Human rights in Canada

History

Human rights concerns the private rights and power of people. This typically has broad meaning, covering all human rights protected under the law outside of the criminal law context. Civil rights primarily gravitates around issues such as discrimination, accommodation, suffrage (voting), and to a lesser extent, property rights. Human rights are primarily protected under the federal and provincial Human Rights Acts in private context, and under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms where the state is a party to the matter.

Controversial human rights issues in Canada have included patient rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, parents' rights, children's rights, abortion rights vs rights of the unborn, minority rights, majority rights, rights of the disabled, aboriginal rights, tenant rights and economic, social and political rights.

From the 19th century to the advent of the Canadian Bill of Rights and the first provincial Human Rights Act, the laws of Canada and the provinces did not provide much in the way of civil rights and it was typically of limited concern to the courts. This is not to say that Canadians did not have rights. However, there was no enumerated list of rights which citizens could use to press a claim against the state, as in the American Bill of Rights or the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. Instead Canadian law followed British tradition in which the (unenumerated) "Rights of Englishmen" have traditionally been defended by all the branches of the state (the courts, the parliament, and the Crown) collectively and sometimes in competition with each other. In Canada this concept was interpreted in light of Canadian federalism, where the courts frequently prevented provincial legislatures from legislating in ways that impinged on individual rights, leaving that power only with the federal parliament. This concept is known as the "Implied Bill of Rights".

During this early period there were a number legal cases arising from discriminatory or repressive conduct. The courts typically dealt with these cases strictly as a matter of law with no explicit consideration to the social element of the matter.

The earliest cases typically turned on the question of constitutional jurisdiction of the law. In Union Colliery Co. of British Columbia v. Bryden (1899), Bryden, a shareholder in Union Colliery, accused the company of violating the provincial Mining Act which prohibited the hiring of "Chinamen". The company successfully challenged the constitutionality of the Act on the grounds that it legislated on a matter that was in federal jurisdiction. In Cunningham v. Homma (1903), the provincial law prohibiting people of Japanese descent from voting was found to be constitutional on the basis that it was a matter within the province's jurisdiction to legislate on. Similarly, in the case of Quong Wing v. R. (1914), the Saskatchewan law prohibiting the hiring of white women by businesses owned by "Chinamen" was constitutionally valid as a matter of jurisdiction.

In the 1938 decision of Reference re Alberta Statutes, the Supreme Court of Canada first recognized an implied bill of rights. The Court had struck down an Albertan law that prohibited the press from criticizing the government. In Reference re Persons of Japanese Race (1946), the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a government order to deport Canadian citizens of Japanese descent. However, in dissent, two justices invoked the implied bill of rights as a valid basis for invalidating the law.

In Noble v. Alley (1955), the Supreme Court of Canada refused to enforce a restrictive covenant prohibiting the sale of land to those of Jewish descent on the basis that it was too vague.

Beginning in 1947, the provinces began adopting human rights legislation: the Saskatchewan Bill of Rights (1947), Ontario (1962), Nova Scotia (1963), Alberta (1966), New Brunswick (1967), Prince Edward Island (1968), Newfoundland (1969), British Columbia (1969), Manitoba (1970) and Quebec (1975). In 1977, the federal government enacted the Canadian Human Rights Act. Also, many collective agreements between employers and trade unions include non-discrimination provisions.

Komagata Maru incident

The Komagata Maru incident occurred 1914 when a group of Indians, all British subjects, arrived in Vancouver with the intention of settling in Canada. One of the Sikh passengers, Jagat Singh Thind, was the youngest brother of Bhagat Singh Thind, an Indian-American Sikh writer and lecturer on "spiritual science" who was involved in an important legal battle over the rights of Indians to obtain U.S. citizenship (United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind).

World War I treatment of Ukrainian Canadians

The Ukrainian Canadian internment was part of the confinement of "enemy aliens" in Canada during and for two years after the end of the First World War, lasting from 1914 to 1920, under the terms of the War Measures Act. About 4,000 Ukrainian men and some women and children of Austro-Hungarian citizenship were kept in twenty-four internment camps and related work sites – also known, at the time, as concentration camps. Many were released in 1916 to help with the mounting labour shortage.

Oriental Head Tax and Chinese Immigration Act of 1923

The Chinese head tax was a fixed fee charged to each Chinese person entering Canada. The head tax was first levied after the Canadian parliament passed the Chinese Immigration Act of 1885 and was meant to discourage Chinese people from entering Canada after the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The tax was abolished by the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923, which stopped Chinese immigration altogether, except for business people, clergy, educators, students, and other categories.

World War II treatment of Japanese Canadians

Japanese Canadian internment refers to confinement of Japanese Canadians in British Columbia during World War II. The internment began in December 1941, after the attack by carrier-borne forces of Imperial Japan on American naval and army facilities at Pearl Harbor. The Canadian federal government gave the internment order based on speculation of sabotage and espionage, although the RCMP and defence department lacked proof. Many interned children were brought up in these camps, including David Suzuki, Joy Kogawa, and Roy Miki. The Canadian government promised the Japanese Canadians that their property and finances would be returned upon release; however, these assets were sold off cheaply at auctions.

Cold War forced relocation

In the early 1950s and in the context of the Cold War, the federal government forcibly relocated 87 Inuit citizens to the High Arctic as human symbols of Canada's assertion of ownership of the region. The Inuit were told that they would be returned home to Northern Quebec after a year if they wished, but this offer was later withdrawn as it would damage Canada's claims to the High Arctic; they were forced to stay. In 1993, after extensive hearings, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples issued The High Arctic Relocation: A Report on the 1953–55 Relocation. The government paid compensation but has not apologised.

PROFUNC

PROFUNC (1950–1983), which stands for "PROminent FUNCtionaries of the communist party", was a Government of Canada third rail top secret plan to identify and intern Canadian communists and crypto-communists during the height of the Cold War.

Residential schools

The Indian residential schools of Canada were a network of "residential" (boarding) schools for Aboriginal peoples of Canada (First Nations, Metis, and Inuit) funded by the Canadian government's Department of Indian Affairs, and administered by Christian churches, most notably the Catholic Church in Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada. The system had origins in pre-Confederation times, but was primarily active following the passage of the Indian Act in 1876, until the mid-twentieth century. The last residential school was not closed until 1996.

Separate Schools

Some Canadian provinces, including Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, continue to operate separate and publicly funded schools that allegedly discriminate by religion, although students attending these schools need not be Roman Catholic by faith. In Canada these are usually Roman Catholic schools which are run parallel to the public school system that historically had been either Protestant or Roman Catholic, but which in recent years has become secular. In addition to Roman Catholic school boards, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario each have one Protestant separate school district.

On November 5, 1999 the United Nations Human Rights Committee condemned Canada and Ontario for having violated the equality provisions (Article 26) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Committee restated its concerns on November 2, 2005, when it published its Concluding Observations regarding Canada's fifth periodic report under the Covenant. The Committee observed that Canada had failed to "adopt steps in order to eliminate discrimination on the basis of religion in the funding of schools in Ontario."

Bill 101 in Quebec

Bill 101 in Quebec is a collection of laws instituted in order to propagate the French language and restricted the use of English. In 1993, the United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled that Quebec's sign laws broke an international covenant on civil and political rights. "A State may choose one or more official languages," the committee wrote, "but it may not exclude, outside the spheres of public life, the freedom to express oneself in a language of one's choice. The Committee accordingly concludes that there has been a violation of article 19, paragraph 2." Bill 101 itself was however considered as adhering to international standards for human rights and the complaint was ultimately rejected as "non-admissible" while recommending an amendment to the law concerning outdoors advertising.

The current law specifies that commercial outdoor signs can be multilingual so long as French is markedly predominant.