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 havethe primaryobligation 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 theywere 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 ofCanada’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, 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 away that States (at different places within the development spectrum) can determine what theirconcrete next stepscould be to progressively implement these principles.
Canadaagrees 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 meaningfulexercise 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 reportshould 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 sectionin 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 definitionof 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 povertyabove). 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 even more so when these identities intersect, e.g. older, disabled women from racial minorities.
Specific Rights-based Obligations
Health
Canadasupports 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.
Outstanding Questions and Concerns
1)At para 76, bullet 3 (page 20), the Reportsuggests 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 Pwhichrecommends "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 orcome 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". Thismay not be the case.
1