|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONCERNS OF CANADIAN FAMILIES EXCLUDED FROM CANADA'S REPORT TO THE UN
Canada is required to report to the United
Nations Human Rights Committee in Geneva on measures which
have been taken to implement the UN International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which Canada ratified
in 1976. As a non-governmental organization (NGO) at the UN,
REAL Women of Canada was invited to participate in an information
and discussion session held on October 11, 2005, in Ottawa
prior to Canada's official presentation of our Fifth Report
to the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva on October 17 and
18, 2005.
Canada's Fifth Report on ICCPR
The Fifth Report, published since Canada
ratified the Covenant, unfortunately caters to the demands
of disgruntled feminists and left wing NGOs determined to
change Canada's culture which they view as oppressive, patriarchal
and intolerable. Increased participation of women in the labour
force is praised as an economic improvement in S. 25 of Canada's
report, ignoring the working family balancing act that so
many mothers, fathers and children find so stressful. The
"right to life" section (33 - 40) deals with the
death penalty, immigration and homelessness, but not the vulnerable
unborn child. S. 138 reports that marriage remains the predominant
family structure in Canada but diversity is viewed as progress
in that Statistics Canada now defines family for census purposes
as "a married or common-law opposite-sex or same-sex
couple, with or without children of one or both spouses or
partners, or a lone parent - regardless of that parent's marital
status - having at least one child living under the same roof."
S. 142 confirms that the Canadian government is "fully
committed" to Charter rights in the area of civil marriage
for same-sex couples but also to freedom of religion. The
199 sections reveal a UN Covenant agenda for a distorted interpretation
of "equality", "freedom" and "human
rights" with no regard to the experiences lived by the
majority of family oriented Canadians.
Discussion Session in Ottawa
Representatives from the Departments of Justice,
Foreign Affairs and Heritage Canada were present at this pre-Geneva
discussion session in Ottawa. The Métis National Council
expressed their major concern that the report only refers
to Aboriginals and doesn't even include the Métis as
a group in their considerations. EGALE (Equality for Gays
and Lesbians Everywhere) wanted to know whether transgendered
and gender identity were to be included as new prohibited
grounds for discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act
(CHRA). The Department of Justice representative answered
that transgendered and gender identity are still being developed
as "part of bigger review developing options." She
stated that an Independent Panel chaired by Mr. Gerard La
Forest, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, conducted
a review of the CHRA and released a report on June 21, 2000
containing 165 recommendations including the possibility of
adding new grounds for discrimination to the Act. Adding new
identities is a goal of homosexual activists at the national
and international levels (see REALity, Homosexuals' New Agenda:
Transsexualism, July/Aug 2004).
REAL Women of Canada pointed out at the meeting
that the report fails to represent all Canadian women. Our
organization promotes the equality of women and our concept
of equality includes the choice women make to care for the
next generation at home, especially while the children are
young. We reminded those present that the Vanier Institute
of the Family recently released a study which showed that
90% of Canadians believe that, in two-parent families, one
parent should ideally stay at home and raise children. Day
Care centres rank fifth when Canadians are asked whom they
would prefer to care for pre-school children. We also noted
that the discriminatory, high taxation of the single income
family is one of our concerns. This report makes no reference
to these Canadian realities. The report assumes that, as stated
in Section 154, Canadians are interested in "promoting
parental attachment to the labour force." This is the
opposite of what Canadians tell us they want more attachment
to their families and are having difficulty achieving that
because of economic pressures. An Ipsos-Reid poll released
in October 5, 2005, found that 85% of Canadian parents with
children 17 years old or younger wish they had more quality
time with their families, with two thirds feeling strongly
about this (National Post, Parents want quality time, but
don't make it, October 6, 2005.)
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2807
At the meeting, we reminded government representatives
that in the area of childcare and family policy, Canada does
not provide what the country needs to prosper. Australia gives
parents vouchers that they may use for the childcare of their
choice and provides family tax benefits to stay-at-home parents
as well as a $3000 grant to new parents. Finland offers $500
per month to stay-at-home parents and the vast majority of
Finnish parents choose this option. Canada's birth rate does
not provide for the replacement of our population without
immigration. We have a fertility deficiency that will impact
on social services and pension programs which will seriously
affect the poorest of Canadians.
We stated that Canada's Fifth Report on ICCPR
to the UN Human Rights Committee has not caught up with the
current Canadian reality regarding this economic and demographic
time bomb. We made clear that as an organization which recognizes
the importance of the family unit, we do not think that Canadian
views are represented in the narrow agenda of the Fifth Report
to the UN on the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. We said that a more expansive concept of equality
needs to be adopted in order to accurately represent the reality
of Canadian life.
Unfortunately, there is a great chasm between
the views of the delegates Canada sends to the United Nations
and the values of Canadians themselves. 58 organizations were
asked to give their views on the issues to be covered in this
report. A response was received from Focus on the Family.
However, none of its concerns were, as usual, adequately conveyed
in the report, which were: assisted suicide, hate crime accusation
for views on sexual orientation, the plight of the Canadian
family and changed definition of marriage.
Needless to say, our clearly stated views
were not exactly what the bureaucrats wanted to hear! But
hear them they did.
Left Wing NGOs in Geneva
Clearly, Canadians are not being heard at
the UN via these government reports. The Canadian family,
(which includes Aboriginals, new and older immigrants of all
races, those on welfare and the working family), is especially
not well served by the Fifth Report. Further, the left wing's
distorted view of Canada, expressed internationally, has sullied
Canada's reputation as a free country. The major concerns
of Canadian men and women need to be addressed at the UN,
not the special interest discontent and the views of radically
left wing bureaucrats.
Yet, NGOs from Canada went to Geneva and painted
there a bleak picture of human rights in Canada. The National
Council on Welfare reported that our welfare programs are
an "utter disaster." The Elizabeth Fry Society pointed
to violations of human rights of women in Canadian prisons.
The Native Women's Association wants $10 million over two
years instead of $5 million over five years from the government
to "document the scope of human rights violations involved
in missing and murdered Aboriginal women." The African
Canadian Legal Clinic highlighted racial profiling and "human
rights violations experienced by Canada's diverse African
Canadian population." The Feminist Alliance for International
Alliance, represented by Shelagh Day, a well-known lesbian,
formerly a vice president of the National Action Committee
on the Status of Women (NAC) and former chair of the Equality
Rights Panel of the federal Court Challenges Programme, questioned
the cutting of social programs in British Columbia. Amnesty
International was concerned about Canada's counter-terrorism
practices, and KAIROS brought up alleged violations of Canada's
obligations under the ICCPR.
So effective are NGO activists and Heritage
Canada's Fifth Report in criticizing Canada's human rights
record, that it has affected our credibility on the international
stage. Canada's motion to the UN General Assembly calling
for reforms in Iran, including bans on torture and execution
by stoning, prompted Iranian officials to peruse our Fifth
Report and find evidence against Canada. As the National Post
reported, "Iran has launched an attack on Canada at the
United Nations, claiming Ottawa is in no position to censure
the Islamic republic over its human rights record" (National
Post, Nov. 4, 2005, Iran calls Ottawa rights abuser). This
is all thanks to these left wing NGOs and their distorted
portrayal of Canada. Left wing extremist NGOs never seem to
find Canadian policies extreme enough. What an image Canada
has internationally! The Canadian Government's reports to
the UN, coupled with the NGO's complaints to the UN, paint
a picture of Canada that most of us would never recognize
and traditional families, which truly are discriminated against,
by the Canadian government, are left out in the cold.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|