 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Contribution by Governments
AHC6 - Article 15bis: Canadian
comments Aug 4 2005
$ The preamble already includes language on multiple forms of discrimination
and on the need to incorporate a gender perspective in all efforts to promote
the full enjoyment of human rights by persons with disabilities, in paragraphs
m and n.
$ However, in Canada’s view, these references are not sufficient, and specific
obligations in the body of the Convention are required in order to fully address
and mainstream issues of particular concern to women with disabilities in the
Convention.
$ In this regard, Canada would therefore propose the addition of:
$ First, a clear principle in Article 2 guaranteeing the equal protection of
the rights of women (as proposed by Canada at the 3rd AHC and supported by a
number of States):
“Equality between men and women”
$ Second, a general obligation in Article 4 requiring States Parties to ensure
the equal enjoyment of all human rights by women with disabilities and to mainstream
a gender perspective in all policies and programs relating to persons with disabilities:
Article 4(1)(f)ter“To respect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all
human rights and fundamental freedoms by every woman with a disability without
discrimination of any kind, and to this end, to mainstream a gender perspective
in all policies and programs relating to persons with disabilities;”
$ Third, the specific needs of women with disabilities that are not already
addressed elsewhere, either in this Convention or in other instruments, should
be addressed throughout this Convention where it is needed, consistent with
the principle of mainstreaming a gender perspective. However, we should not
merely repeat provisions already contained in other instruments.
$ Examples of where women with disabilities are already mainstreamed in the
Convention include:
$ Article 6 on statistics provides for disaggregation of data on the basis of
sex.
$ Article 7 provides for non-discrimination on the basis of sex.
$ Article 14bis on the family contains a reference to women. The issue addressed
in para 2c of the Republic of Korea’s proposal could be incorporated here.
$ Article 23(1)(b) on social security and an adequate standard of living includes
a specific reference to women and girls.
$ Additional places where such issues may need to be addressed may include:
$ Article 12 on violence and abuse:
Suggested new subpara: “States Parties recognize the particular vulnerability
of women with disabilities, and shall therefore take special measures to protect
women with disabilities from all forms of violence, injury or abuse, neglect
or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual exploitation
and abuse.”
$ Article 17 on education
$ Article 21 on health
$ Article 22 on work
$ Canada is open to a specific article if there are issues which cannot be better
addressed elsewhere.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHC6 - Article 15bis Canadian
statement Aug 2 2005
$ Canada welcomes the initiative from the Republic of Korea, which has focussed
the attention of the Committee on the issue of how to best address the concerns
and needs of women with disabilities and make them visible in this convention.
$ Disabled women are subject to multiple forms of discrimination and are one
of the most highly marginalized groups. Women with disabilities have been recognized
as a particularly disadvantaged group in a number of international documents,
including the Beijing Declaration and Platform of action.
$ It is clear that all delegations agree that issues specific to women with
disabilities should be included in this Convention.
$ The issue before the Committee is how to best achieve this goal.
$ On the one hand, some delegations have supported a specific article on this
issue. In Canada’s view, however, a stand-alone article would not be the best
approach to dealing with this issue.
$ In Canada’s view, the specific needs of women with disabilities should be
addressed throughout this Convention wherever it is needed, consistent with
the principle of mainstreaming a gender perspective in all relevant provisions.
$ We note that the preamble already includes language on multiple forms of discrimination
and on the need to incorporate a gender perspective in all efforts to promote
the full enjoyment of human rights by persons with disabilities, in paragraphs
m and n. However, in Canada’s view, these references are not sufficient.
$ In this regard, Canada welcomes the proposals from the Republic of Korea,
the European Union and others, and also the very interesting and valuable discussion
paper “Towards the visibility of women with disabilities in the UN convention”
issued by Disabled Persons International. Building on these ideas, Canada would
propose the addition of:
$ Firstly, a clear principle in Article 2 guaranteeing the equal protection
of the rights of women, along the lines of Article 3 of the ICCPR, as Canada
has already suggested.
$ Secondly, a general obligation in Article 4 requiring States Parties to mainstream
a gender perspective in all policies and programs relating to persons with disabilities
$ and Thirdly, the inclusion of specific references in the key articles of particular
concern to women (many of which issues were highlighted in the proposal from
ROK), in particular:
$ article 7 on equality and non-discrimination
$ Article 12 on violence and abuse
$ Article 14bis on the family
$ article 17 on education
$ Article 21 on health
$ and Article 22 on work.
$ As an example of this approach, we note that there is already a specific reference
to women and girls in Article 23(1)(b) on social security and an adequate standard
of living.
$ Canada is willing to work with the facilitator and other delegations to develop
a comprehensive package of specific proposals to address these issues which
are so critical for women with disabilities.
$ Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada: Article 16 proposal:
Replace Article 16 with:
$ addition of the principles of the best interests of the child and the right
of the child to express his or her own views in Article 2
$ a strong general provision in Article 4 to ensure the full and equal enjoyment
of human rights by every child with a disability without discrimination.
$ references in specific articles to mainstream and address issues specific
to children with disabilities throughout the Convention, such as article 6 on
statistics, which already includes a reference to age, article 12 on freedom
from violence and abuse, article 14bis on the family, which already includes
references to children, article 17, which already addresses the education of
children, article 21 on health and rehabilitation or habilitation, and article
24 on participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure, and sport.
$ open to a specific article if there are issues which cannot be better addressed
elsewhere.
Article 2:
new subpara e)bis:
“The best interests of the child, which shall be a primary consideration in
all actions concerning children with disabilities;”
new subpara e)ter:
“The right of every child with a disability to express his or her own views
freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given
due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.”
Article 4: new subpara:
“To respect and ensure the equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental
freedoms by every child with a disability without discrimination of any kind;”
Article 12: new subpara 6bis:
“States Parties recognize the particular vulnerability of children with disabilities,
and shall therefore take special measures to protect children with disabilities
from all forms of violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment,
maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual exploitation and abuse.”
Article 21: new subpara:
“Ensure in particular that every child with a disability has access to health
care and habilitation services that address his or her particular needs;”
Article 24: new subara:
“States Parties shall ensure in particular that every child with a disability
has equal access to play and recreational and leisure activities appropriate
to his or her age, and can participate freely and fully in cultural life and
the arts on an equal basis with other children.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHC6 - article 16 Canadian
statement Aug 2 2005
$ Canada reaffirms its strong commitment to the Convention on the Rights of
the Child, and the promotion and protection of the rights of every child. We
agree with many other delegations who have noted the particular vulnerability
of children with disabilities because of their young age and disability.
$ We have noted however the comments of many disabilities organizations that
article 23 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is not sufficient to
address all of the issues relating to children with disabilities. In particular,
we have noted the comments that confining the issue of disabilities to one article
in that convention has had the effect of limiting attention and reporting on
children with disabilities to this article.
$ Canada therefore supports adding strong language to this convention to more
fully address issues related to children with disabilities.
$ However, we are of the view that article 16 of the working group text, which
essentially repeats with variations article 23 of the CRC, is not a very useful
addition to this convention as it does little more than repeat an obligation
that almost every state already has and therefore has little added value. In
addition, we want to avoid limiting the focus on children with disabilities
to one article.
$ In Canada’s view, an essential objective of this convention should be to highlight
the issue of children with disabilities so as to raise awareness and ensure
that children with disabilities can enjoy all their rights without discrimination.
$ Instead of article 16, Canada would therefore support adding strong general
provisions in Article 2 and/or 4 to ensure the full and equal enjoyment of human
rights by all children with disabilities without discrimination. Such an initial
general provision in the convention would help raise awareness and apply across
the convention.
$ In addition, Canada is of the view that issues specific to children with disabilities
should be mainstreamed and addressed in detail where necessary in specific articles
that address relevant subjects, such as article 6 on statistics, article 12
on freedom from violence and abuse, article 14bis on the family, article 17,
which already addresses education, including children, article 21 on health
and rehabilitation or habilitation, and article 24 on participation in cultural
life, recreation, leisure, and sport.
$ If there are issues specific to children with disabilities that are not addressed
elsewhere and would not be better addressed as part of more comprehensive existing
articles, Canada would be open to addressing them in a specific article. Such
an article should not however repeat provisions contained in other instruments.
$ Canada is willing to work with the facilitator in order to develop specific
proposals to ensure that issues relating to children with disabilities are comprehensively
addressed in this convention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6AHC CANADIAN statement 17(1)
3 Aug 2005:
Article 17(1):
$ Canada expresses its appreciation to the facilitator as well as to the EU
and other delegations for the proposals which have been put forward, which we
will consider very carefully.
$ Canada reiterates its view that the Convention should be one that is framed
in terms of equality and non-discrimination. In the context of ESC rights, this
requires a focus on equal access to those rights and the benefits they entail.
$ Canada therefore supports a strong article that guarantees the right to education
without discrimination for all persons with disabilities and the obligation
of States to provide reasonable accommodation to guarantee the enjoyment or
exercise of the right on the basis of equality with others.
$ However, while issues related to education of particular concern to children
with disabilities should be mainstreamed into this article, the article should
not be limited to children.
$ The working group text is a good basis for our work, as it captures the idea
of equal opportunity. However, Canada would support a revision of article 17(1)
as a general chapeau for the article, based on the CEDAW non-discrimination
model, and applying to every person with a disability, as follows:
States Parties shall take appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against
persons with disabilities in order to ensure their enjoyment of the right to
education on an equal basis with others. With a view to achieving this right
and on the basis of equal opportunity, States Parties shall ensure:
$ As noted by other delegations, the issue of the progressive realization of
ESC rights should be addressed in a general provision such as article 4.
$ Canada also believes that it is important to avoid overly prescriptive detail
in the convention. As we have noted several times, it is important that the
convention serve as a principled document, that is capable of interpretation
over time.
$ Canada would propose to delete the subparas in paragraph 1, on the basis that
they are repeated from ICESCR, with one exception (the principle of the best
interests of the child, which is already enshrined in the CRC). In our view,
the principle of the best interests of the child would be better addressed in
a general provision, such as article 2.
$ Canada also supports the goal of inclusive education. We are considering how
that principle can best be reflected in the Convention, taking into account
the need for some flexibility in this regard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6AHC Canadian statement 17(2)
Aug 3 2005
Article 17(2)
$ With respect to article 17(2)(a) of the WG text, Canada would support the
EU proposal to revise this reference to read “to the extent possible in the
communities in which they live”, particularly as this provision refers to education
in general, which would include all levels, and is not limited to primary education.
$ With respect to article 17(2)(b) of the WG text, as we have already mentioned,
Canada believes that it is important to avoid overly prescriptive detail in
the convention. It is important that the convention serve as a principled document,
that is capable of interpretation over time. Canada therefore supports the inclusion
of an obligation to provide reasonable accommodation. However, we would prefer
a general reference, without attempting an exhaustive listing of specific means
of reasonable accommodation.
$ In addition, the EU’s proposal on subpara 5 on training may be a useful approach
to this issue.
$ With respect to article 17(2)(c) of the WG text, Canada would agree with those
delegations which have stressed that the general principle should be that no
person with a disability should be denied equal access to education at any level
on the basis of disability, rather than singling out the primary level, and
we note with interest the EU’s proposed 4(a) in this regard. This should be
one of the overarching principles in this article.
$ We would also support addressing education issues specific to children with
disabilities in this Article which are not already adequately addressed either
in this convention or in other international instruments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE 18
Canada - Talking Points – Aug. 3, 2005 – as drafted and delivered in part (many
points not referred to since the Chair had already provided his summary, in
which he indicated that he had understood the Committee to be moving in the
direction Canada would have also proposed)
• Canada wholeheartedly supports the purpose of this Article, namely to ensure
that persons with disabilities are equally and fully able to participate in
political and public life and, in particular, that existing discriminatory barriers
to such participation should be removed and new barriers should be prevented
from arising.
• Canada therefore agrees with the spirit and intent of the Working Group draft
language. However, in our view, many of the proposals made by the EU and New
Zealand at the 3rd Ad Hoc Committee meeting, and reflected again in their statement
today, improve significantly upon the text.
• In particular, Canada shares the view that the chapeau of Article 18 should
be articulated in terms of equality and non-discrimination on the basis of disability.
It should include a strong guarantee of the right and opportunity of persons
with disabilities to participate in political and public life on an equal basis
with others. In our view, and as New Zealand and others have already stated,
framing the right in terms of equality should obviate the need to refer somewhat
awkwardly to “citizens with disabilities”, as is currently done in the current
Working Group draft para. a). [see art. 7 CEDAW]
• Having framed the general right to participate in political and public life
in terms of equality, it is Canada’s view that the Article can then go on to
elucidate, in a non-exhaustive manner, some of the specific ways in which the
equal right to political participation by persons with disabilities may be promoted
and achieved.
• To this end, Canada supports references to some of the particular ways in
which voting procedures and facilities should be made accessible and should
accommodate the diverse needs of persons with disabilities. In order to strengthen
the language of current WG para. a), we believe it should also make explicit
reference to voting materials, by which we mean ballots, voter guides, etc.
• In WG subpara a)i), Canada suggests adding “and use” (would read “are accessible
and easy to understand and use”)
• With respect to subparas. a)ii) and iii), Canada joins the Chair in wanting
to ensure that these subparas. are carefully drafted to ensure that secrecy
of the ballot is preserved while ensuring that persons with disabilities are
allowed to use the support they require to exercise their right to vote.
• With respect to WG para b), we agree with New Zealand, Argentina and others
who believe that the chapeau to this para. should be strengthened, and in particular
that it should refer to a participation in “political and public life”, as opposed
to the more limited “public administration” currently found in the WG text.
• Canada also supports a reference in para. b) to participation “on an equal
basis with others”, as per New Zealand and IDC draft language.
• Canada agrees with the Chair’s observation that this para. must be drafted
carefully, with a view to the need to avoid interfering excessively in the affairs
of political parties.
• Canada supports New Zealand and others’ proposal to refer under para. b) to
participation of persons with disabilities in the formulation of public policy
and their equal right to hold public office and perform all public functions
at all levels of government. We believe that this captures the concept found
in current WG para. c), which could then be deleted.
• If para. c) is to remain in the text, we agree with Chile and others that
the reference to “in particular those concerning issues relating to persons
with disabilities” should be deleted, as it could be interpreted as unduly narrowing
the scope of the protection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 5, 2005
Article 19
The realization of the purpose of this convention requires the removal of existing
barriers and the prevention of future barriers impeding the full, equal and
effective participation in all aspects of human activity by persons with disabilities.
The term accessibility goes beyond describing specific measures and in the context
of this convention emerges as an overriding and organizing principle. Therefore,
Canada proposes that accessibility should be included as a fundamental principle
in article 2, and should be considered for inclusion in the context of article
4 (concerning state obligations), and article 7 as it is inextricably linked
with the principles of equality and non-discrimination.
In addition to being a fundamental principle of the convention as a whole, accessibility
can be exemplified by way of specific measures, such as those set out, for example,
in articles 13, 19, 20 and 24.
As we have stated before, Article 13 (Freedom of Expression and Opinion, and
Access to Information), Article 19 (Accessibility) and Article 20 (Personal
Mobility) overlap to some extent.
Canada therefore proposes that articles 19 and 20 be consolidated with a view
to reducing unnecessary overlap and repetition and striking a balance between
articulating the general principle of accessibility and enumerating specific
measures addressing currently identifiable barriers.
To this end, Canada proposes the following amendments:
1. We propose to insert the words "and effective" between the words
"appropriate" and "measures" in the chapeau of paragraphs
1 and 2 of article 19. We note that the chapeau of article 20 contains the term
"effective".
2. We also propose the addition of the words "and information" at
the end of sub-para 19 2 (b). This addition is intended to give effect to the
Committee's decision (taken during the fifth session) to consider sub-paragraph
13.2 (e) under article 19.
As a result, 19.2 (b) would now read as follows: (b) "provide other forms
of live assistance and intermediaries, including guides, readers and sign language
interpreters, to facilitate accessibility to public buildings and facilities,
and to information.”
3. Further, Canada proposes the deletion of sub-para 19.2 (e) (concerning technology
research). This proposal results from the decision taken by the Committee during
the fourth session and confirmed during the fifth session to merge sub-paragraph
(d) of article 13 with other similar paragraphs elsewhere in the text and move
them to draft Article 4 on general obligations. In Canada’s view, the issue
of affordably priced technologies can then be considered under article 4.
4. Sub-para 19.2 (f) concerning universally designed goods, services and equipment
is already covered and better worded under sub-para 1 (f) of article 4, although
we believe the wording could be improved.
5. Sub-para 19.2 (g) concerning consultation of persons with disabilities can
be more effectively covered under para 2 of article 4.
6. I would like to note that subpara. 19.2 (c) concerning national standards
may pose challenges for federal states, and we suggest that this be taken into
account in the drafting. If it would be helpful, Canada would be happy to provide
relevant language.
7. Finally, I note that the issue of mobility as envisaged under article 12
of the ICCPR was introduced under article 15 in this session. We believe that
in a general way it is covered under article 7 under equality and non-discrimination.
I would like to signal, however, Canada's openness to considering this issue
under another article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE 21 – RIGHT TO HEALTH
[AND REHABILITATION]
Canada - Talking points as delivered
Aug. 8, 2005
Canada shares the view that guaranteeing the equal right to the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health without discrimination on the basis of
disability is of great importance in this Convention. Canada is also very aware
of the fact that there has been a tendency in the past, however, to over-emphasize
the health-related aspects of disability and, in doing so, to lose sight of
the important human rights dimension of disability that requires societies and
their governments to take appropriate measures that go far beyond the medical
sphere to promote equality and inclusion. The focus of such measures should
be as much on changing social norms and structures as on providing services
to persons with disabilities. We believe all of these considerations should
be kept in mind as we work toward finalizing the language in this Article and
toward achieving a balance between a strong general guarantee of the right in
question and articulating the ways in which the right may be realized.
To that end, Canada has a number drafting proposals to suggest which we believe
will help both to strengthen this article and to focus it on the realization
of true equality for persons with disabilities with respect to the right to
health. Many of these suggestions pick up on those made by the EU and others
at this Session of the Ad Hoc Committee sessions and at previous ones.
First, however, and in response to the Chair’s invitation to speak to the issue
of whether rehabilitation should be separated from the right to health, in Canada’s
view, this Article should reflect a broad and holistic understanding of the
right to health which will, at times, include certain health-related elements
of what is commonly referred to as “rehabilitation”, including services such
as physiotherapy, for example. We are of the view that these concepts appear
to be included, by definition, in references to health services. Thus, we believe
that references to rehabilitation could be deleted from this Article.
At the same time, we believe that there are important aspects of both habilitation
and rehabilitation that are not health-related. Moreover, these aspects must
always be delivered in a manner that respects the human rights, dignity, equality,
inclusion and autonomy of persons with disabilities, something which has not
always occurred in the past. If we are to have a separate article on rehabilitation,
we believe that habilitation and rehabilitation should be carefully defined
and subjected to appropriate human rights protections.
Another alternative – Canada’s preferred alternative – would be to articulate
important aspects of social habilitation and rehabilitation in existing draft
Articles in terms. As New Zealand has suggested, these aspects would be articulated
in terms of their outcomes, thereby capturing what we understand most delegations
to mean by the terms “habiliation and rehabilitation”. These articles include:
• Article 15 on living in the community (e.g. paras. c) and proposed cbis) on
the provision of in-home, residential and other community support services);
• Article 17 on education (e.g. teaching of Braille, sign language, mobility
skills and other life and social development skills for persons with disabilities));
• Article 19 and/or 20 on personal mobility (e.g. facilitating access to mobility
aids and assistive devices); and
• Article 22 on the right to work (e.g. para. 22(g) on vocational and professional
rehabilitation programs).
Second, but just as important, Canada suggests that to highlight the importance
of promoting equality and eliminating discrimination against persons with disabilities
in respect of the right to health, the first sentence of the chapeau of Article
21 should “guarantee” (rather than recognize) the right of persons with disabilities
to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health
on an equal basis with others. In addition to the reference to equality, Canada
believes that the chapeau of this Article should refer explicitly, as is done
in Article 12 of the ICESCR, to the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable
standard of physical and mental health. We note in this regard that the Special
Rapporteur on Health’s 2005 Report to the Commission on Human Rights invites
us to remain mindful of the need to consider mental health as an important component
of the right to the highest attainable standard of health.
In Canada’s view, the second sentence of the chapeau is not required, and indeed
as currently drafted tends to weaken the guarantee of the right. In particular,
the language “strive to ensure” is not necessary or helpful, assuming once again
that concerns relating to progressive realization will be dealt with in Article
4 of the Convention.
Moreover, while access to healthcare services is an important aspect of the
right to health, it is only one aspect of the right to health as broadly defined
in international law, as we have heard today. We therefore suggest moving the
question of access to such services to para. a), where it is already largely
covered in the WG text.
Canada therefore suggests, in a manner which we believe takes account of suggestions
already made by a number of delegations, that the full chapeau of Article 21
could more appropriately read:
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to guarantee the right of
persons with disabilities to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard
of physical and mental health on an equal basis with others, including: […]
Third, Canada believes that the non-exhaustive list of particular ways in which
this right should be realized should be kept relatively brief and focused on
key areas of particular relevance to persons with disabilities, while avoiding
repetition of elements already found in other articles. We favour many suggestions
made previously by the EU and New Zealand in this regard, with a few modifications:
• If the chapeau of Article 21 is re-framed clearly in terms of the equal right
to health, we would suggest that para. a) read:
Ensure that persons with disabilities have equal access to the same range of
health facilities, goods and services available to others, including equal access
to sexual and reproductive health services.
• We note that provided the right is framed in terms of equality, there is no
need to refer to “citizens”, as discussed with respect to previous articles.
• We note that Canada believes that the reference to “sexual and reproductive
health services” should remain in the text, given the importance of this issue
to persons with disabilities. In addition, we note that this para. may also
be an appropriate place for a reference to the particular concerns of women
and children with disabilities, including in relation to the need to clearly
prohibit forced sterilization, as we understand will be discussed in the context
of proposed Article 15bis, although as we understand it, the specific issue
of forced sterilization should already be covered under Article 11 (or perhaps
12bis) of the Convention.
• We support the proposed deletion in WG para. c) of “endeavour to”.
• We support the deletion of paras. d)-f), as we agree with others that they
are overly programmatic and/or already covered elsewhere.
• We support the wording proposed by the EU intended to capture the ideas currently
found in para. h), i) and j), while avoiding some of the overly programmatic
language of those paragraphs. In addition, we suggest that this important measure
should be moved up in the list of measures states Parties are obliged to take.
• Finally, we support the proposed deletion of paras. k) through m), and in
particular note that we would not want to see repetitive but also possibly inconsistent
language on the right to privacy already covered in Article 14, on the prevention
of non-consensual medical interventions, already covered in Article 11 or perhaps
12bis, and on the involvement of persons with disabilities in formulating health
policy, which we believe should be adequately covered through a combination
of Articles 4 and 18. In this regard, we note that we would want to see the
reference in Article 4 be to consultation of persons with disabilities in respect
of all public policy, not just issues of particular concern to persons with
disabilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 AHC 21 Canadian statement
August 12, 2005
on Article 21 Facilitator’s proposal
$ Canada expresses its appreciation to the facilitator, Jordan, for his hard
work in moving this issue forward.
$ Canada can support this text as a basis for future work.
$ We have the following comments on the facilitator’s text:
$ First, regarding the chapeau, we have consistently supported using the CEDAW
model throughout this convention, which requires States Parties to take effective
measures to eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities in order
to ensure their enjoyment of human rights on a basis of equality.
$ If we do use a chapeau recognising rights, we should recognize the rights
of persons with disabilities without discrimination of any kind and on a basis
of equality, rather than limit the grounds of non-discrimination to disability.
Each reference to recognizing the rights of persons with disabilities addresses
non-discrimination on the basis of disability. However, in order to ensure that
persons with disabilities enjoy the same rights as everyone else, we must ensure
that they can enjoy these rights without discrimination of any kind.
$ The issue of the language to be used in chapeaux in this convention remains
outstanding and should be discussed in more depth.
$ Secondly, we believe that this article should ensure that persons with disabilities
have equal access to health care services. Therefore, subparas a and b should
be revised to begin “ensure that all persons with disabilities have equal access
to health care services ...”.
$ We strongly support the bracketed language in subpara a.
$ The issue of prior, free and informed consent should be included in articles
21 and 21bis and we would therefore propose a new subpara e as follows:
$ “e) ensure respect for the equal right of persons with disabilities to give
free and informed consent prior to medical treatment.”
$ Such a reference should be consistent with references to this issue elsewhere
in the convention.
$ On habilitation and rehabilitation, Canada supports New Zealand in that non-medical
aspects of this issue should be mainstreamed into relevant articles. If a separate
article 21bis is included, we would make the following comments on the facilitator’s
draft:
$ In 21bis(1), we would replace “organize, strengthen and extend” with “ensure
access to”.
$ We would insert a new sub-para a) as follows:
$ “a) such services are provided upon the prior, free and informed consent of
persons with disabilities and on the basis of respect, dignity, and personal
autonomy;”
$ In the existingsub-para a, we would replace “begin” with “are available”.
We would also add after “based on the” the words “input of persons with disabilities
and a”.
$ In sub-para b, we would delete the words after “available” with “in a community-based
setting”.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 AHC Article 22: Canada
1.Draft Article 22
RIGHT TO WORK 86, 87, 88
States Parties recognise SHALL TAKE EFFECTIVE AND APPROPRIATE MEASURES
TO ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST persons with disabilities IN ORDER TO ENSURE
THEIR ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHT to work AND TO OTHER LABOUR RIGHTS ON A BASIS OF
EQUALITY, including the opportunity to gain a living by work that they freely
choose or accept, with a view to promoting equal opportunity and treatment
of persons with disabilities, and protecting them from poverty.
States Parties shall take appropriate steps to In order to safeguard
and promote the realisation of thisese rights, states parties shall take appropriate
steps to promote a labour market and work environment that are open, inclusive,
and accessible to all persons with disabilities, including measures to:
a. promote a labour market and work environment that are open, inclusive,
and accessible to all persons with disabilities; 89 prohibit discrimination
on the basis of disability by employers
b. enable persons with disabilities to have effective access to general technical
and vocational guidance programs, placement services, assistive devices, and
vocational and continuing training; require reasonable accommodation of
persons with disabilities in the work environment;
c. promote90 employment opportunities and career advancement for persons with
disabilities in the open labour market, including opportunities for self-employment
and starting one's own business entrepreneurship, as well as assistance
in preparing for, finding, obtaining, and maintaining, and returning to employment;
including vocational and professional training and transition programs;
d. encourage employers91 to hire persons with disabilities, such as through
affirmative action programs, incentives and quotas;92
e. ensure the reasonable accommodation of persons with disabilities in the workplace
and work environment;93
f. promote the acquisition by persons with disabilities of work experience in
the open labour market;
g. promote vocational and professional rehabilitation, job retention and
return-to-work programs;
h. protect94 through legislation persons with disabilities with regard to
employment, continuance of employment, career advancement, working conditions,
including equal remuneration for work of equal value and equal opportunities,
and the redressing of grievances,95 and to ensure that persons with disabilities
are able to exercise their labour and trade union rights; protect the right
of persons with disabilities to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions
of work on a basis of equality, in particular equal remuneration for work of
equal value;
h.ter. protect the labour rights of persons with disabilities on a basis of
equality.
i. ensure that persons with disabilities have equal opportunity to employment
in the public sector;
j. promote recognition96 of the skills, merits, abilities and contributions
of persons with disabilities to the workplace and the labour market, and to
combat stereotypes and prejudices about persons with disabilities in the workplace
and the labour market.
Clean text:
Article 22
States parties shall take effective and appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination
against persons with disabilities in order to ensure their enjoyment of the
right to work and to other labour rights on a basis of equality, including the
opportunity to gain a living by work that they freely choose or accept. In order
to safeguard and promote the realisation of these rights, states parties shall
take appropriate steps to promote a labour market and work environment that
are open, inclusive, and accessible to all persons with disabilities, including
measures to:
(A) prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability by employers;
(B) require reasonable accommodation of persons with disabilities in the work
environment;
(C) promote equal employment opportunities and career advancement for persons
with disabilities in the open labour market, including opportunities for self-employment
and entrepreneurship, as well as assistance in preparing for, finding, obtaining,
maintaining, and returning to employment, including vocational and professional
training and transition programs;
(D) encourage employers to hire persons with disabilities;
(E) protect the right of persons with disabilities to the enjoyment of just
and favourable conditions of work on a basis of equality, in particular equal
remuneration for work of equal value;
(F) protect the labour rights of persons with disabilities on a basis of equality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6AHC Article 22 Right to work
Canada - statement Aug 9 2005
$ Canada supports the full inclusion of persons with disabilities into economic
life, including the labour market and work environment, and recognizes that
the opportunity to contribute through work is an integral aspect of human life.
Unfortunately, as noted by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
in their General Comment 5, “The field of employment is one in which disability-based
discrimination has been prominent and persistent.”
$ Canada believes that the proposed draft article on the right to work must
target this discrimination in order to protect all persons with disabilities
from circumstances that may render them vulnerable, and ensure that they have
the equal opportunity to be fully included in the labour market and work environment.
As such, the focus should be on removing and preventing barriers to employment
so that persons with disabilities are able to participate fully in an open and
inclusive employment and labour market.
$ In Canada’s view, although the duty of reasonable accommodation is included
in article 7, it is of such importance to this context that it should also be
highlighted in this article in order to remove existing barriers and to prevent
new ones from arising so as to ‘open the employment door’. Reasonable accommodation
should require employers to ensure that persons with disabilities are enabled
to perform duties of employment. Research has shown that the majority of these
accommodations are relatively inexpensive.
$ In Canada, human rights legislation imposes a duty on employers to accommodate
persons with disabilities in the workplace. For example, pursuant to the Canadian
Human Rights Act, the federal government has implemented policies on the duty
to accommodate persons with disabilities in the workplace. These policies draw
on assistive technologies and strategies to enable workers with disabilities
to fulfill work duties and be productive in their positions.
$ Canada’s Employment Insurance program also provides services to workers with
disabilities on a non-discriminatory basis, and includes financial assistance
for personal supports and assistive devices and services for those workers requiring
assistance to access the labour market.
$ Canada welcomes the NZ and EU proposals on Article 22. In particular Canada
supports combining subpara a) with the chapeau. However, as we have stated with
respect to other articles, it is Canada’s view that this convention should provide
for equality and require States to eliminate discrimination in the enjoyment
of all human rights by persons with disabilities, and therefore Canada would
propose to strengthen the chapeau to emphasize these principles.
$ Canada would also suggest that the broader term ‘labour rights’ be used, which
encompasses participation in unions.
$ As we have stated with respect to other articles, in Canada’s view this convention
should set out strong general statements of rights, capable of adaptation to
future circumstances, and avoid overly prescriptive listings of measures States
should take, which may be used to limit the interpretation of the right. Therefore,
in Canada’s view, we should avoid attempting an exhaustive listing of prescriptive
measures in this article.
$ In this vein, as an important overarching obligation, Canada would propose
to insert a new subpara a) requiring States Parties to prohibit discrimination
on the basis of disability by employers.
$ Canada would also propose to move up subpara e) as subpara b, in order to
highlight the duty of reasonable accommodation as an important general principle.
$ We would propose to combine the key ideas contained in subparas b, c, f, and
g, which overlap, into a revised subpara c, adding references to entrepreneurship,
preparing for and returning to employment, and transition programs.
$ Similar to the EU, we would streamline subpara d in order to avoid prescriptive
detail as to how employers should be encouraged to hire persons with disabilities.
$ We would reformulate sub-para h to more generally provide for equality in
conditions of work, including equal remuneration, based on article 7 of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and would move
the reference to labour rights to a new subpara hbis.
$ In our view, while Canada supports the ideas contained in sub-paras i and
j, we believe that these concepts are covered in articles 18 and 5 respectively,
and agree with the EU, Cameroon and other delegations in this regard.
$ Canada would also support addressing sexual harassment in the workplace in
this article, consistent with the approach of mainstreaming a gender perspective
in relevant articles.
$ Canada would therefore propose that Article 22 read as follows:
clean text:
Article 22
States parties shall take effective and appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination
against persons with disabilities in order to ensure their enjoyment of the
right to work and to other labour rights on a basis of equality, including the
opportunity to gain a living by work that they freely choose or accept. In order
to safeguard and promote the realisation of these rights, states parties shall
take appropriate steps to promote a labour market and work environment that
are open, inclusive, and accessible to all persons with disabilities, including
measures to:
(A) prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability by employers;
(B) require reasonable accommodation of persons with disabilities in the work
environment;
(C) promote equal employment opportunities and career advancement for persons
with disabilities in the open labour market, including opportunities for self-employment
and entrepreneurship, as well as assistance in preparing for, finding, obtaining,
maintaining, and returning to employment, including vocational and professional
training and transition programs;
(D) encourage employers to hire persons with disabilities;
(E) protect the right of persons with disabilities to the enjoyment of just
and favourable conditions of work on a basis of equality, in particular equal
remuneration for work of equal value;
(F) protect the labour rights of persons with disabilities on a basis of equality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 23 Canadian Intervention
Aug. 9, 2005
Canadian Intervention – as delivered
Canada, similar to colleagues who have already spoken, recognizes the critical
importance of art.23 for persons with disabilities.
We agree with many delegations who have suggested reordering paragraphs 1 and
2 of article 23. However, (and given what I am about to propose, I apologize,
Mr. Chairman, for taking the floor so late. It is due to technical difficulties)
we would also prefer to see these paragraphs separated into 2 articles, since
they deal with different economic and social rights - the right to an adequate
standard of living, on the one hand, and the right to social security, on the
other. While we agree that these rights are inter-related, we believe that by
including them as 2 paragraphs in the same article, we may perpetuate a negative
assumption about persons with disabilities. We also note that other rights,
for example, the right to work, are also closely related to the adequate standard
of living. We believe that our suggestion is consistent with the approach of
seeking to create conditions of equal participation and full inclusion by persons
with disabilities in all aspects of life through barrier removal and prevention.
We therefore invite other delegations to reflect further on the possible separation
of these 2 paragraphs.
As we have stated with respect to other articles, Canada believes that this
convention should provide for equality and non-discrimination in the enjoyment
of all human rights by all persons with disabilities. In this regard, Canada
would like to reiterate our firm belief that the rights guaranteed in this convention
should be on a basis of substantive equality. We look forward to working on
developing the most appropriate language to reflect this commitment. For the
moment, we propose that the chapeau of article 23 end with a reference to: "on
the basis of equality".
In addition, as we have stated with respect to other articles, Canada strongly
believes that this convention should include clear statements of the rights
of persons with disabilities that are capable of being interpreted over time
to adapt to changing circumstances. In this regard, our strong preference is
to avoid lengthy and overly prescriptive lists of specific measures States should
take. Such lists may become outdated and be used to limit the more general obligation
of States to respect the right.
If the list of measures is included, we would support some of the amendments
proposed by the European Union. In addition,
Canada would propose the following specific amendments:
* Sub-para 1a) essentially concerns accessibility and mobility issues and should
be dealt with in the context of articles 19 and 20.
* In sub-para 1(b), we propose to insert "equal" prior to "access",
and to replace "the aged" with "older persons". We believe
that this sub-para represents an important example of mainstreaming as we have
discussed previously. We also propose to delete the words "and to take
into account the needs and perspectives of persons with disabilities in all
such programmes and strategies". We support this principle, but we believe
that it is already covered in art. 4, para 2.
* On sub-para (c), we support the EU amendments.
* In relation to sub-para (d), Canada proposes the following wording: “states
parties ensure equal access by persons with disabilities to all government housing
policies and programmes to promote full inclusion.” We propose that this point
be placed under the chapeau of the paragraph (or new Article, if our proposed
change is accepted) covering the right to an adequate standard of living.
* Canada proposes the deletion of sub-para 23 1. (e). While Canada provides
tax benefits to persons with disabilities, we wish to retain flexibility with
respect to the tax measures that may be adopted from time to time to address
disability issues.
* In Canada's view, subpara (f) is already covered in general terms under article
21 on health, and article 7, which provides for non-discrimination, and does
not fit into this article.
* In sub-paragraph 2, consistent with Canada's strong position that this convention
should provide for equality and non-discrimination in the enjoyment of all human
rights by persons with disabilities, Canada would again prefer that the chapeau
read along the following lines: "states Parties shall take measures to
eliminate discrimination in the enjoyment of this right". Alternatively,
it would read that: "states parties shall guarantee the enjoyment of this
right by all persons with disabilities on the basis of equality".
In Canada's view, the words "access to clean water" in the last
paragraph are unnecessary and should be deleted, as, in our view, the right
to adequate food as set out in the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights includes adequate drinking water.
Alternatively, Canada would support EU's amendment with one change: replace
"clean" with "safe drinking".
Finally, Canada notes that article 23 is subject to the progressive
realization principle, which, in our view, should be set out in the article
concerning general state obligations. In this regard, the last phrase on taking
steps to promote the right would then be unnecessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 AHC 24 Canada statement
1. Canada recognizes that participation in cultural, recreational and physical
activities is an integral aspect of all stages of life, and ensuring that persons
with disabilities can participate in such activities is an important part of
how States can facilitate their full inclusion in society. Persons with disabilities
can both benefit from and contribute to participation in cultural, recreational
and sporting life and physical activities.
2. In Canada’s view, the article should be drafted on a principled basis, ensuring
that the language is not only relevant in today’s world but also is adaptable
to future technological and other developments. As such, references to specific
technologies and formats should be eliminated and the right should be captured
in the concept of ensuring access such that the article remains alive for future
generations.
$ Canada strongly supports the principle that all persons with disabilities
should be able to enjoy cultural rights without discrimination and on a basis
of equality, and be fully included in the cultural life of the larger community.
$ Canada also believes that persons with disabilities should be able to fully
enjoy their rights to participate in the cultural life of minorities to which
they belong.
$ In Canada’s view, these two fundamental principles should be stated in the
broadest terms, consistent with international human rights law, in order to
allow for interpretation and adaptation to future circumstances.
$ Canada would therefore propose that the first paragraph of article 24 be revised
(based on article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural
Rights) to read:
$ “(1) States Parties shall take effective measures to eliminate discrimination
in order to ensure the full and equal enjoyment by all persons with disabilities
of the right to take part in cultural life on a basis of equality.”
$ The second aspect of the right to culture is brought up in part by the reference
to persons who are deaf. Canada agrees with the EU and Australia that we should
avoid referring to specific groups but rather use general terms capable of adaptation
to changing circumstances.
$ Canada believes that all persons with disabilities who belong to ethnic, religious,
or linguistic minorities have an equal right to enjoy their own culture, to
profess and practice their own religion, and to use their own language in community
with the other members of their group. We therefore would propose to add this
important principle to this article as the second paragraph, based on Article
27 of the ICCPR, as follows:
$ “(2) Persons with disabilities belonging to ethnic, religious, or linguistic
minorities shall not be denied the equal right, in community with the other
members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise
their own religion, or to use their own language.”
$ Such a general provision would cover the concerns of specific groups of persons
with disabilities.
$ Canada would then provide for a general obligation on States Parties to ensure
that persons with disabilities can access all aspects of the cultural life of
the community.
$ Canada agrees with other delegations that specific aspects of accessibility
issues, including public facilities, cultural facilities, monuments, historic
sites, and transportation issues, would be better addressed in article 19. In
this regard, Canada supports the EU’s proposals to streamline the subparagraphs
in more general language, and would suggest that these elements be added to
article 19.
$ In Canada’s view, raising awareness and combatting stereotypes are better
dealt with in article 5, and issues of international cooperation are being considered
under 24bis.
$ While leisure, recreation, and sport can be viewed as aspects of culture,
Canada would support those delegations that have proposed addressing these issues
in a separate article, so as not to detract from the generality of cultural
rights and to place importance on all of these issues.
$ Canada recognizes the importance of physical activity, and agrees with the
IDC that this concept is covered under the terms sport, recreation and leisure.
$ In the provisions on sport, recreation, and leisure, Canada would support
separate provisions addressing the participation of persons with disabilities
in integrated activities, as well as in activities that are specific to persons
with disabilities.
$ Canada believes that competitions such as the Paralympic Games, the Special
Olympics World Games, and the Deaflympics offer persons with disabilities a
valuable opportunity to compete in high-performance sporting events. At the
same time, Canada favours creating an environment in which persons with disabilities
are encouraged to complete in other mainstream events if they so choose.
$ Canada would also support the proposals of the IDC on separate sub-paras a
and b on recreation, leisure and sport.
$ In respect of children, Canada would also support a specific reference to
the right to play, and the importance of the inclusion of children with disabilities
into play activities as part of a commitment to early childhood development.
This right is recognized as being separate from sport, recreation, and leisure.
* In respect of the incorporation of religion into an article dealing with culture,
we support the statments of the EU, Australia, New Zealand and others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 AHC
24bis - International cooperation
Joint EU/Canada proposal
August 11, 2005
New paragraph (3) in Article 4 (General Obligations):
States Parties shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative,
and other measures for the implementation of the present Convention. With regard
to economic, social, and cultural rights, States Parties shall undertake such
measures to the maximum extent of their available resources. In this regard,
States Parties recognize that the promotion of international cooperation, such
as the exchange of experience, best practice, technical assistance, and capacity
building, in which there is an important role for persons with disabilities
and their organizations, can contribute to the realization of the purposes of
this Convention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 AHC 25 Canadian statement
Article 25
1. Canada supports the elaboration of an effective and enforceable convention
to ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms
by all persons with disabilities. The true measure of success of a new convention
will be real improvements in the quality of life of all persons with disabilities.
2. In Canada’s view, in order to promote progress towards this goal, it is essential
that a convention provide for effective monitoring of implementation of obligations
by States Parties. The question before this Committee is therefore how to develop
an effective monitoring mechanism.
3. In Canada’s view, effective implemention of the convention will require both
domestic and international efforts.
4. In Canada, the federal government has developed a reporting framework to
enable it to report on its progress in developing and implementing policies,
programs and services for persons with disabilities. This framework reflects
Canada’s continued commitment to the full participation of persons with disabilities
in our society. The reporting framework includes specific indicators that measure
progress in achieving positive outcomes for persons with disabilities. Non governmental
organizations participated in the development of this framework and continue
to assist the government to refine it.
5. Canada therefore expresses interest in draft article 25 of the working group
text, as well as the EU proposals made in the past, as a basis for work. A domestic
monitoring requirement might be an innovative way to promote effective implementation
of the convention. Any domestic monitoring requirement must be flexible enough
to accommodate the great variety of existing domestic arrangements, including
in a federal State such as Canada.
6. Canada also believes that an effective monitoring mechanism should include
a requirement that States Parties report at the international level on the implementation
of their human rights obligations as they relate to persons with disabilities.
In this regard, Canada reaffirms the need to mainstream disability-related reporting
within existing mechanisms. Canada has fully supported the resolutions at the
Commission on Human Rights inviting treaty bodies to monitor the compliance
of States with respect to the full enjoyment of all human rights by persons
with disabilities. As Norway has noted, there are also other ongoing reporting
and monitoring efforts at the UN on persons with disabilities.
7. A question remains with respect to the best way to provide for international
monitoring of the implementation of the specific provisions of this new instrument.
In this regard, the Committee should take into account the ongoing efforts to
reform the work of the UN human rights treaty bodies. Canada fully supports
the UN human rights treaty bodies and their important work in promoting implementation
of the human rights obligations of States. However, as noted by the Office of
the UNHCHR in the very useful briefing provided yesterday, there are recognized
challenges facing the current system.
8. The Secretary-General’s report on Strengthening the United Nations acknowledged
the large number of reports to various treaty bodies required under UN human
rights instruments. The Secretary-General’s report also recognized that a large
number of these reports have over-lapping content. These reporting obligations
impose considerable burdens on the under-resourced treaty body system and on
States, in particular developing countries, which have led to both a back-log
in the consideration of reports by the treaty bodies, and the failure of some
States to submit their reports on a timely basis, which undermines the effectiveness
of the international human rights monitoring system. The Secretary-General recommended
that the treaty bodies standardize their reporting requirements and coordinate
their activities, and that States be allowed to produce a single report setting
out the implementation of their human rights obligations.
9. In his report, “In Larger Freedom”, the Secretary-General reiterated these
proposals: “... the human rights treaty bodies, too, need to be much more effective
and more responsive to violations of the rights that they are mandated to uphold.
The treaty body system remains little known; is compromised by the failure of
many States to report on time if at all, as well as the duplication of reporting
requirements; and is weakened further by poor implementation of recommendations.
Harmonized guidelines on reporting to all treaty bodies should be finalized
and implemented so that these bodies can function as a unified system.”
10. In her Plan of Action submitted in response to the Secretary-General’s report
“In Larger Freedom”, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stressed the
need to address the concerns with the work of the treaty bodies, including by
finalizing harmonized reporting guidelines. The High Commissioner went further
however and proposed to consolidate the work of the seven treaty bodies and
to create a unified standing treaty body. The High Commissioner stated her intention
to submit options for treaty body reform for consideration at an intergovernmental
meeting to be held in 2006.
11. Canada expresses its interest in the proposal by the High Commissioner to
consolidate the existing treaty bodies into a unified body in order to enhance
the effectiveness of the international monitoring system for the implementation
of human rights obligations. In Canada’s view therefore, any discussion of a
monitoring mechanism for this convention should take into consideration both
the Secretary-General’s and High Commissioner’s proposals, and take place in
the context of the larger discussion on UN reform and enhancing the UN human
rights machinery. In this regard, Canada expresses its appreciation for the
briefing from the office of the UNHCHR, and looks forward to the High Commissioner’s
proposal to be presented in the new year, as well as the report which is to
be submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee at its next session, as requested by the
Commission on Human Rights.
12. Canada is also mindful of the need to involve persons with disabilities
in developing proposals for a monitoring mechanism and the need to ensure the
participation of persons with disabilities in the work of any monitoring mechanism.
In achieving this objective, we look forward to hearing the views of organizations
of persons with disabilities on this issue, and we will study with interest
the various ideas that have been put forward.
13. The current efforts to reform the UN human rights treaty bodies present
an opportunity for this committee to create an innovative and more effective
monitoring mechanism in this convention, taking into account lessons learned
from past experience and improving on current mechanisms, in order to more effectively
promote and protect the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights by all
persons with disabilities without discrimination of any kind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Working Group Text:
Article 25 – Monitoring
National implementation framework
1. States Parties shall designate a focal point within government for matters
relating to the implementation of the present Convention, and give due consideration
to the establishment or designation of a coordination mechanism to facilitate
related action in different sectors and at different levels.
2. States Parties shall, in accordance with their legal and administrative system,
maintain, strengthen, designate or establish at the national level a framework
to promote, protect and monitor implementation of the rights recognized in the
present Convention.
Canadian statement:
1. Canada supports the elaboration of an effective and enforceable convention
to ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms
by all persons with disabilities. The true measure of success of a new convention
will be real improvements in the quality of life of all persons with disabilities.
2. In Canada’s view, in order to promote progress towards this goal, it is essential
that a convention provide for effective monitoring of implementation of obligations
by States Parties. The question before this Committee is therefore how to develop
an effective monitoring mechanism.
3. In Canada’s view, effective implemention of the convention will require both
domestic and international efforts.
4. In Canada, the federal government has developed a reporting framework to
enable it to report on its progress in developing and implementing policies,
programs and services for persons with disabilities. This framework reflects
Canada’s continued commitment to the full participation of persons with disabilities
in our society. The reporting framework includes specific indicators that measure
progress in achieving positive outcomes for persons with disabilities. Non governmental
organizations participated in the development of this framework and continue
to assist the government to refine it.
5. Canada therefore expresses interest in draft article 25 of the working group
text, as well as the EU proposals made in the past, as a basis for work. A domestic
monitoring requirement might be an innovative way to promote effective implementation
of the convention. Any domestic monitoring requirement must be flexible enough
to accommodate the great variety of existing domestic arrangements, including
in a federal State such as Canada.
6. Canada also believes that an effective monitoring mechanism should include
a requirement that States Parties report at the international level on the implementation
of their human rights obligations as they relate to persons with disabilities.
In this regard, Canada reaffirms the need to mainstream disability-related reporting
within existing mechanisms. Canada has fully supported the resolutions at the
Commission on Human Rights inviting treaty bodies to monitor the compliance
of States with respect to the full enjoyment of all human rights by persons
with disabilities. As Norway has noted, there are also other ongoing reporting
and monitoring efforts at the UN on persons with disabilities.
7. A question remains with respect to the best way to provide for international
monitoring of the implementation of the specific provisions of this new instrument.
In this regard, the Committee should take into account the ongoing efforts to
reform the work of the UN human rights treaty bodies. Canada fully supports
the UN human rights treaty bodies and their important work in promoting implementation
of the human rights obligations of States. However, as noted by the Office of
the UNHCHR in the very useful briefing provided yesterday, there are recognized
challenges facing the current system.
8. The Secretary-General’s report on Strengthening the United Nations acknowledged
the large number of reports to various treaty bodies required under UN human
rights instruments. The Secretary-General’s report also recognized that a large
number of these reports have over-lapping content. These reporting obligations
impose considerable burdens on the under-resourced treaty body system and on
States, in particular developing countries, which have led to both a back-log
in the consideration of reports by the treaty bodies, and the failure of some
States to submit their reports on a timely basis, which undermines the effectiveness
of the international human rights monitoring system. The Secretary-General recommended
that the treaty bodies standardize their reporting requirements and coordinate
their activities, and that States be allowed to produce a single report setting
out the implementation of their human rights obligations.
9. In his report, “In Larger Freedom”, the Secretary-General reiterated these
proposals:“... the human rights treaty bodies, too, need to be much more effective
and more responsive to violations of the rights that they are mandated to uphold.
The treaty body system remains little known; is compromised by the failure of
many States to report on time if at all, as well as the duplication of reporting
requirements; and is weakened further by poor implementation of recommendations.
Harmonized guidelines on reporting to all treaty bodies should be finalized
and implemented so that these bodies can function as a unified system.”
10. In her Plan of Action submitted in response to the Secretary-General’s report
“In Larger Freedom”, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stressed the
need to address the concerns with the work of the treaty bodies, including by
finalizing harmonized reporting guidelines. The High Commissioner went further
however and proposed to consolidate the work of the seven treaty bodies and
to create a unified standing treaty body. The High Commissioner stated her intention
to submit options for treaty body reform for consideration at an intergovernmental
meeting to be held in 2006.
11. Canada expresses its interest in the proposal by the High Commissioner to
consolidate the existing treaty bodies into a unified body in order to enhance
the effectiveness of the international monitoring system for the implementation
of human rights obligations. In Canada’s view therefore, any discussion of a
monitoring mechanism for this convention should take into consideration both
the Secretary-General’s and High Commissioner’s proposals, and take place in
the context of the larger discussion on UN reform and enhancing the UN human
rights machinery. In this regard, Canada expresses its appreciation for the
briefing from the office of the UNHCHR, and looks forward to the High Commissioner’s
proposal to be presented in the new year, as well as the report which is to
be submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee at its next session, as requested by the
Commission on Human Rights.
12. Canada is also mindful of the need to involve persons with disabilities
in developing proposals for a monitoring mechanism and the need to ensure the
participation of persons with disabilities in the work of any monitoring mechanism.
In achieving this objective, we look forward to hearing the views of organizations
of persons with disabilities on this issue, and we will study with interest
the various ideas that have been put forward.
13. The current efforts to reform the UN human rights treaty bodies present
an opportunity for this committee to create an innovative and more effective
monitoring mechanism in this convention, taking into account lessons learned
from past experience and improving on current mechanisms, in order to more effectively
promote and protect the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights by all
persons with disabilities without discrimination of any kind.