Reflection: Justice For All Canada at the 145th United Nations Human Rights Committee Session
March 24, 2026
When I flew into Geneva on March 1, 2026, on behalf of Justice For All Canada’s policy team, we didn’t realise how impactful for Canadian human rights policies our presence would be.
I met up with people from the organisation Canadian Lawyers For International Human Rights (CLAIHR). We were there for the 145th session of the United Nations Human Rights Committee. This Committee was to review how well (or not) Canada has been complying with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Together we’d written a submission that highlighted our concerns about Canada’s suppression of advocacy for Palestinian human rights. We hoped the Committee would not only raise our concerns with the Canadian representatives, but also to include them in their concluding observations.
We weren’t the only civil society group there to share worries about Canada’s latest missteps in human rights. The various NGOs held several meetings ahead of the Committee’s examination of Canada. We shared updates, identified key issues and discussed strategies. We established a collaborative atmosphere between us. It was heartening and invigorating to be amongst like-minded people: all hoping for a better Canada.
We attended the opening of the Human Rights Committee’s 145th session with anticipation. We wondered how much they would take into account our work. During the formal briefing, we presented the key concerns from our joint submission with CLAIHR. We had opportunities to follow up in informal settings as well. Our discussions focused on the treatment of Palestinian advocacy in Canada. We talked about, amongst other things, recent restrictions on political speech, the right to protest and the broader suppressive climate currently facing human rights advocates.
The Committee members seemed receptive. Some asked follow-up questions. Committee member Luis Fernández Liesa asked for more information about how freedom of expression has been limited for students in academic settings. Committee member Hélène Tigroudja talked to us about counter-terrorism legislation and surveillance powers in Canada. We shared more details about Bill C-9 and our concerns about the monitoring of Palestinian human rights defenders and solidarity activists. We were encouraged by these conversations because they showed that Committee members were carefully considering the information civil society groups provided. It meant they would not only take the Canadian government’s point of view into account.
Our time in Geneva passed quickly. We also had meetings beyond the formal U.N. sessions. We met with a legal advocate from a UBC clinic who worked on a similar submission regarding the suppression of academic freedom; government officials, such as Public Safety Canada and Statistics Canada, and legal advisors at Canada’s Permanent Mission building, to talk about the government’s legal assessments regarding atrocities in Gaza and Canadian immigration policies affecting the fate of Palestinian students and scholars experiencing delayed entry visas; and a representative from the Canadian Council for Refugees about refugee protection issues and the Safe Third Country Agreement.
One meeting that left a lasting impression was with Indigenous women’s organizations. They spoke about ongoing struggles facing Indigenous communities in Canada, including violence against Indigenous women and girls, forced sterilization and legislative changes affecting status rights. We raised parallels between Indigenous struggles in Canada and the experiences of Palestinians, believing that these synergies give opportunities for solidarity and shared advocacy.
When Canada’s examination began, it was gratifying to see how many of the issues we had all raised had made their way into the Committee’s questioning. During the first day of the review, Committee member Tigroudja questioned the Canadian delegation about the vague language surrounding “terrorism symbols” in Bill C-9 and the potential over-surveillance of Palestinian human rights defenders. Seeing these issues raised in the official dialogue was a meaningful moment that gave us hope it might hold Canada to account.
On the second day of the examination, Committee member Rodrigo Carazo pressed the Canadian delegation about arms exports to Israel through the United States, while Vice Chair Hernán Quezada Cabrera raised concerns about restrictions on expression and assembly on university campuses and reiterated concerns about legislation such as Bill C-9. We knew that these exchanges had been shaped by the Committee’s prior interactions with the NGOs, Justice For All Canada included.
After the session concluded, conversations with Committee members continued. We shared follow-up materials addressing issues such as academic freedom, Quebec’s Bill 21 (religious symbols/hijab ban) and prayer bans, and proposed restrictions on protest. We knew it was important to continue engagement after the public hearings ended; there is a longer advocacy process for the issues we focus on.
We flew back to Canada, exhausted, inspired and motivated. For Justice For All Canada, being present in Geneva was part of our larger effort to defend civil and political rights, and to ensure that advocacy for justice, including for Palestinian rights, can be carried out freely and without fear.
When I flew into Geneva on March 1, 2026, on behalf of Justice For All Canada’s policy team, we didn’t realise how impactful for Canadian human rights policies our presence would be.
I met up with people from the organisation Canadian Lawyers For International Human Rights (CLAIHR). We were there for the 145th session of the United Nations Human Rights Committee. This Committee was to review how well (or not) Canada has been complying with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Together we’d written a submission that highlighted our concerns about Canada’s suppression of advocacy for Palestinian human rights. We hoped the Committee would not only raise our concerns with the Canadian representatives, but also to include them in their concluding observations.
We weren’t the only civil society group there to share worries about Canada’s latest missteps in human rights. The various NGOs held several meetings ahead of the Committee’s examination of Canada. We shared updates, identified key issues and discussed strategies. We established a collaborative atmosphere between us. It was heartening and invigorating to be amongst like-minded people: all hoping for a better Canada.
We attended the opening of the Human Rights Committee’s 145th session with anticipation. We wondered how much they would take into account our work. During the formal briefing, we presented the key concerns from our joint submission with CLAIHR. We had opportunities to follow up in informal settings as well. Our discussions focused on the treatment of Palestinian advocacy in Canada. We talked about, amongst other things, recent restrictions on political speech, the right to protest and the broader suppressive climate currently facing human rights advocates.
The Committee members seemed receptive. Some asked follow-up questions. Committee member Luis Fernández Liesa asked for more information about how freedom of expression has been limited for students in academic settings. Committee member Hélène Tigroudja talked to us about counter-terrorism legislation and surveillance powers in Canada. We shared more details about Bill C-9 and our concerns about the monitoring of Palestinian human rights defenders and solidarity activists. We were encouraged by these conversations because they showed that Committee members were carefully considering the information civil society groups provided. It meant they would not only take the Canadian government’s point of view into account.
Our time in Geneva passed quickly. We also had meetings beyond the formal U.N. sessions. We met with a legal advocate from a UBC clinic who worked on a similar submission regarding the suppression of academic freedom; government officials, such as Public Safety Canada and Statistics Canada, and legal advisors at Canada’s Permanent Mission building, to talk about the government’s legal assessments regarding atrocities in Gaza and Canadian immigration policies affecting the fate of Palestinian students and scholars experiencing delayed entry visas; and a representative from the Canadian Council for Refugees about refugee protection issues and the Safe Third Country Agreement.
One meeting that left a lasting impression was with Indigenous women’s organizations. They spoke about ongoing struggles facing Indigenous communities in Canada, including violence against Indigenous women and girls, forced sterilization and legislative changes affecting status rights. We raised parallels between Indigenous struggles in Canada and the experiences of Palestinians, believing that these synergies give opportunities for solidarity and shared advocacy.
When Canada’s examination began, it was gratifying to see how many of the issues we had all raised had made their way into the Committee’s questioning. During the first day of the review, Committee member Tigroudja questioned the Canadian delegation about the vague language surrounding “terrorism symbols” in Bill C-9 and the potential over-surveillance of Palestinian human rights defenders. Seeing these issues raised in the official dialogue was a meaningful moment that gave us hope it might hold Canada to account.
On the second day of the examination, Committee member Rodrigo Carazo pressed the Canadian delegation about arms exports to Israel through the United States, while Vice Chair Hernán Quezada Cabrera raised concerns about restrictions on expression and assembly on university campuses and reiterated concerns about legislation such as Bill C-9. We knew that these exchanges had been shaped by the Committee’s prior interactions with the NGOs, Justice For All Canada included.
After the session concluded, conversations with Committee members continued. We shared follow-up materials addressing issues such as academic freedom, Quebec’s Bill 21 (religious symbols/hijab ban) and prayer bans, and proposed restrictions on protest. We knew it was important to continue engagement after the public hearings ended; there is a longer advocacy process for the issues we focus on.
We flew back to Canada, exhausted, inspired and motivated. For Justice For All Canada, being present in Geneva was part of our larger effort to defend civil and political rights, and to ensure that advocacy for justice, including for Palestinian rights, can be carried out freely and without fear.