COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE EXAMINES CANADA’S REPORT

The Committee against Torture this afternoon concluded its consideration of the seventh periodic report of Canada on the efforts made by the State party to implement the provisions of the Convention against Torture.

Introducing the report, Laurie Wright, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister for Justice of Canada, stressed that ill-treatment that constituted torture according to article 1 of the Convention was extremely rare in Canada. In the implementation of the Convention, Canada relied on its Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and courts were empowered to strike down laws that were found to be inconsistent with the Charter and the Constitution. Ms. Wright reminded that Canadian federalism was reflected in three operational areas that were particularly relevant to the Convention against Torture, namely in police services, criminal prosecutions and criminal sentences. Each province and territory had its own agency for administering correctional institutions. Canada had begun a process to consider acceding to the Optional Protocol to the Convention. The federal Government had recently tabled new legislation in Parliament with respect to federal corrections, which would eliminate administrative and disciplinary segregation and would establish “structured intervention units” to address the security risks of inmates who could not be managed safely within the mainstream inmate population. The federal Government had also taken measures to improve independent monitoring of the work of the police with the creation of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission in 2015. Canada was seeking to enhance accountability and transparency in the areas of national security and intelligence, especially with respect to the use of intelligence information obtained under duress. Finally, Canada continued to ensure fair hearings for asylum claims, including where the person claimed a risk of torture.

In the ensuing discussion, Committee Experts commended Canada’s definition of torture and recognition of universal criminal competence at the federal level. However, they regretted the State party’s lack of transparency when it came to several cases of torture incurred with the complicity of Canadian State officials, and the allegations that information obtained through torture could be used to defend national security under anti-terrorism legislation. The Experts raised concern that the decision regarding solitary confinement was left to the prison warden, and that its length was left open-ended. They also highlighted the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in federal prisons, and noted that the allegations of forced sterilization of indigenous women were a manifestation of broader discrimination against indigenous communities. The Experts further inquired about vulnerable populations in prisons, access to a lawyer, detention conditions, pre-trial detention, court backlogs, body searches, the prison complaint system, access to healthcare, accession to the Optional Protocol, exceptions to the principle of non-refoulement, diplomatic guarantees, the use of security certificates for determining whether a foreign national was eligible for international protection, detention of migrants and minors, ill-treatment by the police, and death in custody.

In her concluding remarks, Ms. Wright thanked the Committee for the careful consideration of Canada’s report, adding that the list of issues had helped the State party to submit a focused report. The State party would give due consideration to the Committee’s recommendations.

Jens Modvig, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation for the well-organized responses, and reminded the State party of the Committee’s follow-up procedure in which the Committee would select several recommendations for immediate follow-up.

The delegation of Canada consisted of representatives of the Department of Justice, the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Department of Global Affairs, and the Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations Office at Geneva.


The Committee will next meet in public on Tuesday, 27 November, at 10 a.m. when it will consider the initial report of Maldives (CAT/C/MDV/1).


Report

The seventh periodic report of Canada can be read here: CAT/C/CAN/7.

Presentation of the Report

LAURIE WRIGHT, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister for Justice of Canada, noted that civil society organizations, as well as groups representing indigenous communities, continued to play an important role in determining strengths and deficiencies of Canada in the implementation of the Convention against Torture. In October 2018, the Government had held consultations with those groups in order to discuss priorities in that respect. Turning to Canada’s federal system and framework for implementing the Convention, Ms. Wright stressed that torture and inhumane or degrading treatment were entirely contrary to Canadian values. Ill-treatment that constituted torture according to article 1 of the Convention was extremely rare in Canada.

In the implementation of the Convention, Canada relied on its Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was part of the national Constitution. In 2014, the Canadian Supreme Court had ruled that torture was in breach of article 12 of the Charter. All Government action – be it federal, provincial, territorial or municipal – was subject to scrutiny under those constitutional guarantees. The courts were empowered to strike down laws that were found to be inconsistent with them. Courts could also order appropriate remedies if a particular Government action or decision was found to have violated an individual’s Charter rights, including monetary compensation. Ms. Wright reminded that Canadian federalism was reflected in three operational areas that were particularly relevant to the Convention against Torture, namely in police services, criminal prosecutions and criminal sentences. All provinces had their own prosecution services, and provincial and territorial Governments were responsible for sentences less than two years, offenders on probation, and young offenders. Each province and territory had its own agency for administering correctional institutions. Fourteen constitutionally-established Governments in Canada, along with municipalities and indigenous Governments, shared responsibility for implementing Canada’s Convention obligations.

Presenting the recent developments in how Canada implemented the Convention, the head of the delegation reminded that in December 2017 federal, provincial and territorial ministers had agreed to create a committee of senior officials on human rights to bring about greater leadership to intergovernmental cooperation on Canada’s international human rights obligations. Canada had also begun a process to consider acceding to the Optional Protocol to the Convention. The initial stages focused on identifying the gaps between what the Optional Protocol required and what was currently in place in the country. The federal Government had recently tabled new legislation in Parliament with respect to federal corrections. It would eliminate administrative and disciplinary segregation, and would establish a new model for correctional interventions called “structured intervention units.” Those new units would provide the necessary resources and expertise to address the security risks of inmates who could not be managed safely within the mainstream inmate population. In order to provide effective, culturally appropriate interventions and reintegration support for indigenous offenders, the Correctional Service of Canada had implemented the National Indigenous Plan, which included the creation of aboriginal intervention centres. The federal Government had also taken measures to improve independent monitoring of the work of the police with the creation of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission in 2015.

Speaking of national security, the head of the delegation stressed that Canada was taking concrete measures to avoid being complicit in acts of torture committed by third countries or agencies outside the territory of Canada. In 2017, new ministerial guidelines had been adopted regarding the exchange of intelligence with foreign agencies. Those guidelines were publicly available and they recalled the core principles in the field of human rights, notably the ban on the use of torture. More generally, Canada was seeking to enhance accountability and transparency in the areas of national security and intelligence. In 2017, a multi-party committee of parliamentarians had been set up, with special access to highly classified information and a broad Government mandate to review national security and intelligence activities. Moving on to refugees, Ms. Wright underlined that Canada continued to ensure fair hearings for asylum claims, including where the person claimed a risk of torture. In December 2012, the Refugee Appeal Division had begun considering appeals of refugee protection decisions made by the Refugee Protection Division. Canada was internationally recognized as a leader in managed migration, and it planned to resettle 31,700 refugees in 2020. All resettled refugees were granted permanent resident status and could apply for citizenship once all requirements were met. They were eligible to work and had access to education and healthcare.

Questions by the Country Co-Rapporteurs

SÉBASTIEN TOUZÉ, Committee Member and Country Co-Rapporteur for Canada, noted that the definition of torture in Canadian legislation was exemplary, and there were many mechanisms available for reparations for victims of torture. Universal criminal competence was recognized at the federal level, but universal civil competence had not yet been recognized in Canada.

Turning to the case of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen, who had been detained for 10 years at Guantanamo Bay, Mr. Touzé reminded that the Canadian authorities had not provided information about the psychological assistance provided to him or any other aid. How could the delegation explain that low level of transparency? Could the delegation provide information about the compensation granted to Mr. Khadr?

In March 2017, Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin had received public apology from the Canadian Government for the role played by Canadian officials in their unjustified arrest, imprisonment and acts of torture to which they had been subjected in Syria and Egypt between 2001 and 2004. What measures had been taken against those responsible Canadian officials? What kind of compensation had the three victims received?

Speaking of another Canadian citizen, Abousfian Abdelrazik, who had been held and tortured for two years in Sudan without any charges, Mr. Touzé asked about the current status of the case. In light of article 14 of the Convention, would it not be logical for the State party to adopt wider reparations for the victims of torture that had taken place outside the territory of Canada? The Country Co-Rapporteur also wondered whether it would not be desirable to amend Canada’s State Immunity Act in order to improve the rights of victims of torture in cases where Canadian officials had been involved.

The Committee had received information from several non-governmental organizations that information obtained through torture could be used to defend national security under anti-terrorism legislation. Mr. Touzé commended the ongoing amendment process of the Anti-Terrorism Law of 2015. However, civil society had argued that the bill in its current form did not address the problems of the 2015 law as the Government could still refuse attorneys to present evidence on the grounds of national security.

Turning to the solitary confinement system, Mr. Touzé pointed out to several contradictions with the Convention against Torture. Everything relied on discretional power and there was a problem with the length of solitary confinement. Speaking of the bill reforming the correctional system, the Country Co-Rapporteur wondered how the proposed “structured intervention units” would differ from solitary confinement? Could a person with mental troubles be subjected to solitary confinement? Mr. Touzé regretted that the decision regarding solitary confinement was left to the prison warden, that its length was left open-ended, and that there would be no re-examination of the decision for 30 days.

The prison population had increased by 17.5 per cent in the period between 2006 and 2007. The Law on the Security of Streets and Communities, which had entered into force in November 2012, had extended the list of offences for which deferred sentences would not be possible. Could the delegation comment on that?

With respect to the right to a lawyer, had the Government considered following the recommendation that police officers had to read the arrested persons their right to a legal representative?

On vulnerable populations, the Country Co-Rapporteur asked about specific guarantees for them. Only under special circumstances could police officers call an interpreter for suspects who did not speak any of the Canadian official languages. What was the practice for suspects informing their family of their detention?

As for detention conditions, there were reports that in certain police cells there were deplorable conditions for detained persons and that interviews could last for a very long time under difficult conditions. On the right of detainees to be afforded an impartial and thorough medical examination, did Canada plan to ensure that its actions were in line with the Convention?

The Criminal Code did not clearly stipulate provisions for judges to be available within 24 hours from the arrest. In 2015 and 2016, some 60 per cent of detained persons in provincial detention units were in pre-trial detention, even for minor offences, due to courts’ backlog. What measures had been taken to avoid the systematic use of pre-trial detention?

What were the criteria for ordering body searches? Did such searches apply to all detainees? Mr. Touzé cited a worrying case of a detainee who had been subjected to several unsuccessful body cavity searches where the police were searching for a weapon.

Moving on to detainees’ right to lodge complaints, the Country Co-Rapporteur noted that the cited number of received complaints of the excessive use of force (1,501) was rather low.

In terms of access to healthcare, it seemed that there was no specialized and independent establishment for female detainees at the federal level.

With respect to minorities and indigenous communities, Mr. Touzé highlighted their heavy representation in federal prisons. The Criminal Code had been amended in 1997 in order to offer alternatives to imprisonment. Indigenous persons made up 26.4 per cent of all prison populations at the federal level, while they only made up 3 per cent of the population of Canada.

As for the murders and disappearances of indigenous girls, the Country Co-Rapporteur commended the launch of the National Inquiry Commission on 1 September 2016. He asked about additional information on legislation to protect persons from enforced disappearances. What specific measures had been taken to re-examine the unresolved cases of death and disappearance?

Turning to violence against indigenous women and the allegations of forced sterilization of indigenous women, Mr. Touzé noted that those phenomena were a manifestation of broader discrimination against indigenous communities. What efforts had the authorities deployed to duly sanction the perpetrators and to provide remedy to all victims?

With respect to the land disputes of indigenous peoples, the Country Co-Rapporteur regretted the Government’s refusal to effectively and independently investigate the excessive use of force by the Ontario police.

Finally, Mr. Touzé reminded that out of 49 individual communications on Canada received by the Committee, only 24 cases had received interim measures. He stressed that the State party should comply with interim measures in order to prevent the violation of human rights.

BAKHTIYAR TUZMUKHAMEDOV, Committee Member and Country Co-Rapporteur for Canada, asked for an update and clarification about national consultations concerning Canada’s accession to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. What were the impediments for the ratification? Were civil society organizations and groups representing indigenous populations involved in the consultations?

Pending access to the Optional Protocol, Canada had yet to set up a national preventive mechanism. In the absence of such a mechanism, had the State party considered taking alternative measures? There were institutions that remained beyond the reach of oversight mechanisms, such as psychiatric institutions. What was Canada’s approach to defining nursing homes and closed educational centres? Would the State party consider setting up a system of regular visits to custodian institutions by civil society?

Turning to non-refoulement, Mr. Tuzmukhamedov inquired about the Supreme Court’s decision in 2002 in Suresh v. Canada that deportation might be justified in exceptional cases. Could the delegation provide examples of “exceptional circumstances”? Could the delegation provide an update on the practices of acceptance of diplomatic assurances as grounds for decisions on deportations, extraditions and other removals? How did the State party ensure that diplomatic assurances were honoured by the receiving State? Did it keep track of individuals removed upon receipt of diplomatic assurances?

The Committee had previously expressed concern about transfers of Afghan detainees into local authorities’ custody where they may have been subjected to torture and ill-treatment. In a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister in June 2016, current and former members of Parliament, retired Cabinet ministers and senior diplomats, attorneys, human rights activists and academics had urged the Government to launch a commission of inquiry into the country’s involvement in the transfer of detainees to Afghanistan, and the subsequent torture of those detainees. Was the delegation aware of any response to that letter and action on it? Were there currently any detainees under the control or jurisdiction of Afghanistan or the United States who had been transferred by Canada? Had Canada investigated allegations of torture suffered by the transferred detainees?

Mr. Tuzmukhamedov reminded that the Committee had previously recommended that Canada reconsider its policy of using administrative detention and immigration legislation to detain and remove non-citizens on the grounds of national security, inter alia, by extensively reviewing the use of security certificates, a procedure that was activated in exceptional circumstances when a permanent resident or foreign national was believed to be inadmissible to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

In addition, information obtained through torture had reportedly been used to form the basis of security certificates. Could national security considerations justify the apparent and harmful interference with the fundamental rights of the defence team, such as access to the entire case file, or the access to an impartial and independent tribunal? What was the standard test to be met to justify the initiation of the security certificate scheme?

On the detention of migrants, the Country Co-Rapporteur noted that despite commendable protective legislation, the Committee was concerned about conditions of detention for migrants awaiting decisions on their status, and monitoring and review of the lawfulness and length of detention. There were also concerns about mental health and the psychological condition of individuals detained under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. What improvements had been recorded as the result of investments in detention facilities for migrants since 2016?

The Committee was aware of disturbing reports regarding the psychological health of immigration detainees. Some individuals were kept in limbo for extended periods of time, which only aggravated their suffering, especially among victims of torture. That uncertainty was aggravated by the language barrier. Could the delegation elaborate on the availability of language services to immigration detainees, as well as prompt access to lawyers? What measures could be taken to avoid putting in limbo individuals awaiting decision on their status?

The Committee had previously voiced concern about the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, which introduced mandatory detention for individuals who entered Canada irregularly, and which would increase the risk of refoulement. The Committee had recommended that detention only be used as a measure of last resort, and that all refugee claimants be provided with access to a full appeal hearing before the Refugee Appeal Division. Had the State party taken any action on the Committee’s recommendations? Could the delegation describe all categories that were denied access to the Refugee Appeal Division? Mr. Tuzmukhamedov also asked about independent visits to immigration detention centres.

In terms of the detention of minors, the Country Co-Rapporteur reminded of several instances when juveniles had been confined to immigration detention centres where they were mixed with adults. In the last two years, there had been 371 detained children accompanying their parents. In some cases, they had been separated and placed in foster care. Civil society organizations indicated that children in detention centres were invisible and not officially considered detained. Accordingly, they could not benefit from detention review hearings. What measures could be taken to remedy that legal vacuum concerning the detention of minors under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

What were the activities of the Correctional Investigator of Canada? What complaints had been investigated during the reporting period? What actions had been taken on the recommendations by the Commissioner of Corrections or the Chairperson of the National Parole Board? Could the delegation provide information about independent monitoring of places of detention by civil society? It appeared that Canada’s immigration and detention policies were overseen by several agencies, but not by independent national oversight bodies.

On ill-treatment by the police, Mr. Tuzmukhamedov asked about the mechanisms and safeguards in place to ensure that the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission operated as an independent entity. Had any police officers been suspended or dismissed from their post as a result of cases investigated or recommended to be investigated by the Commission? Had incidents of police ill-treatment been investigated by any other bodies? Only six out of 13 provinces were reported to have an independent oversight agency. Would the State party consider creating a uniform federal system for the independent review of police wrongdoing? What type of redress was available to victims and their families for criminal ill-treatment, excessive use of force, and ill-treatment of prisoners by police officers.

Turning to Canada’s outright rejection of the recommendation to amend the State Immunity Act, Mr. Tuzmukhamedov reminded that the state immunity should not be subject to any exceptions and he invited the State party to look into the Committee’s General Comment No. 3 on article 14 of the Convention on effective remedy and reparation.

Questions by Other Committee Members

An Expert drew attention to the low-level of funding for legal assistance to detainees, and court backlogs.

Another Expert inquired about statistical data on the prosecution of cases of domestic violence. Why would the State party not collect data on women victims of domestic violence when it had already collected substantial information about the murders and disappearances of indigenous women?

Referring to the failure of the State party to investigate past cases of missing persons, the same Expert wondered about the duty of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to investigate such cases. She reminded that there had been 86 cases of neglect of duty by the police, and that indigenous women had complained about the lack of monitoring and transparency of official police duty.

An Expert noted a very low acceptance rate of asylum claims, ranging from 1.7 to 3.1 per cent in the reporting period. He wondered about the grace period of 12 to 36 months during which claimants could not use the asylum procedure.

Would Canada consider increasing its contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture?

Canada’s Correctional Investigator had criticized the country’s prison complaint mechanism for years. In most cases, federal courts would not accept complaints until they had gone through the correctional grievance process, an Expert said. What measures had been taken to review the prison complaint mechanism and to reduce the large backlog in complaints?

JENS MODVIG, Committee Chairperson, inquired about measures to prevent death in custody. Did the authorities comply with the Mandela rules on conducting initial medical examination? It seemed that compliance was present at the federal level, but not at the provincial and territorial levels.

Replies by the Delegation

LAURIE WRIGHT, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister for Justice of Canada, noted that Canada was committed to ending all forms of gender-based violence. In 2017, the federal Government had announced its strategy in that respect, with a focus on prevention, supporting victims and their families, and promoting a responsive justice system. Since 1998, reports had been published on family violence and related trends.

Canada took the issue of violence against indigenous women and girls very seriously, and it was taking measures to protect them. On 5 June 2018, the Government had announced that the National Inquiry Commission on the murder and disappearance of indigenous women and girls had time until April 2019 to produce a report with concrete recommendations on how to keep indigenous women and girls safe.

All indigenous women had to receive culturally sensitive health services no matter where they lived, Ms. Wright underlined. Working with indigenous partners, the authorities were developing pamphlets on reproductive health for indigenous women and girls.

Health providers and health sector partners in January 2017 had launched a review after indigenous women had come forward with concerns about forced sterilization, the delegation said. In Alberta, those practices were no longer in place, and the provincial authorities would continue working on providing culturally sensitive health services.

The Government of Quebec had taken measures to deal with police violence against indigenous peoples through a specific investigative unit. The authorities had also provided training for police officers so that they were aware of indigenous peoples’ cultures, and they had introduced a toll-free line for indigenous peoples to submit complaints against the police. In British Columbia, the authorities provided funding for indigenous associations to deal with family violence.

The health services in correctional facilities secured all rights to inmates, except for those rights which had been lawfully removed as the result of sentencing. All new inmates were offered a health assessment upon admission. All screening and testing was voluntary, and treatment was provided by medical professionals. Since 2011, over 90 per cent of prisoners had received follow-up medical services.

Turning to mental health, the delegation said the focus was on enhancing prevention for those who exhibited suicidal behaviour. In 2017 and 2018, the authorities had increased funding for mental health issues in correctional facilities. As for vulnerable persons in correctional facilities, equipment and services were provided to inmates with disabilities. In 2017, the authorities had adopted new admissibility criteria to ensure that the most vulnerable inmates were not placed in administrative segregation, whose use had significantly declined in the past several years.

The new model of “structured intervention units” would be distinct from administrative segregation, and there would be independent oversight of confinement. On the prisoner grievance process, the delegation noted that it was a legislative requirement. Prisoners could escalate the complaint to a higher level in 30 days from the received response. The Correctional Investigator had investigated almost 600,000 complaints by prisoners. Body searches were conducted when there was a suspicion that inmates carried weapons.

The Government of Quebec had added 250 places to the available capacity in Quebec prisons. The authorities were taking other measures to detect mental impairment, including training on the prevention of suicide for correctional personnel. In Nova Scotia, newly arrived inmates were assessed by medical professionals and inmates with mental health issues were transferred to psychiatric hospitals. The authorities had reduced the use of closed confinement. Arrangements had been made for the transfer of prisoners with urgent medical needs to hospitals. The correctional personnel used “tranquility rooms” to prevent violent escalation in the behaviour of prisoners. The Review Board conducted periodic inspection of prisoners’ medical records.

The 2017 ministerial directions on sharing intelligence information with foreign entities prohibited the use of information that was likely obtained through the mistreatment of individuals. The ministerial directions underscored Canada’s absolute rejection of torture and they expressly referred to the Convention against Torture. Any information about an imminent terrorist act had to be clearly described.

As for security certificates, the delegation stressed that they were rarely used and only in exceptional circumstances when asylum applicants were suspected of having committed serious crimes. Two individuals were currently under the security certificate regime; both had been released. The Supreme Court of Canada had found that the security certificate regime was consistent with Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Administrative detention of migrants was used only as a measure of last resort. In July 2018, the federal Government had announced a plan of alternatives to immigration detention. The programme consisted, inter alia, of community case management and supervision, and of a pilot project of electronic surveillance in the greater Toronto region. Detention was to be avoided for elderly persons, pregnant women, persons with disabilities, and persons with mental illnesses.

Minors were not to be detained, except in exceptional circumstances. Police officers needed to bear in mind the best interest of the child when making any detention decisions. Revisions of the rules of immigration detention were ongoing and should be completed by the spring of 2019.

Immigration holding centres offered education and recreational activities indoors and outdoors, and they had facilities to accommodate the needs of migrants with disabilities and mental illness, and those with families. In cooperation with the Canadian Red Cross, the authorities carried out the monitoring of immigration holding centres. The Canadian Red Cross offered feedback to the Canada Border Service, which then published its annual report.

Nova Scotia had an independent oversight mechanism to investigate complaints of police misconduct. It could launch an investigation and publish a report describing the circumstances of the case. Two assault investigations were ongoing. In 2016, the Ontario police had revised its regulations for police preparedness when dealing with indigenous communities.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police regularly reviewed its national police on arrest and detention to ensure that its members were aligned with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and with the Criminal Code. The police were obliged to inform the arrested person of the reasons for the arrest and the right to a lawyer. Efforts were made to post notices on the rights of detainees in the official languages of Canada, as well as in indigenous languages. Interpretation services were available as well.

Any delay in bringing a suspect before a judge had to be reasonable. The limit of 24 hours was only an outer limit. Exceptions might take place in remote areas of Canada. Any delays could be challenged under constitutional provisions.

Excessive use of force was not permitted in Canada. Such incidents would be investigated by an independent investigative body. Allegations of criminal use of force could lead to dismissal. A complainant not satisfied with the investigation could refer the case to the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission. The mandate of the Commission was broad, and it included conduct under the Convention against Torture.

Provincial and territorial authorities in Canada had taken a number of measures to improve conditions in pre-trial detention, namely to address prison overcrowding.

The review process of the potential accession of Canada to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture was underway. Several consultations had been held with territorial and provincial Governments, including within the federal Government, and a mapping exercise had taken place. The consultation process had allowed for an update of policies. Being a vast country, Canada would have to create a system of regular visits to prisons, and it had to ensure that the future national preventive mechanism had all the authority to carry out visits. Canada already had mechanisms that monitored conditions in prisons.

Moving on to the Law on State Immunity, the delegation stated that Canada currently was not considering amending it regarding the acts of torture perpetrated abroad. Canada had worked to grant access to rehabilitation to all victims of torture living in Canada, regardless of where the act of torture had taken place. Provinces offered physical and social services to victims of torture.

Canada rarely resorted to diplomatic guarantees. In case it did resort to such a measure, the Canadian authorities would have to carry out a personal risk assessment, which might include a visit to the detention centre where the person in question was held. Canada rejected any implication that diplomatic guarantees ran counter to article 3 of the Convention.

Regarding the transfer of Afghan nationals to their country of origin, the delegation noted that the Canadian Government took very seriously any ill-treatment inflicted on detainees. Canada’s military involvement in Afghanistan had ended in 2014, and the Government had ensured that all detained persons held by the Canadian armed forces were released.

The Government of Canada was conscious of the overrepresentation of indigenous persons in the criminal justice system, both as victims and perpetrators. Indigenous persons made up about 28 per cent of all admissions to correctional facilities, whereas indigenous women and girls were even more overrepresented. Canada had adopted comprehensive legislative and policy reform in partnership with indigenous peoples to reverse the trend that was the result of the colonial legacy. The authorities had explored setting up community justice units in indigenous communities and thus promoting greater participation of indigenous peoples in administering justice.

On the cases of torture of Omar Khadr, Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Elmaati, Muayyed Nureddin et Abousfian Abdelrazik, the Government of Canada was bound by confidentiality agreements and could not provide the Committee with specific information about settlement agreements in those five cases. The court proceedings in the case of Abousfian Abdelrazik were ongoing.

When Canada received negative views from the Committee, the authorities analysed those views and held consultations on how to best respond to them. The Committee’s views were made public. Canada maintained that the Committee’s interim measures (article 22 of the Convention against Torture) were not binding.

On the principle of non-refoulement, the delegation stated that foreign nationals who had been found to be victims of torture could become permanent residents in Canada. However, Canada could expel foreign persons if the authorities found that they posed a serious threat to national security (Suresh v. Canada).

All asylum claimants could appeal the negative decision on their asylum request. The asylum acceptation rate stood at 5.2 per cent in the past five-year period. Canada continued to believe that the United States remained a safe country for asylum seekers, and it continued to review asylum and border enforcement in that country.

Follow-up Questions by Country Co-Rapporteurs

SÉBASTIEN TOUZÉ, Committee Member and Country Co-Rapporteur for Canada, inquired about the outcome of the independent investigation into the murder and disappearance of indigenous women and girls, and asked about the compensation offered to indigenous women who had been subjected to forced sterilization. Were the perpetrators condemned in line with international standards?

Mr. Touzé underlined that there should be a possibility for prisoners to appeal the decision on isolation. Would the bill on the creation of “structured intervention units” also apply to all provinces and territories? Were medical services provided to prisoners free of charge? Was there a ban on body searches performed by the opposite gender?

With respect to the 2017 ministerial directions on sharing intelligence information with foreign entities, Mr. Touzé insisted that the ban on the use of information that was likely obtained through the mistreatment of individuals should be absolute. Otherwise, Canada could be found in breach of international law.

Turning to the Law on State Immunity, the Country Co-Rapporteur remarked that Canada could extend the exception for jurisdictional immunity to States that routinely carried out acts of torture.

BAKHTIYAR TUZMUKHAMEDOV, Committee Member and Country Co-Rapporteur for Canada, asked which Government led the consultation process on the accession to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.

How would the State party ensure that it met its international obligations in terms of non-refoulement in light of the Suresh v. Canada case? The Country Co-Rapporteur flagged that the use of diplomatic assurances would reduce the risk of torture of persons expelled to their countries of origin.

Had there been any evaluations in terms of the human rights training provided to the Canadian armed forces abroad? Mr. Tuzmukhamedov further asked about interpretation services for migrants in remote areas of Canada, and about minors under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Follow-up Questions by Other Committee Members

An Expert asked how the State party would the resolve the problem of the slow delivery of justice.

Did the Government of Canada plan to review its procedure of assessment of asylum requests in order to protect potential victims of torture and ill-treatment? Would the State party reconsider the Canada-United States Safe Third Country Agreement in light of the behaviour of the Trump administration vis-à-vis illegal migrants?

As for Canada’s refusal of the Committee’s interim measures, it constituted a breach of article 22 of the Convention against Torture. Canada should review its position in that respect.

Had any police and State officials been prosecuted for the failure to investigate allegations of missing indigenous persons?

JENS MODVIG, Committee Chairperson, reiterated his question about measures to prevent death in custody. Was there systematic medical screening upon admission to correctional facilities at the provincial and territorial level?

Replies by the Delegation

LAURIE WRIGHT, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister for Justice of Canada, explained that the National Inquiry Commission on the murder and disappearance of indigenous women and girls had issued an interim report, which recommended the expansion of monetary compensation to victims’ families, as well as investments into the work of the police and the relationship with indigenous communities.

Canada recognized that delays in the delivery of justice had to be addressed. Accordingly, it had opened 72 new judicial positions for superior courts. The federal Government had also introduced a bill to amend the Criminal Code to modernize the criminal justice system, namely to change the bail system, Ms. Wright explained.

Turning to the Committee’s interim measures, the delegation noted that Canada had respected them in the majority of cases. But in some exceptional cases it could not agree with the Committee because there was no serious risk of torture. The decision to remove a foreign national from Canada did not occur lightly and it took place following extensive consultations.

There were four decisions against State officials regarding the failure to investigate allegations of missing indigenous persons in Quebec. The State party would submit more information in its next periodic report.

The initial acceptance rate of migrants in 2018 stood at 62 per cent. Canada continued to monitor asylum and border management developments in the United States.

The Ministry of Global Affairs of Canada was in charge of the consultations with respect to the potential accession to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. Canada was also considering continuing its modest contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture.

The bill on the creation of “structured intervention units” applied only to federal prisons and it aimed to end the segregation of inmates. Inmates would be assigned to such units for an initial five days, after which their case would be reviewed by the institutional head. The Government would announce the relevant budget for the implementation of the bill.

The policy on body search stipulated that frisk search on women could only be carried out by a female correctional officer, whereas such searches on men could be carried out by a male correctional officer if expressly demanded by the subject in question.

The Canada Border Services Agency paid for interpretation services in immigration detention. The detention of minors was only used as a measure of last resort, and it was guided by the best interest of the child. The immigration authorities also tried not to separate minors from their families.

Concluding Remarks

LAURIE WRIGHT, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister for Justice of Canada, thanked the Committee for the careful consideration of Canada’s report, adding that the list of issues had helped the State party to submit a focused report. The State party would give due consideration to the Committee’s recommendations.

JENS MODVIG, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation for the well-organized responses, and reminded the State party of the Committee’s follow-up procedure in which the Committee would select several recommendations for immediate follow-up.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT/18/023E