2 and 10
Number of people affected? Canada has not provided any statistics on the number of people
separated from their families due to these 4 sections.
Recommended action: Repeal IRPA s. 39 and IRP Regulations 133(1) (g) and (k). Introduce
immigration processing fee waivers for low-income sponsors seeking family reunification.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 21
Issue Number 3: Significant delays in family reunification, particularly for refugee families,
which are primarily caused by five factors (Articles 9 and 10):
1. Child refugees accepted in Canada cannot be reunited with their parents because of IRP
Regulations 1(3) and 176(1).
2. Delays in processing family reunification applications for Convention refugees can amount
to years. The worst delays are at the visa posts which process the majority of refugee families. In
2005 in Abidjan, (which covers West and Central Africa) it took 26 months to process 50% of the
cases, and 40 months to process 80% of the cases. There are a number of reasons for the delays
which include:
a) Requirement of overseas processing of refugee family members.
b) Inadequate resources at visa posts overseas
c) Requests for identity documents that are not available and DNA testing.
d) Processing fees imposed on refugees for permane nt residence, which take refugees
a long time to rise.
Significant processing delays make Canada not in compliance with CESCR Article 10(1) and
articles 9(1) and 10(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Who is affected? Refugee families are affected, particularly those seeking reunification with
family members in Africa. Refugee processing times are found at
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/times- int/12-ref-dependants.html and have increased over
the past few years.
The Committee on the Rights of the Child CRC/C/15/Add.37, 20 June 1995 recommended:
That every feasible measure be taken to facilitate and speed up the reunification of the
family in cases where one or more members of the family have been considered eligible for
refugee status in Canada. Solutions should also be sought to avoid expulsions causing the
separation of families, in the spirit of article 9 of the Convention. (#21)
Recommended Action: Allow all family members of protected persons to come to Canada
immediately on the granting of Convention refugee status, by granting entry permits to family
members and completing any processing in Canada.
Issue Number 4: Canada discriminates in the provision of social safety-net benefits on the basis
of immigration status, even where the benefits in question form part of contributory insurance
schemes funded by payroll deductions (Article 11).
The Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) and the Energy Cost Benefit are designed to assist lowincome
families and individuals, and by their very nature they would make a substantial difference
to the standard of living of the families who are denied. Energy Cost Assistance Act, Part 1 and
The Income Tax Act, s. 122.6 (e).
Employment Insurance benefits for seasonal agricultural workers are funded by their own payroll
deductions, but are unavailable to the workers because of the terms of their contracts which require
them to leave Canada if unemployed. Employment Insurance Act, s.18 (a), 37(b). Canada collects
approximately 11 million dollars from these workers, who will never be eligible to receive
employment insurance benefits.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 22
Many of the families denied the benefits are legally present in Canada, hold work permits, pay
taxes, file income tax returns, and have children, including children who are Canadian citizens by
birth. The fact that these low- income families pay into the schemes, but are denied access to any
of the benefits, is discriminatory.
Discrimination in access to benefits on the basis of immigration status makes Canada not in
compliance with CESCR Article 11.1
Who is affected? Low income children whose parents are refugee claimants, nationals of
countries on which the Canadian government has imposed a suspension of removals due to
generalized risk, refused refugee claimants awaiting removal, applicants for humanitarian and
compassionate consideration and non-status workers are all denied the CCTB and the Energy
Supplement. For a single parent earning $15,600.00 per year, the CCTB would increase her
income by $8,656.00 and the Energy Supplement would add an additional $250.00.
Seasonal agricultural workers in Canada are denied the right to collect Employment Insurance.
Recommended action: Amend Income Tax Act section 122.6 to remove the requirement for
permanent residence to be eligible for the CCTB and the Energy Cost Benefit.
Exempt seasonal agricultural workers from the payment of Employment Insurance Premiums in
recognition of their ineligibility to receive the benefit.
CANADIAN FEMINIST ALLIANCE FOR INTERNATIONAL ACTION
Articles 2 and 3: Restructuring Fiscal Arrangements
The restructuring of Canada’s social programs, and of the fiscal arrangements between the
federal government and the provinces and territories, was undertaken over the last decade without
any consideration of the impact on women of these massive changes.
Cutbacks to social programs negatively affect all women and men in Canada. But, social
programs play a special role in women’s lives – by shifting some caregiving work to the state and
giving women more opportunity to be involved in paid work, higher education and public life.
Because of this, the cutbacks to social programs and services have had a disproportionately harsh
effect on women, pushing them backwards. This gendered impact has been recognized by CESCR,
HRC and CEDAW in reviews of Canada between 1993 and 2005.29 Women have been
particularly harmed by the erosion of social assistance, Employment Insurance, civil legal aid,
supports for women leaving violent relationships, supports for housing, and labour standards
protections and enforcement. To enjoy their right to equality, as well as their Article 3 right to
equal enjoyment of their economic, social and cultural rights, women need re- invigorated support
for these programs and protections, as well as for child care and post-secondary education.
The Government of Canada should re-invest in its social programs, in particular by
increasing the Canada Social Transfer that supports post-secondary education, social
assistance, civil legal aid, and other social services, and by maintaining and strengthening the
new child care agreements and housing agreements with the provinces.
29 CEDAW, 1997, paras. 330, 331, 334, 336, 342; CESCR 1998, paras. 19, 23, 54; HRC, 1999, para. 20; CEDAW 2003 paras, 351, 352, 357, 358,
359, 360; HRC 2005, para. 24.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 23
Articles 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15: Aboriginal Women
Aboriginal women are still at a disadvantage at law in Canada. They do not enjoy the same
rights as Aboriginal men with respect to passing on their Indian status to their children and
grandchildren. Nor do Aboriginal women living on reserve enjoy the same rights to the division of
matrimonial property as counterparts who live off reserve.30 Also, s. 67 of the Canadian Human
Rights Act denies them the right to make complaints of sex discrimination against Band
Councils.31 This discriminatory treatment of Aboriginal women at law affects their enjoyment -
and the enjoyment of their children and grandchildren - of their right to culture, ancestral lands, the
benefits of land claims, and other social and economic benefits provided to Indians.
The Government of Canada is currently opposing constitutional challenges by Aboriginal
women to the continuing discriminatory effects of Bill C-31 amendments to the Indian Act32 and it
has failed to correct the overt discrimination against Aboriginal women despite recommendations
of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel,
this Committee and other UN treaty bodies.33
In addition, Aboriginal women are among the poorest women in Canada. They are
marginalized in the labour force. They have higher unemployment rates and lower incomes.34
They do not have the same level of educational attainment as non-Aboriginal women. 35 They have
lower life expectancy and higher rates of chronic illness, such as diabetes.36 They experience more
violence.37
More than 500 Aboriginal women have gone missing or been murdered over the last 15 years.
There has been no recognition of this as a massive human rights violation. In 1996 Indian and
Northern Affairs Canada reported that, "Aboriginal women … between the ages of 25 and 44 are
five times more likely to experience a violent death than other Canadian women in the same age
category.”38 The lack of protection of Aboriginal women’s human rights and their economic and
social marginalization permits the cycle of violence to continue.
The Government of Canada should take immediate steps to eliminate discrimination against
Aboriginal women with respect to Indian status and Band membership, the operation of the
Canadian Human Rights Act, and the division of matrimonial property on Indian lands.
All levels of government need to design and implement comprehensive measures to address
the inequality of Aboriginal women with respect to income, health, the attainment of
education, employment and just conditions of work. Resources should be allocated
specifically to support the advancement of Aboriginal women, including equal resources for
women to participate in the negotiation of self-government and other agreements.
30 Indian Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-6, Section 20; Derrickson v. Derrickson, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 285; Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples, volume 4, Perspectives and Realities (Ottawa: Government of Canada) at 51-53.
31 The Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel recommended removing section 67 from the Canadian Human Rights Act in June 2000. See
Promoting Equality: A New Vision, at 130. http://canada.justice.gc.ca/chra/en/chrareview_report_2000.pdf
32 See, for example, McIvor v. Attorney General of Canada, (B.C.S.C. No. A941122).
33 CESCR, 1998 at para. 29; HRC, 1999 at para. 9; CEDAW 2003 at paras. 361-362; HRC 2005 at para.22.
34 Statistics Canada. 2006. Women in Canada 2005. Catalogue no. 89-503-XIE at 198-199.
35 Ibid. at 199.
36 Ibid. at 190 and 193.
37 Ibid. at 195.
38 Aboriginal Women: A Demographic, Social and Economic Profile, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Summer 1996.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 24
Article 11: Women and Social Assistance
Women have a higher incidence of poverty. Particular groups of women have very high rates
of poverty: In 2000 36% of Aboriginal women, 39 23% of immigrant women, 40 29% of women of
colour,41 and 26% of women with disabilities42 lived in poverty. Women are also the majority of
those reliant on social assistance.43 The erosion of social assistance, including reduced welfare
rates and narrowed eligibility rules, disproportionately affects women.
Also, women are the overwhelmingly majority of single parents. They now lead 20% of
Canadian families. Single mothers have the highest poverty rate of any group in the country: 38%
of single mothers have after-tax incomes that are below the poverty line, compared to 13% of
single fathers. One third of single mother-led families are reliant on social assistance. The majority
of the families from whom the NCBS is clawed back are single- mother led families.44 This is sex
discrimination. Single mothers are also harmed most by welfare rules which bar them from
receiving assistance while being enrolled in post-secondary education, and by inadequate and
unaffordable child care. The Dietitians of Canada say that single mothers on welfare are most
likely to go without food.45
In addition, women in particular need adequate social assistance, because, if it is not available,
they cannot leave violent partners and abusive family or work environments.46 Low welfare rates
and rules that deem women ineligible are coercing Canadian women into prostitution. 47
This Committee and other treaty bodies have repeatedly expressed concern about the high
poverty rates among women, and among single mothers in particular, and about the harmful
effects on women when adequate social assistance is not available (CESCR 1993, para. 13,
CEDAW 1997, para. 342; CESCR 1998, paras. 28, 33, 54; HRC 1999, para. 20; CEDAW, 2003,
358).
The Government of Canada should attach national standards 48 of adequacy and eligibility to
the Canada Social Transfer to ensure that women in need are not deprived of social
assistance, that rates are adequate to meet current costs of food, clothing and housing, and
that women are not coerced into remaining in violent relationships or into prostitution.
Articles 7 and 10: Child Care
Women with children have shown a particularly sharp increase in employment rates, with 70%
of mothers with children ages 3 to 5 in the labour force. 49 The vast majority of these working
mothers hold full-time jobs.50 There is also ample evidence now that child care is not only
crucial to women’s equality but to the best early development of children. No region of Canada,
39 Women in Canada 2005 at 200.
40 Ibid. at 228.
41 Ibid. at 254.
42 Ibid. at 297.
43 Katherine Scott. 1998. Women and the CHST: A Profile of Women Receiving Social Assistance in 1994. Status of Women Canada.
http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/pubs/pubspr/0662266250/index_e.html.
44 National Council of Welfare. 2005. Welfare Incomes 2004 at 15.
45 Dietitians of Canada. 2004. The Cost of Eating in B.C. http://www.dietitians.ca/resources/resourcesearch.asp?fn=view&contentid=... at 1.
46 Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses (OAITH). 1996. Report to the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women (Toronto:
OAITH, 1996) at 22. Janet Mosher. 2004. Walking on Eggshells: Abused Women’s Experience of Ontario’s Welfare System. http://gaynorfolk -
net.norfolk.on.ca/life-on-brians-beat/pdfs/walkingoneggshellsfinalreport.pdf; Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres. 2003. Canada’s
Promises to Keep: The Charter and Violence Against Women at 95 – 97.
47 Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. 2006. Denied Assistance: Closing the Front Door on Welfare in BC at 51-52.
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/BC_Office_Pubs/bc_2006/denied... .
48 Quebec will establish its own standards that reflect human rights norms, with parallel systems of enforcement.
49 Women in Canada 2005 at 105.
50 Ibid.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 25
except Quebec, provides a system of well-designed and funded child care care services.51 Only
12.1% of children under 12 had access to regulated child care spaces in 2001.52 Safe, affordable
child care is not available for the women, children and families who need it.53 Thirty-five years ago
the Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommended that the federal government act to
create a national system of child care. Successive governments, both Liberal and Conservative,
have promised to do so, but have not. In 2004 the Government of Canada signed child care
agreements with the provinces, providing money to support the development of regulated child
care spaces. This was the first real step forward in 35 years. But, the newly elected minority
government has promised to cancel these agreements, offering instead a child care allowance of
$1,200 per year for each child under 6. A child care allowance, while useful, does not build a
national child care system.54 Preserving the child care agreements, and building on them, is
essential for women, children and families. The CEDAW Committee recommended in 2003 that
Canada “expand affordable childcare facilities under all governments” (CEDAW, 2003, paras. 379-
380).
The federal government and the provinces should preserve and build on the child care
agreements.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN AND THE LAW
Articles 2 and 3: Legal Aid and Court Challenges
The federal government has provided general funds under the Canadian Health and Social
Transfer (and now the Canada Social Transfer), which at the provinces’ discretion may be used for
civil legal aid, including family law, poverty law, and immigration and refugee matters. By
comparison, criminal law legal aid is specifically funded by the federal government. Studies show
that criminal law legal aid is mainly used by men, whereas civil law legal aid, especially family
law legal aid is mainly used by women. 55 Access to civil legal aid has diminished over the last
decade, since the repeal of CAP. In some jurisdictions, poverty law legal aid has been
eliminated.56 In many jurisdictions family law legal aid is virtually unavailable. The Canadian Bar
Association says that civil legal aid is in crisis, and that the poorest Canadians currently do not
enjoy equal protection of the law, or the benefit of the rule of law. 57 Women are particularly
affected.58
51 Child Care Resource and Research Unit. The State of Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada 2005: An Overview.
http://www.childcarecanada.org/ECEC2004/pub_pdf/ECEC_2004_Overview.pdf
52 Ibid. http://www.childcarecaanada.org/ECEC2001/tables_big/TABLES.pdf
53 Need statistic on number of child care spaces available.
54 Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada. Code Blue for Child Care. http://www.childcareadvocacy.ca/
55 Addario, L. 1998. Getting a Foot in the Door: Women, Civil Legal Aid and Access to Justice. Status of Women Canada. http://www.swccfc.
gc.ca/pubs/pubspr/footinthedoor/footinthedoor_e.html at 25, 46.
56 Poverty law legal aid has been eliminated in British Columbia. See Legal Services Society. 2002. Poverty Law Changes.
http://www.lss.bc.ca/What_s_new/news_releases/Archived/factsheet_poverty....
57 Canadian Bar Association. 2005. CBA Launches Test Case to Challenge Constitutional Right to Civil Legal Aid.
http://www.cba.org/CBA/News/2005_Releases/2005-06-20_backgrounder.aspx; http://www.cba.org/CBA/News/pdf/statement_legalaid_jun05.pdf.
58 Brewin, A. and Stephens, L. 2004. Legal Aid Denied: Women and Cuts to Legal Services in BC.
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/BC_Office_Pubs/legal_services...
E/C.12/36/3
Page 26
The federal government should provide targeted funds to support civil legal aid and ensure
that there are effective national standards for coverage, eligibility and adequacy.
Despite repeated recommendations from this Committee and other treaty bodies (CESCR
1993, para. 28; CESCR 1998, para. 58; CEDAW 2003, paras. 355-356), the federal government
has not expanded the mandate of the Court Challenges Program so that equality test cases can be
funded when the challenge is being brought to provincial governments. The expansion of this
mandate is crucial to women and other disadvantaged groups in Canada having access to domestic
remedies for violations of the economic, social and cultural rights.
The federal government should expand the mandate of the Court Challenges Program so
that constitutional challenges to provincial laws and policies can be funded.
Article 9: Women and Employment Insurance and Maternity and Parental Leave
Women have been hit particularly hard by tightened eligibility rules, reduced benefit levels and
shortened benefit periods for Employment Insurance introduced during this decade.
•Decreased Access: Only 39% of unemployed workers were eligible for EI in 2001 compared
to 74% in 1990. Changes to eligibility rules have disproportionately disqualified women
workers. Only 33 % of unemployed women got unemployment insurance benefits in 2001
compared to 44% of men. Part-time female workers continue to pay premiums but they
disproportionately are unable to claim unemployment benefits. 59
•Replacement Income Levels Lowest Ever: Replacement rate of income is now 55%, the
lowest percentage in the history of employment insurance in Canada. The replacement rate was
67% in 1971, 60% in 1980, 57% in 1993 and 55% after 1997.60
•Maternity and Parental Leave Improved, But Many Do Not Qualify: Maternity/parental
benefits have been enhanced, providing women with a longer period of benefits – up to 50
weeks. But these benefits are available only to those who qualify. Many women have no
access to paid maternity benefits.61
The federal government should revise the EI eligibility rules and benefit levels to ensure that
unemployed workers are adequately assisted, and that rules do not discriminate against
women workers.
Article 7: Pay Equity
Women who work in full-year, full time employment make 71% of the income of men,
regardless of age or education. 62 Canada still does not have laws in every jurisdiction that require
both public and private sector employers to pay women equal pay for work of equal value (pay
equity). In Saskatchewan, B.C., Alberta and Newfoundland there are no pay equity laws. In
Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island there are pay equity laws that
59 Canadian Labour Congress. 2003. Falling Unemployment Insurance Protection for Canada’s Unemployed.
http://canadianlabour.ca/index.php/Unemployment_Insuran/a42927ce4c6992
60 Yalnizyan, A. Canada’s Commitment to Equality: A Gender Analysis of the Last Ten Federal Budgets (1995 – 2004) at 34 – 38.
http://www.fafia-afai.org/images/pdf/CanadaCommitmentsEquality.pdf
61 Yalnizyan, ibid. at 69 – 73.
62 Women in Canada 2005 at 133 and 138. All employed women make only 64% of what all employed men earn.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 27
apply to some public sector employers. Only in Ontario, Quebec, and the federal sector are there
pay equity laws applying to both public and private sector employers.
The federal pay equity law is not working. It is only activated if there is a complaint. The
process of complaint investigation and hearing is too long and too costly, especially for nonunionized
women.
The federal government appointed a Pay Equity Task Force in 2001.63 The Task Force
recommended: 1) a new pro-active pay equity law that requires employers to review pay practices,
identify gender-based and race-based wage discrimination gaps, and develop plans to eliminate
pay inequities; and 2) a Pay Equity Commission and a Pay Equity Tribunal to administer new pay
equity laws.
All governments should implement laws requiring public and private sector employers to
pay women equal pay for work of equal value. The federal government should immediately
implement the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force.
Article 7: More Women in the Low Paid Work Sector
Women, and racialized women in particular, are disproportionately participants in Canada’s
low-paid work sector. Employed Aboriginal women are over-represented in ‘traditionally female’
low-paying occupations. In 2000 60% of employed Aboriginal women worked in sales, service or
administration jobs, and they were twice as likely to work in these low-paying positions than
Aboriginal men. 64 In 2001 only 7% of Aboriginal women held managerial positions.65
While immigrant women are highly educated compared to other Canadian women, their
educational attainment does not provide them with higher incomes and better employment.66
Immigrant women are more likely than their native-born counterparts to have completed
university, and are more likely to have an advanced university degree.67 Despite this immigrant
women are less likely to be employed than native-born women, 68 and are more likely to be
working in ‘traditional’ female jobs. In 2001 46% of immigrant women were employed in sales or
service positions, clerks or administrators.69 Immigrant women are also over-represented in the
low-paid manufacturing sector, and underrepresented in management, and the professions
compared to their male counterparts, and native-born women.70 The credentials of immigrant
women, obtained in other countries, are often not recognized in Canada, contributing to
unemployment and underemployment.
Women of colour in Canada are also a well-educated population. In 2001 21% of women of
colour had a university degree, compared to 14% of other women. 71 Despite this women of colour
are ghettoized in low-paying administrative, clerical, sales, and service jobs,72 and have lower
employment earnings than other women, 73 and their male counterparts.74 A large proportion (21%)
63 Government of Canada. 2004. Pay Equity Review. http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/payeqsal/6025.html
64 Ibid. at 198-199.
65 Ibid. at 199.
66 Ibid. at 104 and 139.
67 Ibid. at 223.
68 Ibid. at 224.
69 Ibid. at 225.
70 Ibid. at 225.
71 Ibid. at 246.
72 Ibid. at 251.
73 Ibid. at 252.
74 Ibid. at 253.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 28
of women of colour also report that they are discriminated against in finding employment, and in
their places of employment.75
Women with disabilities also have higher unemployment rates and low incomes.76
34% of women are in low paid work.77 Particularly immigrant and racialized women, are
disproportionately employed in the ‘precarious’ ‘non-standard’ work sector, working in part-time,
temporary, and casual jobs. For these workers, access to decent wages, unionization, benefits, job
security, and pensions is poor.78
All governments should improve labour standards and human rights protections and
enhance enforcement. Steps should be taken immediately to raise minimum wages, and
improve the access of women in the low paid work sector to unionization, benefits and job
security.
CANADIAN HEALTH COALITION
The Rise of Privatization and the Lack of Enforcement (Article 12)
Many provinces, most notably BC, Alberta, and Quebec, have expanded the role of private,
for-profit companies in the public health system and have allowed private companies to provide
medical services for a fee. This has created a two-tier medical system in which the wealthy can
jump the queue and buy faster access to health care. This trend was exacerbated by the decision
of the Supreme Court of Canada in Chaoulli, described in the submission of the Charter
Committee on Poverty Issues, in which the majority of the Court failed to interpret the right to
health, as protected by the right to “life and security of the person”, in a manner consistent with the
ICESCR or with General Comment 14. In spite of these privatization measures, no province has
ever been penalized for contravening one of the five principles of the Canada Health Act.79
•In BC, there are reports of private surgical clinics charging clients user fees.80
•Private MRI clinics, which are growing in number across Canada, have also been linked to
user fees and queue jumping. 81
•Provinces have consistently omitted to report data on the number of private, for-profit
facilities and the amount of money transferred to those facilities.82
75 Ibid. at 254.
76 Ibid. at 295-296.
77 The OECD Employment Outlook 1996, Table 3.2.
78 Chaykowski, R. 2005. Non-standard Work and Economic Vulnerability. Canadian Policy Research Network.
http://www.cprn.org/documents/35591_en.pdf ; Vosko, L. 2002. Rethinking Feminization: Gendered Precariousness in the Canadian Labour
Market. http://www.genderwork.ca/modules/precarious/papers/vosko.2002.rethinking....
79 Paul Moist “Full of holes: Parliament’s annual reports on the Canada Health Act” CUPE (7 February 2005), online:
CUPE <http://www.cupe.ca/www/57/Full_of_holes_Parliaments>.
80 British Columbia Nurses’ Union, News Release, “Illegal billing: Nurses take BC government to court over private
clinics” (21 April 2005), online: British Columbia Nurses’ Union
<http://www.bcnu.org/Newsreleases_2005/NR_015_2005.htm>.
81 CUPE, “‘Innovation’ exposed: An ongoing inventory of major privatization initiatives in Canada’s health care
system, 2003-2005” CUPE (12 April 2005) at 4, online: CUPE
<http://www.cupe.ca/updir/Revised_Apr_12,_2005.pdf>.
82 Paul Moist “Full of holes: Parliament’s annual reports on the Canada Health Act” CUPE (7 February 2005), online:
CUPE <http://www.cupe.ca/www/57/Full_of_holes_Parliaments>.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 29
•The Dispute Avoidance and Resolution process suffers from a lack of transparency by taking
non-compliance issues “out of the legislative and public realm and into the backrooms.”
The Government of Canada has been ineffective in ensuring access to adequate healthcare without
distinction based on ability to pay. Paradoxically, the Supreme Court of Canada has failed to
ensure that disadvantaged groups are afforded the equal enjoyment of the right to health.
Governments in Canada should ensure that any inadequacies in the public healthcare system are
addressed without creating a two tiered system or institutionalizing inequalities in the enjoyment
of the right to health.
The Erosion of Public Health Protection (Article 12)
On May 24, 2005, the Government of Canada launched “Smart Regulation”, a sweeping
initiative that proposes to revamp the rules governing the labelling of foods, the approval of drugs,
the growth of crops, and the assessment of industrial projects.83 In seeking to harmonize Canadian
regulations with those of the U.S., Canada’s largest trading partner, the government appears to be
prioritizing corporate profits ahead of its statutory obligation to protect the public health of its
citizens.84
Recent developments suggest that rather than dismantling regulatory safeguards, more
stringent safety standards are needed, particularly in the area of drug approval. In September
2004, the widely prescribed arthritis drug Vioxx was withdrawn after a study confirmed that longterm
use doubled the risk of a heart attack. Health Canada was aware of the higher risk of adverse
cardiovascular events long before Vioxx was withdrawn. “The built- in bias toward approving
drugs without adequate assurance of their safety and with only a fragmentary and underfunded
mechanism for postapproval surveillance…is a fundamental and (often literally) fatal flaw.”85
It is recommended that the Government of Canada strengthen, not loosen, regulations and
standards in the food and drug industries to protect the health of Canadians.
The Lack of Pharmaceutical Coverage (Article 12)
In the 1998 Reply to List of Issues, the Government of Canada admitted that “for the
working poor without a drug plan, access to these drugs is limited.” This continuing problem
stems from the fact that provincial governments are not required to cover medically necessary
drugs prescribed outside a hospital. As a result, there are significant disparities across Canada as
to who is covered, what drugs are covered, and what deductibles are required.86 For example, in
2002, the public sector financed only 33.5% of prescribed drugs in New Brunswick, whereas in
83 Dennis Bueckert “‘Smart Regulation’ seen as weakening food, drug and environmental standards” Canadian Press
(27 March 2005), online: Canadian Health Coalition <http://www.healthcoalition.ca/smart-cp.pdf>.
84 Canadian Health Coalition, Media Release, “‘Smart Regulation’ puts profits before health” (29 March 2005),
online: Canadian Health Coalition <http://www.healthcoalition.ca/march29.pdf>.
85 Editorial, “Vioxx: lessons for Health Canada and the FDA” (2005) 172(1) CMAJ, online: Canadian Medical
Association Journal <http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/172/1/5>.
86 Canada, Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, Building on Values: The Future of Health Care in
Canada – Final Report (Ottawa: Health Canada, 2002) at 194 (Commissioner: Roy J. Romanow), online: Health
Canada <http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/pdf/romanow/pdfs/HCC_Final_Report.pdf> [Romanow Report].
E/C.12/36/3
Page 30
British Columbia, the public sector covered 50.6% of prescribed drugs.87 As the Romanow Report
observed: “To a very large extent, people’s income, the kind of job they have, and where they live
determine what type of access they have to prescription drugs.”88
The Government of Canada and the provincial/territorial governments are strongly urged to
establish a universal, accessible, comprehensive, and portable drug plan (such as the Catastrophic
Drug Transfer proposed by the Romanow Report) as soon as possible.
The Inadequacy of Long-Term Care (Article 12)
Long-term care institutions, whic h include nursing homes and residential care facilities, are
designed for individuals who require the availability of 24-hour nursing care and supervision
within a secure setting. In Ontario alone, there are approximately 63,000 senior citizens who live
in long-term care institutions.89 Their significant health care needs are not being met, as
evidenced by the following examples from Ontario:
•In 2002, the daily food allowance per day per resident in Ontario’s long-term care facilities
was $4.49, having increased only $0.23 in the past decade.90
•In a 2001 consumers’ report by PricewaterhouseCoopers comparing nursing care and
therapy levels in 11 comparable Canadian provinces, U.S. states, and European countries,
Ontario was ranked at the very bottom. Residents in Ontario received only two hours of
medical and nursing attention per day by less qualified aides, half the time received by
residents in other comparable jurisdictions.
•One year after the report, annual inspections had dropped, contagious disease outbreaks were
not being properly tracked, and there was no way of verifying that provincial funds
earmarked for seniors’ care were allocated properly.91
All provincial and territorial governments are strongly urged to improve standards of care in longterm
care facilities.
The Unaddressed Health Problems of the Homeless (Article 12)
Homeless individuals have considerably higher risks of many illnesses, including
tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS. Their health problems are exacerbated by lack of access to
appropriate health care.
87 Canadian Institute for Health Information, Drug Expenditure in Canada, 1985-2004 (Ottawa: Canadian Institute for
Health Information, 2005) at ii, online: Canadian Institute for Health Information
<http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=AR_80_E&cw_topic=80>.
88 Canada, Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, Building on Values: The Future of Health Care in
Canada – Final Report (Ottawa: Health Canada, 2002) at 194 (Commissioner: Roy J. Romanow), online: Health
Canada <http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/pdf/romanow/pdfs/HCC_Final_Report.pdf> [Romanow Report].
89 Paul McKay “Ontario’s Nursing Home Crisis – Part 1” The Ottawa Citizen (26 April 2003), online: Canadian
Health Coalition <http://www.healthcoalition.ca/mckay.pdf>.
90 Paul McKay “Ontario’s Nursing Home Crisis – Part 1” The Ottawa Citizen (26 April 2003), online: Canadian
Health Coalition <http://www.healthcoalition.ca/mckay.pdf>.
91 Paul McKay “Ontario’s Nursing Home Crisis – Part 6” The Ottawa Citizen (1 May 2003), online: Canadian Health
Coalition <http://www.healthcoalition.ca/mckay.pdf>.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 31
•A 2004 study examined mortality rates in a cohort of homeless women in Toronto from 1995
to 1997, and found that homeless women aged 18 to 44 years were ten times more likely to die
than women in the general population. 92
•In another 2004 study, mortality rates in a cohort of street youth in Montreal were tracked
from January 1995 to September 2000. The mortality rate was reported to be 921 per 100 000
persons, and the leading causes of death were suicide and overdose.93
In spite of these studies, none of the National Homelessness Initiative programs from 1999
to 2003 were specifically targeted at improving homeless individuals’ access to the health care
system. 94
It is strongly recommended that the Government of Canada implement a national strategy aimed at
improving homeless individuals’ access to the health care system.
CHARTER COMMITTEE ON POVERTY ISSUES
In previous reviews of Canada, a primary concern of the CESCR was the failure to take
appropriate steps to ensure effective remedies for Covenant rights in domestic law. Governments
and courts, however, have failed to respond to the concerns and recommendations of the
Committee. The availability of effective remedies for Covenant rights has been further diminished
since 1998, particularly in the following areas:
A. Charter Interpretation Consistent with the Covenant
This Committee has repeatedly emphasized that governments ought to promote
interpretations of the broadly framed rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to
ensure effective remedies to violations of Covenant rights. However, governments have continued
to oppose such interpretations of the Charter in their pleadings in court and, for their part, courts
in Canada have demonstrated what UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour,
has described as a “timidity” in applying the Charter consistently with the Covenant.95 The
following three cases are of particular concern:
i) Gosselin: The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living
The Gosselin96 case, a Charter challenge to dramatically insufficient levels of assistance for people
under the age of 30 in Québec who were not participating in ‘workfare’ programs, was the first
92 Angela M. Cheung and Stephen W. Hwang, “Risk of death among homeless women: a cohort study and review of
the literature” (2004) 170(8) CMAJ, online: Canadian Medical Association Journal
<http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/170/8/1243?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=1...
cheung+hwang&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1115042949187_939&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspe
c=relevance&resourcetype=1&journalcode=cmaj>.
93 Elise Roy, Nancy Haley, Pascale Leclerc et al., “Mortality in a Cohort of Street Youth in Montreal” (2004) 292
JAMA 569-574, online: Journal of the American Medical Association <http://jama.amaassn.
org/cgi/content/abstract/292/5/569>.
94 Government of Canada, National Homelessness Initiative, “NHI Programs,” online: Government of Canada
<http://www.homelessness.gc.ca/initiative/nhiprograms_e.asp>.
95 Louise Arbour, LaFontaine-Baldwin Lecture 2005: 'Freedom from Want' - From Charity to Entitlement
96 Gosselin v. Canada, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 429.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 32
under Canada’s Charter in which the Supreme Court considered the right to an adequate standard
of living. Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and Québec all argued against an interpretation of
the “right to life, liberty and security of the person” in section 7 of the Charter that would impose
any positive obligation on governments to provide adequate financial assistance to those in need.
In response to pleadings from the appellant and interveners referring the Court to the General
Comments and Concluding Observations of the CESCR , the Government of Ontario argued that
the Court “should reject the notion that the general commentaries of the CESCR could assist
courts to establish minimum guaranteed income levels.”97 In the result, the majority decided that,
in this case, it did not need to decide whether the ‘right to life and security of the person’ in the
Canadian Charter created obligations on governments to provide adequate assistance to those in
need.98
ii) Chaoulli v. Québec (Attorney General)99: Right to Health
In the 2005 Supreme Court of Canada judgment in Chaoulli , a four person majority of the Court
held that excessively long waiting lists in the public health care program violated the right to life
and personal security in Québec’s human rights legislation. Three members of the majority also
found that waiting times violated section 7 of the Canadian Charter, but at the same time found
that “the Charter does not confer a freestanding constitutional right to health care.”100 Rather than
interpreting the right to life and personal security consistently with the Covenant, as protecting the
right to health for all, including those unable to afford or qualify for private health care, the
majority concerned itself only with the rights of the more advantaged, and declined to require the
government to remedy problems in the public health care system. Instead, it declared that in these
circumstances, the prohibition of private health insurance violated the rights of those who could
secure quicker treatment by joining a private health insurance scheme. The Court ignored
arguments from interveners for interpretations consistent with General Comment No. 14.
iii) Auton: Obligation to Meet Needs of Children with Autism
In the Auton case, the Supreme Court dealt for the first time with the question of whether the right
to equality under s.15 of the Charter imposes positive obligations to provide specialized treatment
for autistic children. British Columbia, supported by six other provinces and the Federal
Government, argued successfully that the right to equality imposes no obligation to provide
services for autistic children. The Chief Justice, writing for a unanimous Court, agreed, declaring
that “the legislature is under no obligation to create a particular benefit. It is free to target the
social programs it wishes to fund as a matter of public policy, provided the benefit itself is not
conferred in a discriminatory manner.”101 The Court made no reference to international human
rights law, and made no effort to interpret the right to equality in a more substantive manner,
consistent with this Committee’s General Comment No. 9.
97 Factum of the Attorney General of Ontario in Gosselin, at page 23, para. 55.
98 See Gosselin at paras. 79 – 81.
99 Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791, 2005 SCC 35.
100 Chaoulli at para. 104
101 Auton, supra note 138 at para. 41.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 33
The positions adopted by governments in a number of Charter cases involving the right to
an adequate standard of living and the right to health have been incompatible with the
obligation under the Covenant to promote and ensure effective remedies to violations of the
Covenant, as described in General Comment 9. The judicial rulings in these cases have
made no reference to the Covenant, and may have seriously undermined the effectiveness of
the Charter as the primary vehicle through which the Covenant is given domestic legal
effect in Canada.
B. Absence of Rights and Effective Remedies in Social Programs
Prior to the repeal of the Canada Assistance Plan (“CAP”) in 1995, Canada correctly informed the
CESCR that it was one of the “major cornerstones of the social security system in Canada.” In
the wake of CAP’s repeal, and the loss of effective legal remedies that had been available under
CAP, the Committee recommended that the Federal Government adopt new measures to ensure,
inter alia, “an enforceable right to adequate assistance”, and a “right to freely chosen work.” It
also recommended that Covenant rights be made “enforceable within the provinces and territories
through legislation or policy measures and the establishment of independent and appropriate
monitoring and adjudication mechanisms.”102
The State party should act on the Committee’s critical recommendations from 1998
for restoring mechanisms of accountability and effective remedies with respect to adequate
income assistance, work freely chosen and other Covenant rights.103 The Federal
Government should also negotiate with the provinces a national poverty reduction strategy
with a complaints mechanism and enforceable requirements.
C. Forced Evictions and Security of Tenure
The CESCR has recommended urgent attention to the causes of homelessness in Canada and
improvements to security of tenure. However, thousands of households continue to be evicted
every month without proper hearings, and with no consideration of whether the households will
face homelessness.104 Courts and tribunals regularly exercise discretion to evict for minimal
arrears of rent without considering whether families have a place to go. In other instances, ex
parte eviction orders are issued on mere suspicion or allegation of criminal activity.105
Legislative measures must be adopted in all provinces and territories to ensure that any
household threatened with eviction is provided a fair hearing, with adequate
representation, and that no one is rendered homeless by an eviction.
102 Concluding Observations by the CESCR on Canada (December 1998) at para. 52.
103 Concluding Observations by the CESCR on Canada (December 1998) at para. 40.
104 In Ontario, 30,000 households, 60% of eviction applications – most for minimal arrears of rent - result in evictions
without any hearing or mediation, or any consideration of the whether the result will be homelessness. Ontario Rental
Housing Tribunal Workload Reports, 1998 to 2004.
105 See Saskatchewan’s Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act, S.S. 2004, c. S-0.1, as amended.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 34
D. The North American Free Trade Agreement
In its List of Issues, the Committee has asked Canada to report on how NAFTA tribunals ensure
that in adjudicating investors’ challenges to government measures under NAFTA, Covenant rights
are given appropriate consideration. In fact, NAFTA tribunals consider investor challenges to
measures that may be required to protect the right to health or other Covenant rights, and may
order massive compensatory awards against Canadian governments, without any consideration of
Covenant obligations or even constitutional rights. In a constitutional challenge to the investorstate
dispute procedures under NAFTA for their failure to adequately protect human rights, the
Government of Canada has argued that “domestic laws and constitutional requirements do not
apply to the establishment or the proceedings of the international NAFTA tribunals”106
The Government of Canada should negotiate with its NAFTA partners to ensure that Covenant and
constitutional rights can be fully protected in the adjudication of any investor challenges to
government measures under NAFTA Chapter 11.
CHILD CARE ADVOCACY ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
Early Learning and Child Care Section as it relates to Article 10: Protection of the Family,
Mother and Child
In 1998 the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recommended that federal and
provincial agreements be adjusted so that services such as child care are available at levels that
ensure the right to an adequate standard of living.107 Article 18 of The Convention on the Rights
of the Child backs up the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by
saying “State Parties…shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the
care of children” and “children of working parents have the right to benefit from child-care
services and facilities for which they are eligible.”108
Unfortunately, early learning and child care has been on and off Canadian public policy agendas
since the 1970’s. Finally, in 2004 a five-year, $5 billion national early learning and child care
system based on quality, universality, accessibility and developmental [programming] principles
was proposed. In 2005 nine provinces signed bilateral agreements- in-principle, two provinces
submitted action plans and signed funding agreements with the Government of Canada. The
federal government also signed a five- year funding agreement with Quebec to support the ir
existing system of early learning and child care.
106 See B. Porter “"Canadian Constitutional Challenge to NAFTA Raises Critical Issues of Human Rights in Trade
and Investment Regimes" (2005) 2(4) ESC Rights Law Quarterl at http://www.cohre.org/downloads/Vol3-No1-
Quarterly.pdf; Factum of the Respondent, January 20, 2005 at http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tnanac/
disp/cupw_archive-en.asp
107 Concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Canada 10/12/98
E/C/12/1/Add.31, Recommendation 42.
108 Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 18, http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/pdp-hrp/docs/crc/cn_e.cfm.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 35
In January 2006, a new federal government took over and announced they would cancel the fiveyear,
$5 billion national child-care program, after giving the required notice of one year. (All
territories and provinces will receive one year of funding.) The national child care program will
then be replaced with an annual Child Care Allowance of $1,200 for each child under six years of
age (to be taxed in the hands of the lower-income spouse). The Child Care Allowance works out
to $100.00 per month. Most licensed-daycare fees for small children are about $50.00 a day in the
Greater Toronto Area.109 Employers and Communities that create child care spaces are to get a
$10,000 tax credit for every space. The Conservative government is hoping this will create
125,000 new spaces over five years. Given that non-profits and community groups don’t pay taxes
and one quality space costs $20,000 in Toronto and up to $40,000 in Vancouver, this is unlikely to
happen. A similar program launched by former Ontario premier Mike Harris in 1997 failed to
produce a single space.110
The cancellation of a national daycare plan worth $1.9 billion to Ontario means the province will
fall far short of its goal to create 25,000 licensed daycare spaces by the end of the decade. Without
$1.4 billion of that money, the province will spread out the last $63.5 million instalment over the
next four years to maintain the existing 14,000 spaces. 3 Manitoba stands to lose $126 million
over the next three years due to the Child Care agreement cancellation. One-third of Manitoba’s
$105 million dollar child Care budget comes from the federal government. Since 1999 Manitoba
has significantly improved their Child Care program but services are still expensive and scarce.
There are less than 26,000 licensed full and part day spaces, with 14,000 of them in Winnipeg.
But there are almost 15,000 children on waiting lists in Winnipeg alone.111 A table outlining the
bilateral agreements- in-principle and funding agreements between Ottawa and each province as
well as provincial spending, space figures, and workforce participation rate are included at the end
of this section (separate pdf file).112
COUNCIL OF CANADIANS WITH DISABILITIES
Unemployment (Article 6)
In contravention of Article 6, the Government of Canada has failed to effectively ensure
meaningful access to work for persons with disabilities.
•In 2001, only 51.2% of working-age (25-54) adults with disabilities were employed, compared
to 82.3% of adults without disabilities.113
•Women with disabilities are the least likely of all groups of women to be employed and are
three times more likely to rely on government programs than non-disabled women. 114
109 Talaga, Tanya “Life lessons and the state of daycare”, Toronto Star, March 24, 2006, p. E7.
110 Talaga, Tanya “Life lessons and the state of daycare”, Toronto Star, March 24, 2006, p. E7.
111 Prentice, Susan, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – Manitoba, Childcare progress at risk in Manitoba:
Provincial and federal action needed, March 16, 2006.
112 Childcare Resource and Research Unit. (2006). The state of the national early learning and child care program
and provincial contexts. BRIEFing NOTE. Toronto: Childcare Resource and Research Unit, University of Toronto.
113 Canada, Human Resources Development Canada, Disability in Canada: A 2001 Profile, (Ottawa: Human
Resources Development Canada, 2003), online:
<http://www.sdc.gc.ca/asp/gateway.asp?hr=en/hip/odi/documents/PALS/PALS00....
114 Women with Disabilities: Accessing Trade. (n.d.). online at
http://www.swccfc.gc.ca/pubs/0662367391/200407_0662367391_7_3.html; Gail Fawcett, Gail Fawcett Bringing
Down the Barriers: The Labour Market and Women with Disabilities in Ontario, (2000).Canadian Council on Social
Development.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 36
•Persons with disabilities is the only designated group to have experienced net declines in
employment almost every year for the past fifteen years.115
In the 1998 Concluding Observations, the CESCR recommended that the
Government of Canada take additional steps to ensure the enjoyment of economic and social rights
for people with disabilities. In the List of Issues, the Committee asked what percentage of persons
with disabilities have obtained employment as a result of the adoption of employment benefits and
support measures.
The State party has failed to meet its obligations under articles 2 and 6 to ensure that people with
disabilities, and in particular, women with disabilities, benefited equally from improved
employment rates in recent years.
Poverty (Articles 2 and 11)
Contrary to Articles 2 and 11, a disproportionately high number of persons with disabilities
are deprived of an adequate standard of living in Canada.
•In 2001, 27.9% of working-age adults with disabilities lived below the Low Income Cut-Offs,
compared to 12.7% of the non-disabled population. 116
•The average household income for children with disabilities was significantly lower than for
children without disabilities. In the preschool age group, the difference was $11,478; among
school age children, the difference was $8,703.
In the 1998 Concluding Observations, the CESCR recommended that all levels of
government provide adequate support services to reduce poverty and homelessness among persons
with disabilities.
The low- income rate among persons with disabilities has not significantly improved since
Canada’s last review despite robust economic growth. More concerted effort must be made to
reduce poverty among people with disabilities.
Women with Disabilities (Articles 2 and 3)
Contrary to Articles 2 and 3, women with disabilities (13.3% of all Canadian women) do
not equally enjoy social and economic rights.
•In 2001, working-age women with disabilities were significantly more likely to be out of the
labour force than their male counterparts (46.3% compared to 28.4%).117
•The low- income rate among women with disabilities is significantly higher than among men
with disabilities.118
115 Canada, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Annual Report: Employment Equity Act, 2004,
(Ottawa: Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, 2005).
116 Canada, Human Resources Development Canada, Disability in Canada: A 2001 Profile, (Ottawa: Human
Resources Development Canada, 2003) online:
<http://www.sdc.gc.ca/asp/gateway.asp?hr=en/hip/odi/documents/PALS/PALS00....
117 Ibid.
118
E/C.12/36/3
Page 37
In the List of Issues, the CESCR requested detailed information on what specific strategies
have been undertaken to address the critical situation facing women with disabilities. The
Government of Canada made no mention of any specific strategies in its reports.
Evidence of the prevalence of low income and lack of labour force attachment among women with
disabilities in Canada shows a disturbing pattern of poverty and social exclusion that is
incompatible with obligations under articles 2, 6 and 11 of the Covenant, and requires urgent and
concerted efforts to correct.
Access to Education and Training (Articles 2 and 13)
Contrary to Articles 2 and 13, persons with disabilities do not equally enjoy the right to
education in Canada.
•In 2001, only 13.9% of working-age adults with disabilities completed university, compared to
24.8% in the non-disabled population. 119
•Almost one-third of adults with disabilities (29.5%) had less than a high-school education
compared to 18.2% in the non-disabled population.
Canadian governments have not reported any measurable progress in improving access rates of
people with disabilities to education and training.
Reductions in Support Services (Articles 11 and 12)
In the 1998 Concluding Observations, the CESCR expressed concern over cuts in home
care, attendant care and special needs transportation systems, and tightened eligibility rules for
social assistance for people with disabilities.120 The 2005 federal budget included measures to
improve tax fairness for persons with disabilities. However, as multiple authorities have
recognized, “[p]riority should be given to expenditure programs rather than tax measures to target
new funding where the need is greatest.”121 The tax measures are of no benefit to the many
Canadians with disabilities who live in poverty and have no taxable income.”122
The Government of Canada and provincial governments have failed to respond to the Committee’s
previous concern about cuts to disability related supports and services. The Government should
commit to a national strategy, developed in consultation with persons with disabilities, to address
the increasingly neglected needs of persons with disabilities through targeted programs.
119 Canada, Human Resources Development Canada, Disability in Canada: A 2001 Profile, (Ottawa: Human
Resources Development Canada, 2003) online:
<http://www.sdc.gc.ca/asp/gateway.asp?hr=en/hip/odi/documents/PALS/PALS00....
120 Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN CESCR, 1998, UN Doc.
E/C.12/1/Add.31 at para. 36, online: UN HCHR Treaty Body Database <http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf>
[Concluding Observations].
121 Council of Canadians with Disabilities, News Release, “Canadians with Disabilities Once Again Left Without
Supports” (23 February 2005), online: <http://dawn.thot.net/budget_2005.html>.
122 Council of Canadians with Disabilities, News Release, “Canadians with Disabilities Once Again Left Without
Supports” (23 February 2005), online: <http://dawn.thot.net/budget_2005.html>.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 38
Homelessness (Article 11)
Surveys have shown that the majority of persons with disabilities lack basic accessibility
features in their homes and are unable to move to more appropriate accommodation because of
affordability issues.123 People with disabilities are at high risk of homelessness. The CESCR
expressed concern in 1998 that large numbers of discharged psychiatric patients end up on the
street, while others suffer from inadequate housing, and recommended tha t all levels of
government provide adequate support services for persons with disabilities to reduce
homelessness.124
Little progress has been made to reduce high levels of homelessness among people with
disabilities. Governments in Canada have not addressed this problem with the urgency it deserves.
Transportation (Article 11)
Persons with disabilities continue to encounter significant barriers in accessing
transportation services.125 Since the development of Voluntary Standards of Practice the
disability community has seen an erosion of accessibility in all modes of transportation. 126
Downloading of many services to municipalities has been implemented without creating any
mechanisms of accountability to Covenant standard for people with disabilities.
The disability community in Canada is calling on the government of Canada to regulate access on
all modes of transportation similar to the American model.
123 Canadian Mortgage Housing Corporation, “Research Highlights, Socio-economic Series 03-008, July 2003,
Examining the Housing Choices of Individuals with Disabilities,” online: <https://www.cmhcschl.
gc.ca:50104/b2c/b2c/init.do?shop=Z01en&z_category=0/0000000012/0000000030/0000000044>.
124 Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN CESCR, 1998, UN Doc.
E/C.12/1/Add.31 at para. 46, online: UN HCHR Treaty Body Database <http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf>
[Concluding Observations].
125 Michelle Owen and Colleen Watters, Housing for Assisted-Living in Inner City Winnipeg: A Social Analysis of
Housing Options for People with Disabilities (January 2005).
126 David Baker, Moving Backwards: Canada’s State of Transportation Accessibility in an International Context,
Final Report to the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (February 2005).
E/C.12/36/3
Page 39
FEMINIST ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN’S ADVANCEMENT, RIGHTS AND
DIGNITY
BURNED BY THE SYSTEM, BURNED AT THE STAKE:
POOR, HOMELESS AND MARGINALIZED WOMEN SPEAK OUT127
FORWARD began as a human rights education program at a Toronto drop- in centre for
women who are homeless and socially isolated. Since April 2005, over 40 women have
participated in weekly meetings. The majority of participants have been migrant women, women
who are racialized, and psychiatrized women. Our report is based on testimonies, discussion, and
analysis that have emerged from these meetings. This synopsis highlights just a few of the issues
from our full report.
Articles 2(2) & 3: Poor Women Marginalized by the State and Targeted for Violence
The Covenant guarantees non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural rights, and
equal enjoyment of these rights by women and men. In Canada, this is not the case. Women—and
especially women who are racialized, Aboriginal, disabled, psychiatrized, and migrants—are
disproportionately represented among Canadians who experience poverty and severe housing
problems including homelessness.128 Poor women are disproportionately affected by cuts and
eligibility restrictions in welfare, unemployment insurance, and housing. 129 We are represented as
cheats and bad mothers, and targeted by legislation that mandates increased surveillance and
coercion by social assistance and child protection. 130 When women are marginalized economically
127In this report, “poor women” is to be understood as referring to low-income and homeless women who are migrant
and Canadian-born, racialized, Aboriginal, psychiatrized, disabled, older, queer, mothers, and/or survivors of violence.
The rights violations, marginalization, and targeting described are on the basis of the interaction of income and gender
with these other factors. By definition, poor women are experiencing rights violations under Article 11(1). All of the
other violations described here should be understood as occurring in that context.
“Migrant” refers to women born in other countries who have arrived in Canada under a range of circumstances,
including those brought to Canada as children by their parents; those without status; refugees; refugee claimants;
temporary workers under programs such as the Live-In Caregiver program; those sponsored in adulthood by a spouse
or family member; and those who immigrated independently.
“Ho meless” refers to women who are currently without their own housing, or who have been so in the past. In
addition, the report reflects the experiences of women living in extremely inadequate housing, including housing that
is unsafe, overcrowded, or unhealthy; housing that costs so much that women must rely on free meals at drop-ins in
order to survive; housing in which women experience abuse from landlords, neighbours, cohabitants, and family
members; insecure housing in which women face harassment and eviction; and housing that has been deemed unfit for
children, causing women’s children to be taken into State care.
“Racialized” refers to women who have been marked as non-white by socially constructed categories of race.
“Aboriginal” refers to indigenous women of the Americas, including First Nations, Inuit and Métis women, as well as
women of indigenous communities of Latin America.
“Psychiatrized” refers to women who have been labelled with a diagnosis of “mental illness” or “mental disorder,”
those who have taken or been forcibly given psychoactive pharmaceuticals, and those who have been held against
their will in psychiatric facilities.
“Queer” refers to women seen as sexually deviant by dominant values, for example women who are lesbian, bisexual,
or sex trade workers.
128 CERA, Women and Housing in Canada: Barriers to Equality, March 2002.
129 Ibid.
130 Mosher, J. (2002). The shrinking of the public and private spaces of the poor. In Hermer, J. and J. Mosher, (Eds.),
Disorderly people: Law and the politics of exclusion in Ontario (pp. 41-53). Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 40
and socially in this way, we become receptacles for mistreatment, degradation, exploitation, and
violence.131 And then, in a cycle that is truly vicious, the degraded image of poor women is used
by representatives of the State to justify the very policies that increase our poverty. 132
State policies and practices during the period of this report have contributed to the creation
of a class of citizens—poor women—who are portrayed and treated as society’s garbage cans. We
have endured harassment, threats, attacks and sexual assaults because, as one group member has
said, “Women of a certain economic class are stereotyped as whores. This is used as an excuse for
violence.”
We demand that the federal, provincial and territorial governments acknowledge the connections
between violence against women and social and economic exclusion. These governments must reevaluate
all policies and practices in social assistance, child protection, and mental health to
ensure that they reflect the worth and dignity of poor women, instead of contributing to our
degradation.
Articles 9 & 11 (1): No Social Security for Poor & Homeless Women
In its 1998 Concluding Observations on Canada this Committee expressed concerns with
the ways in which changes to social assistance and unemployment insurance policies interfered
with women’s right to social security. 133 Many of the people who need them the most are still
completely excluded from access to these inadequate programs. For example, in Ontario, people
who are homeless can’t collect welfare because you must have a permanent address in order to
qualify for social assistance. Women who are living on the streets, in shelters, or in places not
intended for human habitation, and women who are released from psychiatric hospitals and jails
with no fixed address, have to get a “promise to rent” letter from a landlord in order to begin
receiving benefits. Trying to get this letter without money for a down payment can lead to sexual
exploitation. Another example is the application process for the Ontario Disability Support Plan.
This process is so difficult and there are so many barriers that many women who need disability
supports just can’t get them.134 And finally, migrant women without status and women in some
temporary worker programs have no access to any social security, even though they support the
Canadian economy with their work and spending.
We demand that governments in Canada ensure that all social security programs are adequate,
available and accessible to all women who need them, especially women who are poor, homeless,
disabled, psychiatrized, and migrants.
131 For example, the Native Women’s Association of Canada and Amnesty International report that over 500
Aboriginal women—most of them impoverished and homeless—have disappeared or been murdered, and that the
murders often were marked by extreme brutality. These acts of violence are motivated by racism against Aboriginal
women, and enabled by the economic and social marginalization of Aboriginal women and girls. Amnesty
International Canada Public Brief, October 2005,
http://www.amnesty.ca/campaigns/resources/sisters_brief_oct2005.pdf.
132 For example, former Ontario Premier Mike Harris famously commented that he was terminating the $26 per month
nutrition allowance for pregnant social assistance recipients because he wanted to make sure they weren’t spending it
on beer. http://www.alternatives.com/capp/v-rebick.htm
133 CESCR (1998), paras. 19, 20.
134 See “Denial By Design,” a report by the Income Security Advocacy Centre, viewed 19 March 2006 at
http://dawn.thot.net/denial_by_design.html#8
E/C.12/36/3
Page 41
Article 10: Poor Mothers Targeted By Child Protection Agencies
Many of the women in FORWARD can testify to the irreparable harm our families have
experienced from child protection agencies. These agencies are supposed to investigate any
allegations of harm to children, but in practice, mothers who are Aboriginal, poor, homeless,
racialized, migrants, young, and psychia trized are vastly overrepresented among those involved
with CAS.135 Child protection agencies are mandated to take whatever action is needed to protect
and support a child at risk, but the actions they take rarely include practical support measures to
provide the necessities of life, improve the family’s living conditions, and support mothers in
being the best parents we wish to be. Instead of protecting the child by supporting the family unit,
child protection agencies put us under a microscope and make it even harder for us to take good
care of our kids. Some of us know from personal experience that women who are homeless often
have our babies taken away at birth. We are left to cope with the grief and loss while still
homeless, and we lose custody permanently because we lack the housing, income and supports we
need to parent.
We demand that the money spent maintaining children in State care be redirected to providing
supports for poor families. Poor mothers need access to adequate and affordable housing,
nutritious food, respite care and voluntary ongoing counselling. The punitive and degrading
nature of the current child protection system does nothing to improve our parenting.
Article 12: Poor Women Harmed in the Psychiatric System
In its 1998 Concluding Observations, this Committee expressed concern about cuts to
services for people with disabilities and people who had been in the psychiatric system, and
acknowledged the link between these cuts and increasing rates of homelessness. In Canada’s Fifth
Report, Ontario claims to be enhancing needed services through increased funding of supportive
housing, crisis management, assertive community treatment, and case management.136 But we
worry that these services will work alongside Ontario’s new mental health laws to put poor and
homeless women at further risk of being forced into the psychiatric system.137 Too often,
“supportive housing” for poor women who are disabled or psychiatrized means group homes in
which women are abused, exploited and overmedicated.138 The depression, anger and anxiety we
experience because of homelessness, poverty, violence and marginalization is not helped by
psychiatric labels or drugs. When we are labelled as “crazy” it becomes even easier for the public
and the government to disregard our opinions and experiences.
We demand supports for independent living, and programs to improve our mental and emotional
well-being, such as counselling and access to traditional remedies. The most important mental
health “treatment” is an adequate standard of living.
135 Young Mothers In/From Care Project, 2001, School of Social Work, University of Victoria.
136 Fifth Report of Canada at paras 354 & 355
137 In 2000, the Ontario government amended the Mental Health Act and the Health Care Consent Act to widen
criteria for involuntary admission to psychiatric facilities, and to allow for the forced drugging of people living in the
community.
138 Toronto Star, date n/a, “Adults beaten in group homes: Hundreds of cases may just be tip of iceberg” viewed 21
March 2006 at http://www.ont-autism.uoguelph.ca/adults.PDF.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 42
KAIROS: CANADIAN ECUMENICAL JUSTICE INITIATIVES
Introduction
Between January 17 and March 21, 2006, eleven public dialogues or “People’s Forums” were held
in Canadian cities and towns in six provinces with 290 participants to document economic, social
and cultural rights violations. Many marginalized people – Aboriginal People, women, people with
disabilities, homeless people, and low-income people more generally – participated at the Forums.
Below is a summary of case data provided by participants at Forums, along with recommended
government actions.
Articles 2 and 3. Enjoyment of Rights Without Discrimination
Case data: Participants spoke about:
•Discrimination against Aboriginal people, women, injured workers, people with disabilities,
people of colour and refugees and immigrants
•Discrimination against Aboriginal people in areas of employment, housing, services or
education.
•Loss of status by children of Native women who marry off-reserve.
Relevant CESCR concerns and issues: Concern about gross disparities between Aboriginal
people and the majority of Canadians was raised in 1998 Concluding Observations, and loss of
reserve membership for children of Aboriginal women marrying off-reserve was raised in the June
2005 list of issues).
Recommended actions: Participants called for:
•Implementation of pay equity legislation in Saskatchewan
•The Ontario Workplace Safety & Insurance Board to acknowledge discrimination due to age,
sex and colour
•Governments to recognize that there is a problem with discrimination, and to encourage
awareness building.
Article 7. Right to Just and Favourable Conditions of Work
Case data: Participants at most Forums raised concern about low and inadequate
wages.Inadequate wages mean that the working poor:
•Cannot afford safe housing, clothing, eye or hearing tests, medication costs, clothing,
transportation and education opportunities
•Are forced to work multiple jobs and many overtime hours.
Concern was also raised about the increase in non-standard and precarious work arrangements
with little job security (part-time, contract, seasonal), and the falling proportion of workers who
are qualifying for employment insurance.
Relevant CESCR concerns and issues: In their 1998 Concluding Observations, CESCR raised
concern about the insufficiency of minimum wages and reductions to unemployment insurance
E/C.12/36/3
Page 43
benefits. CESCR also asked Canada to provide data on minimum wages levels in relation to the
Low-Income Cut Off (LICO) in its June 2005 List of Issues.
Canada’s Reports: Canada does not directly address this issue in its 5th Report.
Recommendations: Participants called for:
•Increases to minimum wages (to at least $10/hour)
•Improved working conditions, including breaks, holidays, safety
Article 9. Right to Social Security
Case data: The inadequate income provided by social assistance was a common concern (see
Article 11). Social security programs were also criticized on a number of other grounds:
•Inadequate breadth and level of services available, particularly for disabled people, and
Aboriginal women fleeing family violence
•Case overload amongst social workers
•Lack of support for people who are looking for direction to get a job.
Barriers to services are created through:
•The use of call centres to process applications for social assistance in Saskatchewan, which
creates barriers for people without telephones
•The complexity of application processes in Alberta.
•Lack of support for applicants with mental health issues in Sudbury.
Rules and regulations that prevent people from accessing full benefits, including:
•Ineligibility for welfare by those who own property
•Inability to apply for and receive social assistance without an address
•Lack of money for dependents of families on disability assistance in Alberta.
Concern was raised that money is clawed back from social assistance recipients for various
reasons (going to school, earning additional money), impeding people from moving from welfare
to work.
The treatment that people receive as welfare recipients was described as stigmatizing and
condescending. Participants spoke of the need to restore dignity to people who encounter the
welfare system. Participants raised concern about the lack of provision of proper information to
social assistance recipients.
Relevant CESCR concerns and issues: The 1998 Concluding Observations and 2005 list of
issues raised concern about adequacy of social assistance, lack of national standards for social
program, cuts to services, and the deduction of the National Child Tax Benefit.
Canada’s Reports: Canada’s 5th Report does not address lack of national standards for social
programs.
Recommendations: Recommendations included:
•Equal access to services for all
•A simplified process of applying for assistance and services (“one stop shopping”)
E/C.12/36/3
Page 44
•Greater access to financial and other resources (less restrictive qualification criteria)
•Elimination of temporary bans on income assistance
•Reform the adversarial and punitive mind set of the social welfare system
•Provide recipients with a fuller explanation of their rights.
Article 11. Right to an Adequate Standard of Living
Case data: Participants from across Canada felt strongly that rates of social assistance,
employment insurance, disability benefits and work-related injury compensation are not adequate
to maintain a decent standard of living (welfare levels are often set at less than half the LICO).
This problem is compounded by a lack of accessible and affordable housing, and a lack of
affordable and healthy food. Specifically:
•Welfare rates and shelter allowances are dismally low, often at 1980s levels
•Recipients of disability assistance (AISH) often have to skip a month of household bills to put
food on the table and pay rent
•Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) levels haven’t been raised in 10 years.
Relevant CESCR concerns and issues: 1998 Concluding Observations raise concern about
poverty levels (particularly among Aboriginal people and single mothers), homelessness,
inadequate social assistance rates and increased food bank use. The list of issues from 2005
request information on poverty rates of specific groups, food insecurity, and measures to address
core housing need.
Canada’s Reports: Canada’s 5th Report speaks of the Canada’s Affordable Housing Initiative
(para. 57), but fails to mention that about half of its funds are still not allocated.139 Canada’s
report states that there is a “comprehensive policy approach” to reduce poverty (para. 120),
whereas there is no official plan (or targets) for reducing poverty.
Recommendations: Participants felt that:
•social assistance rates must be immediately increased to meet accommodate basic standards of
living
•a Guaranteed Annual Income for all should be implemented to cover basic needs
•the poverty line should be updated
•a “decent” living wage should be established for all workers.
139 See Michael Shapcott, “Housing dollars in the pipeline (federal)”, Memo, March 4, 2006, Wellesley Central Health
Corporation. Contact Michael@wellesleycentral.com for information.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 45
LIGUE DES DROITS ET LIBERTES
Our rights scorned by our governments
Since the summer of 2005, the United Nations Committee of Experts that monitors how economic,
social and cultural rights are respected has been examining the situation in Quebec and Canada,
with a view to issuing its findings in May 2006. Concerned about the situation, the Ligue des
droits et libertés has, with the support of more than 50 community, labour and grassroots
organizations in Quebec, prepared the 2005 Social Report, which vividly documents various
violations of their international commitments by our governments and the resulting setback for
economic and social rights in Quebec. The purpose of this document is to give a brief overview of
some of the leading conclusions of the Social Report140, whose objective is not only to inform the
UN about the situation in Quebec but also to provide social movements in Quebec with additional
arguments to help force our governments to honour their obligations.
The Social Report condemns our governments’ violations of our economic and social rights
Respecting, protecting and implementing economic, social and cultural rights (Art. 2)
In adhering to the ICESCR in 1976, our governments pledged to act in such a way as to respect,
protect and promote economic, social and cultural rights.
We denounce the behaviour of the Canadian and Quebec governments, which have not taken any
steps to follow up on the 1998 Committee’s Conclusions, which indicated that the collective
wealth of Canada and Quebec was such that the government could not justify its failure to honour
all ICESCR rights. Instead, our governments have continued to put improving corporate economic
competitiveness, balancing the budget, paying down the debt and cutting taxes ahead of the wellbeing
of citizens, by reducing the share of the GDP allocated to public spending between 1994 and
2005 (from 14.9% to 11.6% for the federal government, and from 22.3% to 17.6% for the Quebec
government).
Violations of the right to just and favourable conditions of work (Art. 7)
In Quebec, having a job doesn’t necessarily protect against poverty. Although the low-income
cutoff in Quebec is $16,600 after taxes, the annual income earned from full-time work at the legal
minimum wage is only $15,808 before taxes.
We denounce the Quebec government’s total lack of consideration for the Committee’s finding
that “the minimum wage is not sufficient for a worker to have an adequate standard of living,
which also covers his or her family.”
140 Rapport Social, Ligue des droits et libertés, published in French, March 2006.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 46
Violations of the right to organize (Art. 8)
The ICESCR commits signatory States to protecting labour rights and freedom of association,
because it recognizes that the unionization of workers and free collective bargaining of the ir
working conditions are fundamental in protecting their dignity and establishing decent working
conditions. But the Quebec government has clearly breached the ICESCR with its adoption of
amendments to Sections 45 and following of the Labour Code, as well as various pieces of antilabour
legislation. Two laws (Bills 7 and 8) deny the right to organize for three significant groups
of working women: home child-care providers, workers in intermediate resources and family-type
resource providers. A third law (Bill 30) imposed the reorganization of bargaining units in the
health and social services sector – a violation of the principle of freedom of association.
Violation of the right to social security (Art. 9)
The main purpose of social security is to guarantee an income for people without jobs that allows
them to meet their own needs and those of their families. The idea is to guarantee an adequate
income for all. In Quebec, there are at least two programmes designed to fulfil the right to social
security: employment insurance and social assistance.
Regarding employment insurance, we denounce the Canadian government for taking successive
steps to tighten eligibility criteria and reduce the level of duration of benefits, to the detriment of
the well-being of people who lose their jobs, despite the existence of large surpluses in the
employment insurance fund that were diverted to help balance the federal government’s budget
and pay back the debt. We denounce the Quebec government for keeping social assistance benefits
at 41% of the low- income cutoff, which is definitely not enough to ensure the right to an adequate
standard of living. Furthermore, the government continues to discriminate against those receiving
social assistance on the basis of their ability to work.
Violation of the right to an adequate standard of living (Art. 11)
Governments must take various steps to ensure the right to an adequate standard of living, for
example by raising the minimum wage and unemployment and social assistance benefits, and
fighting systemic discrimination against women, immigrants and persons with functional
limitations.
They have an obligation to take steps to ensure the right to adequate housing and food. We
denounce:
• the fact that about 17% of people in Quebec live under the poverty line;
• the lack of effective legal protection aimed at guaranteeing the right to housing and the
inadequate construction of new social housing in Quebec, despite the fact that waiting lists
grew from 10,000 to 22,000 names between 2001 and 2005, and the large number of homeless
people;
E/C.12/36/3
Page 47
• the 10% increase in the use of food banks from 2003 to 2004; 40% of those using food banks
are children;
• the fact that the Quebec government considers it normal that fulfilling a fundamental right like
the right to food depend on private charity.
Violation of the right to health (Art. 12)
In ratifying the ICESCR, our governments recognized “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of
the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health” and pledged to “assure to all medical
service and medical attention in the event of sickness”. As well, according to the ICESCR
Committee, “equal access to health care and health-related services is an aspect of the right to
health that should be emphasized.” (our translation)
We denounce the impact of the inadequate funding of our health and social services system, which
has reduced the system’s ability to provide access to appropriate care and services on a timely
basis.
We denounce the fact that free prescription drugs for the aged and people on social assistance were
abolished when Quebec introduced its public drug insurance plan in 1997.
The primacy of economic and social rights
In Quebec, economic and social rights do not take precedence over all Quebec legislation, because
they do not have the quasi-constitutional status that civil and political rights uphold in the Quebec
Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. If we want the people who are wronged to have access to
legal remedy when their rights are violated, Quebec courts must be able to refer to a Quebec
charter that incorporates these rights as set out in the ICESCR.
Translated from French by Margaret Heap
LOW INCOME FAMILIES TOGETHER
The LEAD Project Report
Community residents in the unique ly multicultural community of St. James Town, located
in downtown Toronto, Canada (a.k.a. the “United Nations of St. James Town”) saw the need for a
community-based project so that a human rights culture might take root and begin to grow. This
project is designed to promote ESCR and empower local residents to develop a human rights
based strategy to improve the well-being and quality of life in St. James Town, the most diverse
community in the world.
The St. James Town L.E.A.D Project is a joint effort by LIFT (Low Income Families
Together) and Ryerson University. Using CESCR as a guide, L.E.A.D trained residents to
E/C.12/36/3
Page 48
facilitate focus groups with other residents to explore our human rights and begin to identify
changes needed for a healthy community.
Between September 24, 2005 and February 15th 2006, residents conducted 19 focus groups with
neighbours to determine the human rights priorities of the community. The L.E.A.D project
trained 12 facilitators from the community to conduct focus groups in their own language. Over
500 people were involved in the process. In all, people from over 24 ethnic backgrounds
participated in the 19 focus groups and participants ranged in age from 12 to 85. There are over
150 languages spoken in St. James Town.
The project team was disturbed by the scope of struggle and suffering people silently
endure in St. James Town, arising from isolation and fear, racism, the random effects of
widespread drug abuse and the overall sense of neglect by police, government and services felt by
most participants. Many had no idea what their rights are, or what is available in the community.
Those that did, felt that many services were inaccessible or inappropriate. Long term residents
believed that the problems in St. James Town of increasing violence, racism, local drug trade, and
crack use have gotten much worse in the past decade due to the erosion of accountability to basic
human rights within all levels of government. People in the focus group sessions generally agreed
that Human Rights are key to well-being, and that their experience of poor health, poverty and
stress were, in part, the result of not having access to community interaction and space, and/or
enough available support services and opportunities.
All Human Rights are based on freedom from fear and want, and the first principle of selfdetermination
requires that people may work together to promote and respect their collective
rights, yet most people in St. James Town face isolation, fear or want, every day, resulting in poor
health and lack of basic human rights here in the heart of Canada’s largest city. The reality of life
within this high density neighborhood, the lack of many basic human rights and deep inequality
surrounded by vast material wealth, presents a tragic case of neglect, wasted human potential and
broken dreams.
We have done our best to provide the committee with a useful case study to help shed light
on the unique effects and realities of ESCR violations and urban poverty in the context of a
wealthy western country. As Canada prides itself on multi- culturalism, we also thought it
appropriate to explore these issues in the context of diversity. We hope this report will help
provide insight not just into the impacts of ESCR issues but also the possibilities for empowering
communities to work towards the realization of their human rights. This report is only a
beginning…
Ontario List of Issues
The list of issues for Ontario is a brief overview of concerns that have arisen or continue to
linger since our more comprehensive 1998 Ontario People’s Report. In cases where we point to
no change having occurred, the 1998 report provides the detail of the issue that remains
unresolved. Essentially, in spite of promises to the contrary made by the current government, there
has been very little done to address the concerns expressed by the committee in 1998. The details
E/C.12/36/3
Page 49
of current policy issues are captured adequately and in more depth in the Hamilton City report
which details the policies currently impacting the ESC rights of Ontario residents.
The Seniors Report is a brief overview compiled by seniors of issues facing the elderly in
Canada and Ontario. Many of the concerns are national as many programs affecting seniors are
under federal jurisdiction. The concerns range from falling incomes from income benefit
programs, to diminishing health care and home care, and a complete lack of dental coverage
affecting the health of many old people, among other concerns.
NATIONAL ANTI-POVERTY ORGANIZATION
1. Review Process
1.1 NAPO notes that the Concluding Observations in 1998 requested that the State Party “ensure
the wide dissemination in Canada of its present concluding observations and to inform the
Committee of steps taken to implement those recommendations in its next periodic report.” We are
not aware of any follow-up on this by the Canadian government.
1.2 NAPO urges the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to ask the Canadian
government what was done about the Concluding Observations from the 3rd Review and
recommend that more effective follow-up mechanisms be implemented this time.
1.3 The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights recommended in its Promises to Keep
report that a parliamentary Human Rights Committee be created and that it have as part of its
responsibilities “reviewing and scrutinizing Canada’s reports to treaty bodies, as well as those
bodies’ observations and decisions on complaints concerning Canada.”141
1.4 NAPO urges CESCR to endorse this call for parliamentary review of the human rights
reporting process.
2. Article 6 – Right to Work Freely Chosen
2.1 A number of provinces including British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba,
Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have implemented various work training, work
search and workfare requirements in order for someone to be eligible or to continue to receive
welfare. If people refuse to participate their payments may be reduced, or they can be denied
welfare payments. We believe these policies are a violation of Article 6, which asserts a ‘right to
work freely chosen or accepted.’
2.2 NAPO urges CESCR to recommend that all training and other work requirements be optional
and not mandatory for the receipt of welfare.
141 Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, Promises to Keep: Implementing Canada’s Human Rights
Obligations http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/huma-e/06cv-e.htm
E/C.12/36/3
Page 50
3. Article 7 – Just and Favourable Conditions of Work… including Fair Wages
3.1 Up until 1996 the federal government had a federal minimum wage that applied to all workers
in federally regulated sectors (about 10% of the work force). Now, the minimum wage rate
applicable in regard to workers under federal jurisdiction is the general adult minimum rate of the
province or territory where the work is performed. But provincial minimum wage rates are all
below the poverty line and vary considerably.
3.2 The minimum wage in every province and territory is $5000 to $9000 below the before tax
Low Income Cut Off poverty line for an individual working full time. Rates are even more
inadequate if a minimum wage worker has to support a family.
3.3 NAPO urges CESCR to recommend that minimum wages be raised to a level where an
individual working full time can escape poverty.
3.4 NAPO believes the federal government needs to reinstate a federal minimum wage set at $10
an hour, indexed annually according to changes in the cost of living index. For provinces with
large cities the minimum wage needs to be at least $10 an hour and $9.45 or $9.40 for provinces
with smaller cities.
4. Article 9 – The Right to Social Security
4.1 Eligibility requirements for welfare have been tightened up to the point that in many cases
people who desperately need help can’t get it. This is one of the reasons homelessness in Canada
has increased so much.
4.2 A recent study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives called Denied Assistance:
Closing the Front Door on Welfare in BC found that the acceptance rate for those who apply for
welfare has dropped dramatically from 90% in June 2001 to 51% in September 2004 in the wake
of changes to eligibility rules and the application system. 142
4.3 NAPO urges CESCR to recommend that changes be made to eligibility requirements for
welfare to ensure that all those who require social assistance are able to get the help they need.
5. Article 10 – Protection and Assistance for the Family and Dependent Children
5.1 In 1989, Canada’s Parliament vowed to end child poverty in the country. Sixteen years later,
1.2 million children still live in poverty. 17.6% of Canadian children live in poverty despite
continued economic growth, rising employment and strong job creation. 143 The number of
children living in poverty has risen by 20% since 1989.
142 Bruce Wallace, Seth Klein, and Marge Reitsma-Street, Denied Assistance: Closing the Front Door on Welfare
in BC, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, March 2007.
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/BC_Office_Pubs/bc_2006/denied...
143 Latest available child poverty data is for year 2003. Child poverty data prepared by the Canadian Council on Social
Development (CCSD) using Statistics Canada's Income Trends in Canada, 2003, 13F0022XIE and Survey of Labour and Income
Dynamics (SLID) masterfile data (1993 to 2003), via remote access. Poor children are those living in families whose total income
before taxes falls below the Low Income Cut-Off (LICO) as defined by Statistics Canada. A child is defined as a person under the
age of 18 living with parent(s) or guardian(s), excluding those who are unattached individuals, those that are the major income
earner or those who are the spouse or common law partner of the major income earner. Statistics Canada data excludes those on
First Nations reserves; those in the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut; and children living in institutions.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 51
5.2 NAPO urges CESCR to recommend Canada develop a poverty reduction strategy to reduce
child and family poverty with a range of policies, targets and timelines and measures to evaluate
progress.
6. Article 11 – The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living
6.1 While there has been strong economic growth for over ten years, low unemployment rates and
nine consecutive years with federal budget surpluses, over 4.9 million Canadians or 15.9% still
live in poverty. 144 While the rate of poverty has increased only slightly from 2001, the depth of
poverty (or how far below the poverty line those who are poor fall below the poverty line) has
grown significantly as welfare rates and minimum wage rates have fallen in real terms.
6.2 Marginalized groups such as Aboriginals, racialized people, disabled people, youth and seniors
all suffer higher rates of poverty, particularly women in these groups. There has been a significant
increase in the poverty rate of immigrant families, even though their educational levels have been
rising. From 1980 to 2000 the rate of poverty for this group rose by 8.3%.
6.3 Work is no longer a guarantee against poverty. Even households with two low-wage workers
cannot earn sufficient income to escape poverty. There has been an inc rease in precarious, part
time and temporary low-wage jobs in Canada. 25.3% of Canadian workers are in low-wage jobs.
In 2001, over 41% of poor families had at least one family member who worked at least 910 hours
in the year.145
6.4 Welfare rates in every province and territory for every household type are grossly inadequate.
The National Council of Welfare, Welfare Incomes 2004 report, issued in August 2005, shows that
a single “employable” person on social assistance in New Brunswick is expected to live on just
$3168 a year. Even with the addition of the Goods and Services Tax Credit of $220, this puts a
social assistance recipient $14,127 below the LICO poverty line of $17,515 or just 19% of the
poverty line. In British Colombia a couple with two children on social assistance receives only
$18,258, $19,533 below the poverty line of $37,791 or 48% of the poverty line. Even the best rate,
for a single parent with one child in Newfoundland, only reaches 70% of the poverty line at
$15,228 or $6,576 less then the poverty line of $21,804.146
6.5 Welfare rates have generally been falling in real dollar terms. The National Council of Welfare
reports that “many welfare incomes were significantly lower then they were ten or fifteen years
ago.”147
6.6 NAPO urges CESCR to recommend increases in welfare rates to ensure an adequate standard
of living for all Canadians.
6.7 The National Child Benefit Supplement continues to be “clawed-back” from social assistance
recipients, despite the recommendation in the Concluding Observations from the 1998 review that
144 Statistics Canada, CANSIM table (for fee) 202-0802 and Catalogue no. 75-202-X.
Last modified: 2005-08-12.
145 Canadian Labour Congress, The Economy
146 National Council of Welfare, Welfare Incomes 2004.
http://www.ncwcnbes.net/htmdocument/reportWelfareIncomes2004/WI2004EngRE...
147 National Council of Welfare, “Fix Welfare Financing and End the Clawback of Child Benefits”, News Release,
June 7, 2005.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 52
this practice be stopped. Only three provinces, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Quebec, do not
reduce social assistance cheques by the amount of the NCBS.
6.8 NAPO urges CESCR to recommend ending this unfair practice, which discriminates against
those receiving social assistance who are among the poorest families in Canada.
NATIONAL WORKING GROUP –
WOMEN AND HOUSING IN CANADA148
THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE HOUSING FOR WOMEN IN CANADA:
ARTICLES 2(2), 3 and 11(1)
Across Canada low- income women identify access to safe, secure, affordable housing as an
immediate and desperate need. Low-income women’s housing conditions and homelessness was
of grave concern to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its 1998 review of
Canada. Since that time, governments in Canada have done little to address the Committee’s
concerns, despite the fact that the country continues to prosper.
1. Women’s Homelessness is Different than Men’s – Women Try to Stay Off the Streets to
Avoid Violence and the Apprehension of their Children.
The increasing number of women in shelters is only a small fraction of the number of
women across Canada experiencing housing crises and homelessness. Women will do almost
anything to avoid living on the streets and even in shelters because of the threat of violence this
poses and because it can easily result in their children being taken away by State authorities.149 In
its Fourth Periodic Report to the Committee, the Government of Canada indicates that it intends to
undertake a national street count of homeless persons to “enhance the knowledge base on
homelessness” (par. 341). This type of “count” is not a full insight into women’s homelessness
and will not lead to gender- inclusive policy-making.
The federal government should coordinate the collection of statistics of the numbers of low-income
women waiting for subsidized housing across the country and the numbers of low-income women
evicted from their housing, as was recommended by the Committee in its 1993 review of
Canada.150
148The National Working Group on Women and Housing in Canada (NWG) is comprised of members from every
province and territory, whose combined experience and expertise represents many decades of service provision,
research and policy development on women's housing, poverty, and homelessness. The NWG is the only national
organization on women’s housing issues in Canada.
149 Ibid, pp. 1-2.
150 CESCR (1993), Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant,
Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Canada, E/C.12/1993/5, at par.
19.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 53
2. Women Do Not Have Access to Subsidized Housing. Within the Private Market they
Experience Discrimination.
The most direct role of the federal government with respect to housing and homelessness
has traditionally been through the provision of assisted rental housing. Since the majority of lowincome
women are tenants, access to affordable rental housing is central to addressing women’s
homelessness.
In 1993 the federal government announced a freeze on federal funding contributions to
social housing, and the cancellation of funding for any new social housing (except for a few
limited exceptions). The federal government has downloaded responsibility for social housing
programs to the provinces/territories without ensuring that women receive the equal benefit of
federal spending in this area. Women are more likely than men to meet income qualifications for
assisted housing and therefore more adversely affected by cuts to assisted housing.
In response to the housing crisis in Canada, in 2001 the Government of Canada initiated
the Affordable Housing Program (AHP) through Framework Agreements signed with several
provinces and territories. Absent from the initiative is an accountability mechanism to ensure that
a minimum proportion of units be allocated to core need households and in keeping with principles
of equality. 151 Without subsidized housing, women are increasingly relying on the private rental
market to meet their housing needs. Within the private market, women commonly confront
discrimination: landlords who do not want to rent to them because they are single-parents,
because they are Aboriginal and/or non-white, because they have children or large/extended
families, because they are in receipt of social assistance, because they are newcomers.152
The Government of Canada must uphold the Affordable Housing Framework Agreements with the
provinces and territories and invest the agreed upon $1 billion CDN in subsidized housing
through the construction of new housing units, the provision of rent supplements and other
mechanisms. Funding for new rental housing supply should be made conditional on nondiscriminatory
rental practices and on ensuring that the stock will remain affordable rental in the
future.
3. Low-Income Women Cannot Afford Housing in Canada. Income Support Programs
such as Social Assistance and Employment Insurance are set at Inadequate Levels.
In its 1998 review of Canada, the Committee noted the particularly harsh impact that the
repeal of CAP and cuts in social assistance rates and social services had on women, particularly
sole support mothers.153 Coupled with an inadequate supply of affordable housing stock, and
increasing rents in the private market this has meant that available housing is unaffordable for
most low-income women.154
151 As of October 2005 it is estimated that only 12,000 new homes – 10% of the total committed under the AHP – had
been built. See: National Housing and Homelessness Network, Dying for a place to call home: Women and
Homelessness in Toronto and Canada, October 2005.
152 CERA, Barriers to Equality, at pp. 18 – 21. See also: , Response to the Affordable Housing Strategy Stakeholders
Consultation, December 2004 at pp. 2, 4;
153 CESCR (1998), paras. 19, 21, 23.
154 CERA, Barriers to Equality, pp. 8 – 15, 47 – 54 and National Anti-Poverty Organization (NAPO), Voices: Women,
Poverty and Homelessness in Canada, May 2004, pp.27- 29.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 54
In 1998 the Committee made a series of recommendations to the Government of Canada
with respect to housing and anti-poverty measures that, if acted upon in a meaningful way, could
have dramatically improved the housing conditions of low- income women. To date, none of these
measures has been undertaken.
Governments in Canada should:
consider re-establishing a national program with specific cash transfers for social
assistance155;
increase shelter allowances to realistic levels156;
amend the National Child Benefit Scheme to prohibit provinces/territories from deducting the
benefit from social assistance entitlements157; and
direct a greater proportion of government budgets to address women’s poverty, the poverty of
their children, affordable day care, and to provide adequate support for shelters for battered
women. 158
4. Women Are Forced to Stay in Abusive Relationships Because They Have Few Housing
Options.
In 1998 and 1993 the Committee expressed concern that the lack of housing options for
women was forcing many women to stay in abusive relationships and was leading to the
apprehension of children by the State.159 This remains the case today. Women report that the two
biggest systemic barriers to women and children escaping violence is inadequate income
assistance and the lack of affordable housing. 160 In the Yukon and the Northwest Territories
women trying to leave abusive situations are not given priority status for subsidized housing. In
many Indigenous communities the lack of shelters or places within existing shelters means women
cannot leave abusive relationships.161 With few housing options women are compelled to return
to abusive situations and then risk the apprehension of their children by child protection agents.162
Funding for women’s shelters and second stage housing needs to be restored and enhanced.
Women fleeing abuse must be given priority for subsidized housing.
5. Low-Income Women are Discriminated Against by the Federal Government’s Home
Ownership Program.
Federal programs that promote access to affordable home ownership and renovation and
repair of owned homes are not of equal benefit to women. This is because of discriminatory
policies maintained by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), which disqualify
155 CESCR (1998), supra, note 1 at par. 40.
156 Ibid.
157 Ibid.,at par. 44.
158 Ibid., at par. 54.
159 CESCR (1998), at par. 28 and CESCR (1993) at par. 14.
160 OAITH, Response to the Affordable Housing Strategy Stakeholders Consultation, December 2004, p. 2.
161 Native Women’s Association of Canada, Participant Briefing for the Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable
Sectoral Follow-Up Session on Housing (24 – 25 November 2004).
162 Mosher et al., Walking on Eggshells: Abused Women’s Experiences of Ontario’s Welfare System, April 2004, p.14.
See also: OAITH, Response to the Affordable Housing Program.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 55
the majority of sole support mothers and low-income women from homeownership on the
basis of a 32% “gross debt service to income ratio”. Under this policy, women are denied access
to homeownership on the basis of their income, even if they have been paying more in rent than
would be required by mortgage and property tax payments. In this way, the CMHC’s
underwriting system about which the Government of Canada boasts (par. 328) is discriminatory.
CMHC’s restrictions on mortgage insurance should be removed and regulation of banks should
ensure that women and low income households are provided with alternative ways of
demonstrating credit worthiness.
NATIVE WOMEN’S ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
Article 1: Right to Self-Determination
The right to self-determination is a right of central importance to Indigenous Peoples in Canada
since self-determination is necessary in order to remedy the colonial impacts associated with the
dispossession of lands, territories and resources, including the current socio-economic
marginalization of Indigenous peoples. Rights without remedies are empty rights, which is the
rationale for NWAC’s previous calls for the development of a comprehensive Optional Protocol to
the ICESCR applying to all rights in the Covenant, including the right to self-determination in
Article 1.
Actions Required of Canada:
Support the development of a comprehensive Optional Protocol to the ICESCR as proposed by the
NGO Coalition for an OP-ICESCR that covers all rights contained within the ICESCR (including
the right to self-determination). Individuals, groups of individuals and organizations should have
standing to launch complaints under the Optional Protocol.
Articles 2(2) & 3: Non-Discrimination and Equal Rights between Men and Women as it relates
to Matrimonial Property Rights, Membership/Status Rules, Human Rights Legislation and
Participation of Indigenous Women
There are several areas in which the right to non-discrimination (between non-Indigenous and
Indigenous peoples in Canada and the right to equality (between Indigenous women and
Indigenous men) are not provided to Indigenous people nor to Indigenous women. First, in the
context of matrimonial property rights, Indigenous individuals living on-reserve do not have
access to the same legislative protections as individuals living off-reserve. This has a particularly
detrimental effect on Indigenous women. Where violence is involved lack of matrimonial
property rights puts both Indigenous women and their children at greater risk for staying in an
abusive environment due to a lack of alternative housing choices. Despite numerous national and
E/C.12/36/3
Page 56
international reports documenting this human rights violation, Canada has failed to make policy or
legislative changes, in conjunction with Indigenous peoples, to address these inequities.
Bill C-31, which amended the 1985 Indian Act, ostensibly to remove discriminatory provisions of
the Act related to membership and Indian status, has led to continued residual gender
discrimination against First Nations women and their descendants, as well as to a two-tiered status
system that negatively impacts all First Nations individuals. Upon marriage to a Non-Status
individual, a Status individual loses his or her right to pass on status and membership rights to his
or her descendants.
Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act makes the Act inapplicable to all matters governed
by the Indian Act. The result has been that First Nations individuals and individuals living in First
Nations communities have not had the protection of human rights law. Ironically, the federal
legislation designed to ensure the right to live free from discrimination for all Canadians has failed
to be applied on a non-discriminatory basis, excluding from its application one sector of Canadian
society.
Finally, NWAC is recognized as the national Indigenous women’s voice in Canada. Throughout
recent high level policy dialogues, NWAC has been given a place to provide a culturally relevant,
gender based analysis. However, NWAC has not received equivalent funding to the other national
Aboriginal organizations, resulting in discriminatory treatment. Further, there is no mechanism to
ensure the full and effective participation of Indigenous women in self-government agreements,
treaties and intergovernmental agreements dealing with such matters as employment, health,
education, child welfare and other social services for Indigenous people, or for consultation on
Indian Act reforms.
Actions Required of Canada:
Matrimonial Property Rights
Implement policy and legislative changes identified in numerous national and international reports
aimed at ensuring that Indigenous individuals living on-reserve have equal matrimonial property
rights to those individuals living off- reserve.
Bill C-31
Implement policy and legislative changes that will remove the residual gender discrimination
against First Nations women and their descendants and redress the current erosion of rights to
membership and status under the Indian Act of all First Nations individuals.
Human Rights Legislation
Ensure that all Indigenous people have access to remedies for violations of their economic, social
and cultural rights, including through human rights legislation. Section 67 of the CHRA should be
repealed and a consultation process initiated with Indigenous representative organizations in
Canada with the aim of developing a parallel human rights system and legislative and/or policy
reforms aimed at ensuring that self- government agreements are consistent with international
human rights protections, including equality.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 57
Participation of Indigenous Women in Self-Government Agreements, Treaties, Intergovernmental
Agreements and Policy Discussions
Canada must ensure the full and effective participation of Indigenous women in all levels and
forms of decision- making affecting the rights and well-being of Indigenous peoples. This includes
providing equitable funding of Indigenous women’s organizations to ensure the full and effective
participation of Indigenous women in the negotiation of self- government agreements, treaties and
intergovernmental agreements and on reforms to the Indian Act.
Article 10: Protection of the Family, Mother and Child
Indigenous women in Canada suffer from disproportionately high rates of violence,
particularly sexualized, racialized violence, that lead to alarmingly high rates of
missing and murdered Indigenous women in Canada. Canada has failed to
adequately address the overall socio-economic marginalization of Indigenous women
and their children that leads to their increased vulnerability to systemic forms of
violence. Access to justice remains limited to Indigenous women and serves to their
further marginalization.
Actions Required of Canada:
Gather adequate statistical information on violence against Indigenous women, “fully address the
root causes of this phenomenon, including the economic and social marginalisation of Aboriginal
women.163
Ensure effective access to justice, including ensuring that police have adequate training and
resources to respond effectively and without discrimination to reports of all missing Indigenous
women.
Article 11: The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living
Indigenous women and their families suffer from high rates of homelessness and overall low
standards of living. Policy dialogues with Indigenous peoples in Canada, including the Cabinet
Retreat in May 2005 and a First Ministers Meeting in November 2005 in Kelowna with
Indigenous leaders led to a policy accord signed between NWAC and Canada at the Cabinet
Retreat and a Kelowna Agreement between Canada, the provincial and territorial governments and
the five national Aboriginal organizations. However, the current government of Canada has not
committed to the financial resources required to ensure that the commitments contained within the
Kelowna Agreement are honoured.
Actions Required of Canada:
Implement existing agreements between Canada and national Aboriginal organizations aimed at
ensuring an adequate standard of living is attained for Indigenous peoples in Canada.
163 Paragraph 23 of the Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee, document number
CCPR/CAN/CO/5. The Human Rights Committee also calls for effective access to justice for Indigenous women.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 58
Article 12: The Right to Health
The life expectancy rate of Aboriginal women is well below that of the mainstream female
population and Aboriginal women, because of continuing oppression, abuse, discrimination, and
poor socio-economic status, are more apt to experience illness and disease associated with these
conditions, including diabetes, certain cancers, cardiovascular diseases, disabilities, addictions,
sexually-transmitted infections, and depression. There is an urgent need to provide First Nations,
Métis and Inuit women equitable access to health care services, including addressing the health
needs of Aboriginal women in a culturally relevant manner.
Actions Required of Canada:
Provide First Nations, Métis and Inuit women equitable access to health care services. This must
be done in a gender-specific, culturally appropriate manner with the full and effective participation
of Indigenous women at all stages.
Make resources available to address all issues that negatively impact on Aboriginal women’s wellbeing,
including poverty, lack of housing, sexualized, racialized violence, employment, education,
etc.
Implement the Aboriginal Health Blueprint Objectives identified by NWAC in its Companion
Document to the Cabinet Re treat of May 2005.
POVERTY AND HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE
The Rights of Women in the Province of British Columbia
The Province of British Columbia: Steady Growth and Budget Surpluses
In its recent February 2006 budget, the government of British Columbia forecast economic growth
of 3.3 per cent in the next year and surpluses of $600 million in 2006/07, $400 million in 2007/08
and $150 million in 2008/09. On top of these projected surpluses, the government also included
forecast allowances of $850 million in 2006/07, $550 million in 2007/08, and $400 million in
2008/09. Budget surpluses in 2004/05 and 2005/06 were between $2 billion and $3 billion each
year.164
164 The BC Office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives estimates considerably larger surpluses—
$2.9 billion in 2006/07 and $3.9 billion in 2007/08—claiming that the BC government consistently
underestimates its available revenues at budget time. Indeed, the past four BC budgets have understated the
province’s budget position by a combined total of $7.9 billion. Balanced Budget 2006: Growing With
Confidence, Backgrounder, Government of BC (online:
http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2006/backgrounder/default.htm, accessed 27 March 2006); CCPA BC Solutions
Budget 2006, online:
<http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/BC_Office_Pubs/bc_2006/soluti... > (date
accessed: 12 March 2006)
E/C.12/36/3
Page 59
Article 2(2) – Non-discrimination
Discrimination Against Women
The matters discussed in this submission all raise issues of substantive infringement of specific
rights elaborated in the Covenant. In addition, these government actions disproportionately
negatively impact women and, as such, are also discriminatory on the basis of sex, contrary to
Articles 2 and 3 of the Covenant.
Access to Justice
There are profound and documented deficiencies in current provincial provision of legal aid. In
2002, the government of British Columbia drastically reduced the availability of legal aid, with
budget cuts of almost 40 per cent. No legal aid services at all are currently provided for family
maintenance or custody disputes, except where there is evidence that violence is involved. As
well, direct services for poverty law matters, that is, for landlord/tenant, employment insurance,
employment standards, welfare, and disability pension claims or appeals, have been eliminated.165
This disproportionately affects women, who make up the majority of poor adults and family law
litigants. Studies show that criminal law legal aid is used mainly by men, whereas civil law legal
aid, especially family law legal aid, is used mainly by women. Thus, these legal aid changes
effectively deny legal representation to the most vulnerable women in matters that affect their
ability to pay for food and shelter for themselves and their children, to escape violent spouses, and
to seek spousal support and custody of their children. 166
Article 11 – The right to an adequate standard of living
Women’s Poverty
Latest available data shows British Columbia with one of the highest rates in Canada of poverty
for single mother- led families: at 47.4 per cent, the rate is higher than in Canada generally.
Indeed, the situation of these women and their children deteriorated from 2001 – 2003. These BC
women also have the second deepest level of poverty among single mother-led families in Canada,
on average $11,600 below Statistics Canada’s LICO.167 Generally, BC has the highest lowincome
rate in Canada among families at 11.5 percent.168
165 Legal Services Society, Backgrounder, “Legal Aid Services and Tariffs Summary of Cuts” (25 February 2002),
online: Legal Services Society <http://www.lss.bc.ca> (date accessed: 6 August 2002).
166 “Women Pay the Price of Legal Aid Cuts,” BC Issues: A snapshot of recent provincial policy changes, CCPA-BC,
Issue #1 September 2004 (online:
167 Statistics Canada, Income Trends in Canada, 2003; Poverty Profile 2001, National Council of Welfare, 2005
(online: http://www.ncwcnbes.net/, accessed 28 March.)
168 “Family Income”, The Daily, May 12, 2005 (online: http:www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050512/d050512a.htm,
accessed 27 March 2006.)
E/C.12/36/3
Page 60
Cutbacks to Social Assistance and the Impact on Women
In 2002, the provincial government of British Columbia restructured and cutback provincial social
assistance, instituting a number of changes to eligibility and benefit provision. For instance,
welfare income for single mother- led families, already below Statistics Canada’s LICO lines, was
significantly reduced. This was the result of, first, a cut in welfare benefits for families. Second,
single mothers are not longer allowed to keep a monthly $100 of child support and up to $200 of
earnings exemptions for these same families have been eliminated. These changes mean that, for
some families (disproportionately single mother-led families), benefit levels have been drastically
reduced. For example, a single mother- led family with two children could see a reduction of up to
$390, or 25 per cent. The result is benefit levels even further below Statistics Canada’s LICOs.169
In June 2002, The BC Association of Social Workers passed a motion censuring the Minister
responsible for income assistance for these changes, stating that the new legislative changes
would:
…reduce financial assistance, reduce eligibility for assistance and refuse assistance
to others and in doing so, inflict harm on individuals and families, increase poverty,
inequality and health risks, and deny an adequate standard of living for those whom
the Ministry is committed to assist.170
Recent research demonstrates that this has in fact been the case. First, the process of seeking
income assistance (welfare) has become so restrictive and difficult to navigate that many of the
very people most in need of help are being systematically excluded from receipt of benefits.
Second, benefit provision levels are so inadequate that there is widespread housing, food and
social insecurity among welfare recipients. In 2003, for example, 78.6 per cent of all BC food
bank recipients were on income assistance.171
These cuts have had a disproportionate negative impact on women. For example, one third of
welfare recipients are single parents, 88.5 percent of who are single mothers.172 Gendered
negative impacts include the following: (i) women are forced to turn to the sex trade for survival.
Two recent studies report accounts of women put at increasing risk of being trapped in the sex
trade because of income assistance delays and denials; (ii) women are forced to remain in or return
to abusive relationships; (iii) women’s poverty rates—particularly the poverty of especially
vulnerable women—have remained unacceptably high, both in terms of numbers of women living
in poverty and the depth of poverty in which these women and their families live; (iv) women who
169 Seth Klein and Andrea Long, A Bad Time to be Poor: An Analysis of British Columbia’s New Welfare Policies
(Vancouver: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, June 2003), at 4.
170 BC Association of Social Workers, (2002), Press Release: BC Social Workers Vote to Censure Minister of Human
Resources, Murray Coell, Vancouver.
171 Denied Assistance: Closing the Front Door on Welfare in BC, Bruce Wallace, Seth Klein, and Marge Reitsma-
Street (Vancouver Island Public Interest Research Group and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2006)
(online: www.policyalternatives.ca, accessed 27 March 2006); Losing Ground: The Effects of Government Cutbacks
on Women in British Columbia, 2001 – 2005, Gillian Creese & Veronica Strong-Boag, March 2005, a report prepared
for the BC Coalition of Women’s Centres, et al, (online: http://www3.telus.net/bcwomen/archives/rep-iwd-reesestrong+
boag-losing+ground+report.pdf, accessed 27 March 2006.
172 Losing Ground, Creese & Strong-Boag, Id., at 17.
E/C.12/36/3
Page 61
are single mothers are unable to chose the balance of stay-at-home mothering and paid work that
bests suits their and their children’s needs.173
First Call BC, a coalition focused on child poverty, has stated that it has uncovered through
Freedom of Information requests “that virtually no research went into the changes.” Thus, the
government has been willfully negligent as to the discriminatory and destructive impact of these
changes.174
In 2003, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women in its Concluding
Observations from Canada’s fifth periodic review expressed concern about these recent changes to
legal aid and welfare, noting the disproportionate negative impact on women, in particular
aboriginal women. The Committee urged the government of British Columbia to analyse its
recent legal and other measures as to their negative impact on women and to amend the measures,
where necessary. 175 The government of British Columbia shows no intention of doing this.
173 Human Rights Denied: Single Mothers on Social Assistance in British Columbia, Gwen Brodsky, et. al., 2005,
Poverty and Human Rights Centre (online: http: www.povertyandhumanrights.org/docs/denied.pdf, accessed 28
March 2006); Losing Ground, Creese & Strong-Boag, id., at 6; Denied Assistance, Wallace et. al., id.
174 First Call , the BC Child and Yo uth Advocacy Coalition, (2004), The 2005 British Columbia Budget: Time for
Profound Changes, at 4.
175 Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Twenty-eighth session
(13-31 January 2003) and Twenty-ninth session (30 June-18 July 2003), Fifty-eighth Session Supplement
No. 38 (A/58/38) at para. 357.