Canada has quietly abolished the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise (CORE), the independent watchdog tasked with investigating human rights abuses by Canadian companies operating overseas. The decision, announced by the federal government, has drawn sharp criticism from human rights organizations and opposition parties.
What Was CORE?
Established in 2019, CORE was mandated to review complaints against Canadian mining, oil and gas, and garment companies for alleged human rights violations in their foreign operations. It had the power to investigate abuses and recommend remedies, though its recommendations were non-binding. The office handled cases involving environmental damage, labor rights violations, and conflicts with Indigenous communities.
Government's Rationale
The Liberal government stated that CORE was eliminated as part of a broader effort to reduce bureaucratic overlap and streamline resources. Officials argued that existing mechanisms, such as the National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines and corporate social responsibility initiatives, are sufficient to address concerns. However, critics counter that these alternatives lack the independence and investigative capacity of CORE.
Reactions and Implications
Human rights advocates have condemned the move, calling it a step backward for corporate accountability. For instance, Amnesty International Canada described the abolition as a "betrayal" of communities affected by Canadian companies abroad. Opposition MPs from the New Democratic Party have vowed to raise the issue in Parliament.
The decision also raises questions about Canada's commitment to its international obligations, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Without a dedicated watchdog, experts fear that abuses may go unaddressed, tarnishing Canada's reputation as a champion of human rights.
In response, the government has pointed to increased funding for the Trade Commissioner Service to promote responsible business conduct. Yet, many argue that this does not replace the need for an independent oversight body.
