Global Affairs Begin At Home

08/16/2025

The new Canadian government has signalled its ambition to reclaim a leadership role on the world stage.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s early message has been that he intends to build coalitions with other countries, defend democracy and stand up for human rights at a time when global norms are under pressure.

—

By Jimmy Ho and Luka Houde

Originally published in Policy Options July 30, 2025

—

“Canada is ready to lead,” he wrote on X following a call with UN Secretary-General António Guterres shortly after the spring election.

That promise comes at a moment of profound uncertainty for international human rights. Democratic back-sliding is accelerating, multilateral institutions are under strain and authoritarian regimes are growing bolder. The United States — long a dominant force in shaping global rights frameworks — has stepped away from key institutions and agreements. Other traditional powers have turned inward. In this vacuum, Canada has an opportunity to step up, not just as a voice of moral clarity, but as a country willing to do the hard work of upholding rights and democracies.

But Canada cannot lead credibly abroad if it continues to falter at home. Despite progressive rhetoric, fulfilment of our domestic human rights goals remains patchy, opaque and politically neglected.

In our research as graduate students, we spoke to dozens of officials and civil society leaders who made one thing clear: Canada has a human rights credibility gap. If the new government is serious about global leadership, closing that gap must start now.

Canada’s commitment problem

Canada’s human rights record looks strong on paper, but the reality is more complicated. We have ratified numerous international human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. But those commitments rarely make it into enforceable domestic law. Canada’s dualist legal system means international treaties require domestic laws to be enacted to give the treaties legal force at home. Without that, they remain aspirational.

That gap between promise and practice was a recurring theme in our interviews. “There’s no transparency in Canada’s human rights reporting,” said a women’s rights activist. “They (the government) say, ‘We spent $20 million on this.’ But what were the outcomes?” Without accessible data and clear accountability, she argued, government pronouncements amount to little more than performance.

Civil society organizations have long raised concerns about a lack of engagement and follow-through. “They act as gatekeepers of information,” said one human rights advocate, describing how government departments often control who gets access to meetings and what information is shared. Officials may welcome conversations, but rarely provide substantive answers — or commit to change.

When domestic advocacy hits a wall, many groups turn to international bodies. A former UN special rapporteur explained: “There’s a long history of Indigenous communities and human rights groups seeking justice through multilateral systems because domestic avenues were closed off.”

Even within government, there’s some acknowledgment of shortcomings. A senior federal official told us: “We’re always reporting [to the UN], but there’s always room to improve transparency — especially when it comes to domestic implementation.”

The official cited challenges with cross-departmental co-ordination and the fragmented nature of Canada’s human rights machinery. For example, Canadian Heritage is responsible for co-ordinating human rights reporting, but departments — including Justice, Immigration and Indigenous Services — each work in their own silos with little shared visibility. One official noted that collecting data on housing rights or Indigenous issues required “chasing multiple leads,” often across federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions. Another pointed to the challenge of preparing UN reports without a central body empowered to compel departments to respond on time or in detail.

A dysfunctional framework

Canada has several federal-provincial-territorial bodies that are supposed to help enact international human rights treaties — but they rarely deliver meaningful results. The Continuing Committee of Officials on Human Rights and the Forum of Ministers on Human Rights were created to promote alignment across jurisdictions. In practice, however, findings from our research show that co-ordination is inconsistent, communication is limited and there’s no binding mechanism to ensure accountability.

The problem is not just technical. It’s political. Provinces and territories often resist federal oversight and meetings are held behind closed doors. “We don’t even know who’s in the room, let alone what’s being discussed,” a housing rights activist told us.

One promising initiative is the National Recommendations Tracking Database, a global UN initiative being piloted by Canada to monitor how countries plan for and achieve UN human rights obligations. It’s meant to centralize information and make progress visible to the public. Its success depends on government action and transparency and, without political leadership, it risks becoming another box-checking exercise.

No accountability without political will

Perhaps the most glaring gap is the absence of high-level political oversight. Until two years ago, federal and provincial ministers responsible for human rights hadn’t met formally in nearly three decades. That changed with the establishment of the Forum of Ministers on Human Rights — but so far its impact has been negligible. One legal expert we interviewed described the forum’s inaugural meeting in June 2023 as “a disappointment.”

“Nothing was announced. No commitments were made. There was no substantive outcome,” said the expert, who added the only result was “a list of things they talked about, nothing more.”

A senator we spoke to put it more bluntly: “We need more than just meetings. We need action plans, clear timelines and consequences for non-compliance.” In her view, without political accountability, movement on human rights in Canada will continue to stall.

Canada’s opportunity

If Carney is serious about Canada being a leader in a post-U.S. era of international governance, our country must first prove that it can live up to the values it promotes abroad. That means strengthening its domestic human rights architecture, not just by improving reporting, but by ensuring that commitments are enforced, data is accessible and community groups, advocates and non-governmental organizations are treated as genuine partners.

Interviewees consistently called for stronger accountability mechanisms. Some proposed legislation to mandate follow-up on UN recommendations or to establish an independent co-ordinating body with real authority. Without binding obligations, as one expert put it, “everything stays aspirational.”

Others emphasized the need to make the tracking database public, regularly updated and user-friendly, so that advocates and civil society groups can follow progress and pressure government where needed.

Finally, partnership must go beyond consultations. Stakeholders urged regular, transparent and inclusive discussions with all parties, particularly Indigenous communities and rights-based organizations. As one interviewee told us, “Transparency is meaningless without meaningful access.”

This all means investing political capital. Human rights can’t remain a bureaucratic side project buried in intergovernmental committees. Federal leaders must set clear expectations for provinces and territories, give oversight bodies true power and — most importantly — show Canadians and the world that they are willing to be held accountable.

Canada says it wants to lead. This is the chance to prove it.

Jimmy Ho and Luka Houde are master’s students at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia.

This article first appeared in Policy Options and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.