FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 4, 2026 | Geneva —   Today in Geneva, United Nations Human Rights Committee members expressed surprise at Canada’s claim that Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) does not require governments to take positive measures to protect life when it is at risk. 

In a joint statement ahead of the Committee’s review of Canada’s ICCPR compliance, human rights groups had called on the Committee to press Canada to accept that the right to life requires governments to take positive measures to address systemic conditions that place lives at risk. These conditions include homelessness, lack of access to essential healthcare, toxic drug deaths, violence against Indigenous women and girls, food insecurity, unsafe water, inadequate disability supports, and climate change. 

“In case after case, Canadian governments argue that even when people are dying, they have no constitutional duty to act,” says Michèle Biss, Executive Director of the National Right to Housing Network. “The right to life means more than simply refraining from harm. It requires governments to prevent foreseeable loss of life.” 

The United Nations Human Rights Committee monitors Canada’s compliance with the ICCPR, which guarantees the “inherent right to life” in Article 6. This is the first time the committee has reviewed Canada since 2015. The Committee has consistently affirmed that protecting the right to life requires states to adopt “positive measures” and to address “general conditions in society” that threaten life. “Positive measures” require states to take proactive steps to guarantee rights, rather than merely refrain from violating them.  

Today, committee members questioned Canada’s restrictive interpretation of the right to life, which includes denying any obligation to ensure access to health care when life is at risk.  Committee members further raised concerns about Canada’s reliance on punitive responses to drug use and homelessness rather than addressing serious risks to life.  Committee members referred to the Committee’s General Comment No. 36 (2018), which affirms that protecting the right to life requires states to adopt “positive measures” and to address “general conditions in society” that may threaten life, including inadequate health care, homelessness, toxic drug deaths and environmental degradation. Canada has rejected this interpretation in its submissions to the Committee and in litigation before domestic courts. 

Domestically, Canada has opposed arguments invoking positive rights made under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, asserting that governments are not legally required to take positive measures—even where evidence shows that lives are in foreseeable danger. Canada has made these arguments in cases where individuals have invoked their right to life in response to homelessness, denial of health care, climate inaction, or the closure of supervised consumption sites.  

“Canada’s refusal to fully uphold the right to life has allowed for thousands of preventable deaths across the country,” says Beeta Senedjani of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition. “We are hopeful the committee will hold Canada to account and spur the changes we need to ensure all people in Canada can be healthy and safe.”   

The coalition calls on the Committee to recommend that Canada: 

• Affirm that the right to life requires positive measures to protect life, consistent with the Committee’s jurisprudence; 

• Review and revise its domestic litigation positions to ensure consistency with its international human rights obligations; 

• Implement the Committee’s Views in Toussaint v. Canada; and 

• Ensure access to effective remedies for systemic violations of the right to life. 

“Courts in Canada have held that international human rights laws are not abstract, aspirational principles,” says Sandra Ka Hon Chu, Co-Executive Director for the HIV Legal Network. “The Charter is presumed to provide protections as outlined in the international human rights treaties it has ratified.” 

The full joint statement is available here.

— 30 — 

Media Contact: 
 
Jessica Hannon  
jthannon@sfu.ca  
604-341-5005 

BACKGROUNDER 

Canada’s Position on Positive Obligations Under Article 6 (Right to Life) 
NGO Joint Statement – Summary of Key Issues 

1. The Legal Issue 

Article 6 of the ICCPR protects the inherent right to life. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has clarified — beginning with General Comment No. 6 (1982) and reaffirmed in General Comment No. 36 (2018) — that this right requires positive measures to address systemic conditions that pose foreseeable threats to life. 

These include environmental degradation, homelessness, hunger, substance use, and the denial of essential deprivation of essential health care and public services. 

In Toussaint v Canada (2018), the Committee applied this interpretation to Canada, finding that denying essential health care to an irregular migrant exposed her to a reasonably foreseeable risk to life, in violation of Article 6.  The Committee directed Canada to prevent similar violations in the future by ensuring access to essential health care where life is at risk. 

2. Canada’s Position 

Canada has: 

• Rejected the Committee’s interpretation that Article 6 requires positive measures addressing socio-economic conditions; 
• Stated it does not accept that the right to life includes a right to live with dignity where this might entail socio-economic obligations; 
• Declined to implement the Views in Toussaint because it does not agree with the Committees findings 
• Advanced arguments in domestic litigation, asserting that the right to life in section 7 of the Charter does not impose positive obligations to provide life-saving benefits or address systemic threats to life. 

This position, when upheld by courts, has meant that individuals whose right to life under international law have been violated have no effective remedies under the Canadian Charter.   Canada has an obligation to ensure access to effective remedies, requiring that the Charter of Rights be interpreted consistently with Canada’s obligations under international human rights law. 

3. Systemic Impacts 

The consequences of rejecting positive obligations under the right to life are evident across multiple areas: 

Homelessness 
Deaths among people experiencing homelessness are rising, with significantly reduced life expectancy. 

Essential Health Care 
Irregular migrants lack access to essential health care necessary to protect their lives. Lack of access to mental health services remains a systemic problem, with suicide a leading cause of death among youth. Indigenous peoples experience markedly reduced life expectancy and unmet health needs. 

Substance Use 
Canada’s criminal laws make the unregulated drug supply more unpredictable, contaminated and potent, driving thousands of foreseeable, preventable deaths annually. Meanwhile, governments continue to argue that they have no obligation to provide, fund, or ensure the availability of proven lifesaving services to protect the right to life, including supervised consumption or safe supply. 

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls 
Indigenous women and girls face disproportionate rates of homicide. Most Calls for Justice from the National Inquiry remain unimplemented. 

Disability Supports 
Inadequate social supports leave some persons with disabilities seeking Medical Assistance in Dying due to poverty and deprivation rather than irremediable suffering. 

Water and Sanitation 
Dozens of long-term drinking water advisories remain in First Nations communities. 

Food Insecurity 
Approximately one in four people in Canada live in food-insecure households, a condition linked to premature mortality. 

Climate Change 
Canada is not on track to meet its Paris Agreement targets and is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Extreme heat and wildfires have already resulted in documented loss of life and serious health impacts. 

4. What the Coalition Is Requesting 

The coalition calls on the Committee to recommend that Canada: 

1. Publicly affirm that the right to life in Article 6 requires positive measures to address systemic threats to life; 
2. Align its domestic litigation positions with its international human rights obligations; 
3. Implement the Committee’s views in cases involving the right to life that have been denied effective remedies 

The post Canada Challenged at United Nations Over Narrow Interpretation of Right to Life appeared first on Canadian Drug Policy Coalition.

​