CANADA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Claudia Feldkamp and Chris Pigott, Fasken
suppliers into its agreements, including stand - ing offers and supply arrangements and service contracts. To further embed human rights expectations into its procurement policies and processes in a more comprehensive and consistent manner, the PSPC is planning to implement in 2025 a departmental policy on ethical procurement. This will form the basis for the PSPC’s ethical procurement initiatives, training programmes, and tools for suppliers. A human rights due dili - gence framework with specific guidance for sup - pliers is also under development by PSPC. Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise (CORE) The CORE, as an example of a state-based non- judicial mechanism, has been both promoted both as a source of timely and effective resolu - tion and remedy and criticised for failing to live up to its stated promise. The third pillar of the UNGPs provides that there must be effective remedies for business-related human rights harms, consistent with internation - al human rights law. The UNGPs contemplate a landscape of state-based, judicial and non- judicial processes forming the foundation of a wider system of remedy that also includes non- State-based company and multi-stakeholder grievance mechanisms. When the CORE was first announced in 2018, replacing the previous CSR counsellor, it was advanced as an important forum for the media - tion and resolution of disputes related to allega - tions of human rights abuses brought against Canadian companies operating globally, con - sistent with the expectations of the UNGPs. The CORE was designed to provide effective and timely remedy, be less costly and time-con -
suming than judicial processes, and be capable of crafting more tailored appropriate remedies beyond simply ordering the payment of mon - etary damages. From the outset, there was controversy focused largely on the powers of the CORE but also on its scope. Does the CORE – as a state-based, non-judicial mechanism – require the power to compel documents and witnesses to fulfil its mandate to address allegations of human rights abuses brought against Canadian companies operating globally? A 2021 report on the CORE’s mandate by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development recom - mended that the Canadian government appoint the CORE as a commissioner pursuant to Part I of Canada’s Inquiries Act, with the appointment remaining in place until legislation endowing the CORE with the power to compel witnesses and documents has been adopted by the Canadian Parliament. While there have been persistent calls for enhancing the powers of the CORE, others have cautioned that these powers will be accompa - nied by more complex procedural protections – making the process more adversarial, lengthier and costlier and, in effect, reducing the CORE’s capacity to operate as an accessible and cost- effective non-judicial mechanism for remedy. The second, persisting question is when (and how) the scope of the CORE will be expanded. When first established, the CORE was limited to the oil and gas, extractive and garment indus - tries – with an undertaking from the Canadian government to extend the scope to other sec - tors after the first year of operation. To date, this expansion has not occurred.
54
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook