Canada’s ICCPR Review at the 145th Session of the U.N. Human Rights Committee
March 13, 2026
Justice For All Canada participated in the 145th session of the U.N. Human Rights Committee during Canada’s seventh periodic review, held March 2026, under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
During the session, committee experts posed questions to Canada, expressing concerns about military arms transfers, the treatment of Palestine solidarity on university campuses and Bill C-9. The Canadian government’s responses failed to address the underlying human rights implications of these critical issues.
Regarding arms export practices and continued military transfers during Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, Canada stated that no new export permits have been approved since January 2024 and that export applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. It acknowledged that two permits issued in 2025 were linked to Israel’s Iron Dome defence system. However, this leaves unresolved questions about whether Canadian-origin components could still enter supply chains connected to the genocide. The government did not clarify whether previously issued permits or indirect transfers could still result in Canadian-origin military goods reaching Israel.
There remain serious concerns about whether current safeguards are enough to prevent military exports from contributing to violations of international law. Canada stated that once military goods leave Canada, they fall under the export controls of the destination state, sidestepping the issue. In addition, Canada still maintains the U.S. export permit exemption, a longstanding gap allowing military exports to proceed without full permit review, which Bill C-233 sought to close by requiring the same human rights risk assessments for military goods destined for the U.S. Last month, it was reported that an internal assessment by the Canadian Commercial Corporation examined U.S.-bound military contracts because Canadian-origin components shipped to the U.S. may ultimately enter weapons systems used by Israel, including ammunition and artillery supply chains. The heavily redacted report cited numerous sources documenting the situation in Gaza and the legal concerns surrounding ongoing arms transfers.
The committee experts raised concerns about the monitoring of individuals advocating for Palestinian rights. Canada’s response only addressed surveillance oversight in general, stating that intrusive surveillance requires judicial authorization and is subject to independent review. However, it did not explain how the proposed “Strong Border Act” could expand surveillance powers, or what safeguards exist to prevent national security tools from restricting peaceful protest.
The government’s responses to the committee’s concerns about Bill C-9, which included the bill’s proposed intimidation offence/protest exclusion zones, were also limited. These concerns relate directly to Canada’s obligations under Articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR, which protect freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The government provided insufficient explanation on whether the bill’s introduction would hinder these freedoms.
Justice For All Canada urges the Government of Canada to ensure that its policies and actions fully meet its obligations under the ICCPR. We look forward to the ICCPR committee’s report on Canada, which is expected to be released after March 19, 2026. We will continue to monitor Canada’s internal legal commitments, while campaigning for the government to fully align its policies and practices with these obligations.
Justice For All Canada participated in the 145th session of the U.N. Human Rights Committee during Canada’s seventh periodic review, held March 2026, under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
During the session, committee experts posed questions to Canada, expressing concerns about military arms transfers, the treatment of Palestine solidarity on university campuses and Bill C-9. The Canadian government’s responses failed to address the underlying human rights implications of these critical issues.
Regarding arms export practices and continued military transfers during Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, Canada stated that no new export permits have been approved since January 2024 and that export applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. It acknowledged that two permits issued in 2025 were linked to Israel’s Iron Dome defence system. However, this leaves unresolved questions about whether Canadian-origin components could still enter supply chains connected to the genocide. The government did not clarify whether previously issued permits or indirect transfers could still result in Canadian-origin military goods reaching Israel.
There remain serious concerns about whether current safeguards are enough to prevent military exports from contributing to violations of international law. Canada stated that once military goods leave Canada, they fall under the export controls of the destination state, sidestepping the issue. In addition, Canada still maintains the U.S. export permit exemption, a longstanding gap allowing military exports to proceed without full permit review, which Bill C-233 sought to close by requiring the same human rights risk assessments for military goods destined for the U.S. Last month, it was reported that an internal assessment by the Canadian Commercial Corporation examined U.S.-bound military contracts because Canadian-origin components shipped to the U.S. may ultimately enter weapons systems used by Israel, including ammunition and artillery supply chains. The heavily redacted report cited numerous sources documenting the situation in Gaza and the legal concerns surrounding ongoing arms transfers.
The committee experts raised concerns about the monitoring of individuals advocating for Palestinian rights. Canada’s response only addressed surveillance oversight in general, stating that intrusive surveillance requires judicial authorization and is subject to independent review. However, it did not explain how the proposed “Strong Border Act” could expand surveillance powers, or what safeguards exist to prevent national security tools from restricting peaceful protest.
The government’s responses to the committee’s concerns about Bill C-9, which included the bill’s proposed intimidation offence/protest exclusion zones, were also limited. These concerns relate directly to Canada’s obligations under Articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR, which protect freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The government provided insufficient explanation on whether the bill’s introduction would hinder these freedoms.
Justice For All Canada urges the Government of Canada to ensure that its policies and actions fully meet its obligations under the ICCPR. We look forward to the ICCPR committee’s report on Canada, which is expected to be released after March 19, 2026. We will continue to monitor Canada’s internal legal commitments, while campaigning for the government to fully align its policies and practices with these obligations.