Canadian Submission
United Nations Independent Expert on Human Rights and Extreme Poverty
Questionnaire on the Progress Report on the Draft Guiding Principles on Extreme
Poverty and Human Rights.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the questionnaire on the Independent Expert
on the Question of Human Rights and Extreme Poverty’s progress report on the Draft
Guiding Principles on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights (DGPs).
Given the numerous definitions and measures of poverty available internationally, the
report would be strengthened by providing a definition of ‘extreme poverty’. The report
sets out a definition of ‘poverty’ and ‘absolute poverty’ but does not define ‘extreme
poverty’ in the context of the DGPs. The definition should consider and address the
depth and nature of poverty in both developed and developing countries, as what is
considered ‘extreme’ may vary by country. For example, Canada’s social safety net
(comprised of many different programs, spread across different jurisdictions) lifts
Canadians well above the extreme poverty threshold of $1.00 per day as defined in the
Millennium Development Goals. Yet there are individuals in Canada that fall within the
definition of poverty.
The Government of Canada appreciates the opportunity to provide general comments
on the draft guiding principles themselves, as well as the Independent Expert’s report
(HRC/15/41) in support of further improvements to the DGPs.
I: The Draft Guiding Principles
In Canada’s view, the current version of the DGPs should more accurately reflect
international human rights legal obligations relating to this issue, especially with regard
to:
States and non-state actors:
It is States that have the primary obligation under international law to respect and
ensure the realization of human rights. In most cases, other actors have
responsibilities to promote and protect human rights. This distinction could be
more clearly set out in the DGPs, which sometimes refers to state and non-state
actors as though they were synonymous (e.g. OP 6 & 13).
Punishment of perpetrators:
The most serious international human rights violations constitute crimes for which
perpetrators must be brought to justice. The legal response should be
proportional to the violation. It is not accurate to say that any person responsible
for "discrimination" must be "brought to justice and punished" (see for e.g. OP
17). International law does not require a criminal response/punishment in the
case of all forms of discrimination.
Mandatory language:
As these draft guiding principles are not legally-binding, it is more appropriate to
use non-mandatory language throughout the document rather than mandatory
language such as "must" or "have an obligation" which is currently used
throughout the DGPs. See, for example, OP 11, 18, 47.
State obligations and international cooperation:
Canada is of the view that there is no legal obligation to provide international
cooperation or assistance and references to international cooperation or
assistance should be accordingly couched in non-mandatory language
throughout the DGPs.
The right to drinkable water
There is no legal basis for the arguments set out in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the
DGPs that States have a legal obligation to provide water free of charge; that
there is a legal obligation on the international community to provide assistance to
a state that is unable to provide access to drinkable water to its population; and
that privatization of water is an encroachment upon a human right to water. The
independent expert on human rights and access to safe drinking water and
sanitation has also stated that delegation of service provision is a viable option
for states to use in providing access to safe drinking water and sanitation
services within their national boarders.
Canada recognizes that there are linkages between access to safe drinking
water and certain existing human rights obligations as well as specific obligations
related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation in some UN treaties to
which Canada is a party. However Canada does not recognize the human right
to safe drinking water and sanitation.
II: The Questionnaire
Rationale, Conceptual Framework & Main Deprivations
Given the above concerns, the Government of Canada is pleased to see that the
Independent Expert’s report sets out a framework of broadly based approaches,
principles and guidelines that addresses many of Canada’s concerns with the DGPs.
Overall, the framework developed to revise the DGPs is comprehensive and
appropriately addresses a wide range of relevant issues to consider when examining
extreme poverty from a human rights perspective.
Given the broad scope of the suggested revisions to the DGPs, some states may
experience challenges in progressively implementing the guidelines in a comprehensive
way. The DGPs could be improved by organizing the recommendations in a manner
which recognizes this challenge and provides guidance to states on how they address
the recommendations. For example, the discussion of human rights principles
recognizes that agency, non-discrimination, public participation in decision making,
2
transparency, and access to information are all important and indivisible human rights
that can alleviate extreme poverty. However, it would be helpful for these to be
organized in such a way that States (at different places within the development
spectrum) can determine what their concrete next steps could be to progressively
implement these principles.
Canada agrees with the rationale for the DGPs. The rationale speaks to the centrality of
a human rights framework to poverty reduction and to the need for persons living in
poverty to be recognized as “subjects with rights”. Equally important to the
acknowledgment that poor people have rights is the recognition that persons living in
poverty are often unable to claim or exercise these rights due to the many barriers they
face (both economic and social). The rationale for developing guiding principles on
human rights and extreme poverty should include an affirmation of the need to alleviate
extreme poverty in order to allow for the meaningful exercise of one’s rights.
The proposed conceptual framework in the DGPs focuses on existing obligations;
highlights economic social and cultural rights; and notes the specific vulnerabilities of
certain groups such as children. It focuses on states but incorporates non-state actors
and ensures that appropriate distinctions are made between the two when appropriate to
do so. This is a helpful framework in Canada’s view.
Considering the emerging scientific consensus on the lifelong consequences of early
poverty and economic hardship on health and educational attainment into adulthood,
and given that the majority of those living in extreme poverty are children, the
Government of Canada recommends that the issue of child poverty be cross-cutting
throughout the DGPs. A paragraph that provides a comprehensive explanation for the
decision to highlight child poverty throughout the report should be added to avoid the
perception of creating a hierarchy among vulnerable groups. Most poor children live
with poor parents/guardians/ families, and addressing the needs of these adults is critical
to fulfilling the needs of the children. Special attention to the needs of orphaned or other
socially isolated children should also be clearly acknowledged. An expanded paragraph
19 that includes a discussion of child poverty in broader family and community contexts
would achieve this goal.
While the circumstances of children in poverty deserve prominence in the DGPs, this
focus should not otherwise detract from considering the plight of other groups that may
be susceptible to the threat of extreme poverty, particularly seniors on fixed incomes and
disabled persons. We therefore encourage the Independent Expert to include a section
in the DGPs on other vulnerable groups. In the Independent Expert’s report, vulnerable
groups are listed in paragraph 22. We would encourage the Independent Expert to, at
the outset of the DGPs, expand upon these groups and the particular obstacles that they
face.
The definition of the main deprivations faced by persons living in extreme poverty
captures the complexity of the issues surrounding poverty. The DGPs should, but do not
currently, address directly the intersectionality of deprivations and should guard against
appearing to prioritize one vulnerable group over another (see discussion on child
poverty above). Rather, these draft guiding principles should focus on the reality that
certain populations are more prone to economic insecurity (e.g. children, women,
seniors, youth, persons with disabilities, and those who face discrimination) and become
3
even more so when these identities intersect, e.g. older, disabled women from racial
minorities.
Specific Rights-based Obligations
Health
Canada supports the Independent Expert’s emphasis on access to service throughout
the report. However, within the context of promoting the right to the highest attainable
standard of health, we would recommend that the IE also consider the importance of
access to a full range of health care and services.
As the right to health includes both physical and mental health, we recommend that the
Independent Expert expand on the links between extreme poverty and mental health in
section S. Poor mental health and resulting discrimination and social exclusion can push
people into poverty, and poverty can exacerbate pre-existing mental health problems.
Traumatic experiences and hardships borne by people living in extreme poverty can also
impact mental health.
While pandemics are mentioned in the guidelines, there is no specific mention of
HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS can have devastating impacts on individuals and families as health
costs significantly increase. Adults may no longer be able to be economically active, and
children and adolescents may have to cut short their education in order to care for family
members or work to support their families. Furthermore, people living in poverty and
extreme poverty are at increased risk of HIV infection. This issue should be specifically
addressed in the DGPs
In addition to attention to State obligations to provide adequate health care services and
targeted measures to address specific health conditions that affect poor people, more
explicit attention could be given to the health impacts of broader social, economic, and
environmental factors. Although the connection between poverty and ill health is briefly
acknowledged, the accompanying discussion focuses on proximate determinants of
health such as adequate nutrition and access to health services. Given the focus of this
report on extreme poverty, this section should also reference the well established
relationship between health and socioeconomic status, and emerging evidence of the
impact of early life experiences (including hardship created by poverty) for long term
health and well-being. This would be consistent with the strong emphasis in the rest of
the report on the diverse material, physical, social, and economic dimensions of poverty.
Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation
Canada agrees that states should ensure non-discriminatory access to safe drinking
water and sanitation and supports the recommendations set out in section Q of the
report.
4
Outstanding Questions and Concerns
1) At para 76, bullet 3 (page 20), the Report suggests the DGPs should "recommend
revising and repealing discriminatory laws and related administrative practices that
impede the recognition of ownership of land and resources by groups or individuals
living in extreme poverty, particularly women". Canada notes that there is currently
underway an FAO exercise to develop Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible
Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests. It may be helpful for the IE to
ensure that there are no inconsistencies between these two exercises and the final
recommendations that may come out of each them.
2) We're seeking some additional clarity on the type of compensation referred to in the
last point in paragraph P which recommends "recognizing and compensating for the
shortcomings of market mechanisms..." (page 20).
3) We would also seek additional clarity regarding the recommendation to "recall that
cancellation of foreign debt, climate change related transfers and similar measures
should be additional and complementary to ODA" (page 16). Is this meant to capture
such cancellations in addition to ODA commitments or should such cancellations be
counted as ODA or come from ODA budgets?
4) We have concerns about paragraph 62 of the report. Because of the far reaching
nature of human rights obligations and the varied nature of conditionalities on
development assistance (which can include anti-corruption measures, reporting
obligations, etc.), the second bullet is overly broad and assumes that conditionalities
(even positive ones) could harm human rights or the State's ability to "formulate and
implement its own domestic social and economic policies". This may not be the case.
5