International review of the Canadian Human Rights Commission can provide limited gains for anti-racism advocacy

The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) has decided to conduct a special review of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). A coalition of civil society organizations, including the Black Class Action Secretariat, Canadian Association of Public Employees, and others, requested the review.

As the international body that accredits national human rights institutions, GANHRI will evaluate the CHRC’s level of compliance with the United Nations’ Paris Principles that set minimum standards for national human rights institutions to uphold.

The review may draw attention to issues of racial discrimination at the CHRC and the coalition’s proposed reforms, but GANHRI’s record indicates that it will most likely decide that the CHRC is still complying with the Paris Principles at the highest level.

Complaints of racism at the CHRC

Since 2020, the coalition has been raising concerns about racial discrimination in the CHRC’s workplace and how it fulfills its mandate of resolving complaints of discrimination against federally regulated entities.

Initially, the coalition pursued domestic avenues for change. There were union-based grievance processes for several Black and racialized CHRC employees and a comprehensive Senate Committee on Human Rights study. In 2023, both the Treasury Board Secretariat and Senate Committee found racial discrimination was an issue within the CHRC.

In response, the CHRC has been introducing a range of initiatives to address anti-Black racism, sexism and systemic discrimination. The coalition, however, wants the CHRC and Canadian government to pursue more sweeping reforms to the CHRC and its associated legislation. Key reforms would amend equity and non-discrimination legislation, and change the complaint procedure so individuals could directly access a tribunal, rather than go through the commission itself.

To generate international pressure for reforms, the coalition wants GANHRI to review the CHRC’s compliance with the Paris Principles, particularly the requirements for pluralism to reflect society and for promoting and protecting human rights without discrimination. It is hoping GANHRI will reassess the CHRC’s top-level accreditation status.

How reviews of national human rights institutions work

Ironically, and seemingly reflecting its high status, the CHRC prepared GANHRI’s guide to how its accreditation committee works.

GANHRI’s committee gives national human rights institutions grades based on their compliance with the Paris Principles: A for full compliance, and B for partial compliance. The committee also may give them recommendations on how to better adhere to the Paris Principles.

Having A-status allows a national human rights institution to participate in the work of the UN Human Rights Council and other UN mechanisms. A downgrade to B-status indicates compliance issues and revokes those privileges.

The committee normally reviews national human rights institutions every five years and just gave the CHRC A-status after its routine review in 2023.

Beyond this regular review cycle, civil society organizations can submit information to GANHRI if they feel an institution is not complying with the Paris Principles. GANHRI’s committee then decides whether to conduct a special review.

GANHRI’s committee decided to conduct the special review of the CHRC, planned for its next session in Fall 2024, after the coalition highlighted the Treasury Board Secretariat’s and Senate Committee’s recent findings of discrimination within the CHRC.

The impact of reviewing the CHRC

To increase public pressure for action from the CHRC and Canadian government, the coalition has widely publicized its request for, and GANHRI’s decision to conduct, the special review.

In its press conference, the coalition’s spokesperson said GANHRI’s “landmark” decision puts Canada “among the ranks of nations like Russia, Iraq and Venezuela, who have faced a special review.” The coalition focused on states with weak human rights records to shame the CHRC, but national human rights institutions in states with stronger human rights records, like the United Kingdom, have also undergone special reviews.

The coalition also strongly emphasized how GANHRI could downgrade the CHRC’s status from A to B and, by extension, revoke key privileges. However, those familiar with GANHRI’s past practice will expect that it will maintain the CHRC’s top-level status.

The vast majority of GANHRI’s members (90 out of 118) have A-status. Also, with the example of the UK’s national human rights institution, two special reviews did not produce any downgrade in status.

The CHRC’s response to GANHRI’s committee could detail how it has undertaken various initiatives on the issues of concern. While those initiatives might be inadequate for the coalition, they will probably be adequate for the GANHRI committee to maintain the CHRC’s A-status.

Therefore, the coalition’s threats of a downgrade in status for the CHRC are unlikely to materialize. Still, the committee’s review may produce recommendations for improvements, which could more subtly assist the coalition’s advocacy.

Overall, the coalition’s turn to the international level has served its domestic agenda by drawing attention to issues of racial discrimination within the CHRC and the coalition’s desired reforms. However, GANHRI’s review will generate minimal international pressure for reforms if it maintains the CHRC’s top-level status as a national human rights institution, so the coalition will need to once again alter its advocacy strategy.