At the time this article was published
Brooke Jeffrey and Philip Rosen were with the Research Branch of the Library of
This paper briefly examines the general
theory of human rights and gives some historical background for the Canadian
experience, examining both specific incidents and the development of human
rights mechanisms. The anti-discrimination legislation in force at the federal
and provincial levels, as well as in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories,
is summarily analysed. It then moves to a discussion of the international
aspects of Canada's human rights policy. The next section enumerates some of
the current problems, and the paper concludes with a discussion of the possible
constitutional entrenchment of a Bill of Rights.
Human Rights Theory in Brief
Modern human rights concepts have evolved
over a considerable period of time, and can be traced back to the 1. natural
justice" philosophers of the 18th and 19th centuries. The global political
developments of the post-World War II period have in fact produced two opposing
views of human rights; essentially there is a dispute as to the relative
importance of "group" (or "collective) rights, and "individual"
rights. The Communist, social democratic bloc and much of the Third World have
argued that the former must take precedence, while the Western, liberal
democratic bloc has supported the primacy of the latter. This conflict is
exemplified in two main United Nations documents relating to human rights the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). The former refers
to rights of the collectivity regarding working conditions, standard of living,
education, health care, cultural and social activity, while the second is
devoted to Individual rights such as freedom of speech, thought, association,
and religion, right to a fair trial, nationality, equality before the law, and so
on. In Canada a classic conflict between these two approaches can be seen in
the Quebec language legislation, which promotes the majority's collective
cultural right of language to some extent at the expense of the minority's
In the Canadian context, the Western liberal
democratic concept of rights has itself been further divided into four
categories by Professor (now Chief Justice) Laskin:
"political liberties – traditionally
including freedoms of association, assembly, utterance, press or other
communications media, conscience, and religion; economic liberties – the right
to own property, and the right not to be deprived thereof without due
compensation, freedom of contract, the right to withhold one's labour, etc.;
legal liberties – freedom from arbitrary arrest, right to a fair hearing,
protection of an independent judiciary, access to counsel, etc.; egalitarian
liberties or human rights right to employment, to accommodation, to education,
and so on, without discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, creed, or
There are, of course, numerous other
classification systems which attempt to delineate these rights, but all of them
generally cover the same area. Human rights officials at the federal and provincial
levels now refer to "human. rights and fundamental freedoms" when,
they wish to be all-inclusive in their reference.
A final point should be made regarding the
definition of certain human. rights terms, namely, "prejudice,
"discrimination" and "rights".. Human. rights have been
defined by Maurice Cranston as being both universal and. inalienable in
nature.(2) That is, they, are valid for all people at all times, and cannot be
"lost". This is in opposition to various privileges or statutorily
defined rights of specific individuals or. groups (such as, for example, the
rights; of parents, union members, professional. engineers or patients).
Whenever an individual or group suffers a violation of their human rights,
prejudice and discrimination are generally at the root: of the problem.
However, despite the fact that the two words are often heard together, or are
used interchangeably,, they are not the same thing . Prejudice is a mental.
attitude – a prejudgement. Stereotypes of various ethnic and religious groups
are examples of a prejudicial attitude. All members of a group are classified
as the same, and each individual is therefore judged according to which group
he belongs. Discrimination, on the other hand, is the application of
prejudicial attitudes to actions. Refusing to hire someone. to rent a house to
someone or to accept someone for membership in a club, solely because of his or
her group affiliations, are discriminatory acts.
While a number of educational and
promotional programs can be (and have been) established to combat the
prejudiced attitudes which are the root cause of discrimination, it is the role
of formal legislation to prohibit any acts of discrimination. Naturally,
attitudinal change is more difficult to accomplish. While the effectiveness of
legislation can generally be measured in terms of the decline or increase in
the number of overt acts of discrimination, this is not always the case. As
social consciousness increases, discriminatory acts often become more subtle
and difficult to prove. (Recent journalistic revelations about the practices of
private employment agencies are an excellent example).(3)
There is a general perception by the public in
Canada that this country has an excellent record in terms of protection of
human rights and fundamental freedoms. Only the U.S. as a rule is considered to
have a somewhat similar. record, and even there the racial problems involving
blacks, Puerto Ricans and Mexican Americans have given Canadians a feeling of
superiority. However, while it is true that Canada may have a good record in
comparison with many countries, its past is hardly blameless.
Prior to Confederation there were numerous
examples of discrimination, often violent, some of the most obvious being the
genocide of the Beothuk Indians in Newfoundland, the Orange/ Catholic riots in
Bytown (1849) and Toronto (1858), the general anti-French, anti-Catholic
sentiment, the original acceptance of the practice of slavery, and later the
prevailing anti-black sentiment.
"When the British Parliament abolished
slavery in the Empire in 1833, American blacks began to flee into Canada.
Although our mythology has us welcoming these dark strangers, it was only a
tiny minority of Canadians who were either involved in, or approved of, the
Underground, Railway. The prevailing sentiment was voiced in the Ontario
legislature in 1857, where Colonel J. Prince pronounced the blacks "the
greatest curse ever inflicted upon the two magnificent counties that I have the
honour to represent.(4)
The immigration policy of the newly, formed
Confederation was equally discriminatory, favouring British and European stock
over 'Orientals" and "others". The many thousands of Chinese who
came to B.C. in the 1880s were practically slaves, since Chinese companies
"sold" them under contract to Canadian railway and mining interests.
Their living conditions and treatment in general were appalling. The Federal
Electoral Act of 1885 stated: 'Person' means a male person, including an
Indian, and excluding a person of Mongolian or Chinese race."(5) In 1885
the Royal Commission on Chinese Immigration recommended a $500 poll tax, and by
192:1 a stringent Chinese Immigration Act was in place. Other Orientals fared
no better, as the Komagata Maru incident demonstrated.(6) As late as 1975,
twenty Canadian immigration officers were stationed throughout the U.K., while
four officers still handled all Indian applications from their office in New
Delhi. Recent attempts to revise immigration policy have produced a tremendous
backlash among the Canadian populace in general. Politicians have frequently
expressed opinions similar to the following:
"J.W. Pickersgill, when he was
Immigration Minister, summed up his views in a 1955 speech: 'I don't believe
that any immigrant, no matter where he comes from or how good he is, is as good
as another Canadian baby, because the immigrant has to learn to be a Canadian
and the baby is Canadian to start with."(7)
During the Depression the Ku Klux Klan was
firmly established in sections of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario. The Regina
Riot of 1935 and the Winnipeg General Strike provided many classic examples of
violations of civil liberties. Then, during the Second World War, the War
Measures Act was used to transport 23,000 Japanese Canadians, (three-quarters
of whom had been born in Canada and many of whom had been citizens for several
generations), to a number of detention centres across the country. Despite the
fact that many suffered considerable financial loss, reparation was minimal and
incomplete. Stewart states that "no Japanese Canadian was ever charged,
much less tried and convicted."(8) At the same time membership in the
Jehovah's Witnesses was declared illegal; twenty-nine members were convicted
and sentenced in 1940 to terms averaging one year. More recently in October
1970 the War Measures Act was implemented and a number of civil liberties were
suspended. In addition, membership in a political organization, the FLQ, was
made retroactively illegal.
Finally, there have been a number of
judicial decisions in the area of human rights which demonstrate some of the
issues that have arisen and the attitudes taken. In 1953 the case of Saumur v.
Quebec (1953) 25 CR 299 (in which a Jehovah's Witness challenged a Quebec City
bylaw prohibiting public distribution of literature without a permit) left the
question of religious freedom undecided, with some judges actually arguing
that: "both Parliament and the provinces could validly limit freedom of
worship providing they did so in the course of legislating on some other
subject which lay within their respective powers."(9)
In both the Birks (Birks & Sons Ltd. v.
Montreal (1955) SCR 799) and Padlock Law, (Switzman v., Elbling & A.G. for
Q. (1957) SCR 285) cases the Quebec legislation in question was declared ultra
vires on the basis of its infringement of the federal. criminal law power,
while only three judges referred to the Acts as also constituting a restriction
on fundamental. freedoms. (These cases involved the anti-Communist, Quebec
"Padlock Law and the Quebec statute authorizing mandatory, closing of
stores on Roman Catholic holidays). Subsequently the Drybones (R. v. Drybones
(1970) SCR 282) case provided the opportunity for the new Bill of Rights to be
given pre-eminence over other legislation, but later cases such as Lavell and
Bédard (A.G. of Can. v. Lavell, and Isaac et al v. Bédard (1974), SCR 1349)
have demonstrated the tenuous nature of this interpretation and the weakness of
the Bill. (In Drybones, the Indian Act was considered to discriminate re:
natives and alcohol, whereas in Lavell and Bédard the Indian Act was upheld in
its authority to discriminate against native women who marry non-native men).
These historical examples should serve to
demonstrate that Canada's past performance is less than perfect. Moreover, the
popular favourable misconceptions about our past have led to the current sense
of complacency. There are still a number of human rights issues which have not
been resolved, and which the general populace has been slow to recognise. (A
number of these issues are discussed in Section E of this paper).
Development of Human Rights Mechanisms
Modern day human rights legislation is
predicated on the theory that the actions of prejudiced people and their
attitudes can be changed and influenced by the process of free education,
discussion, and the presentation of socio-scientific materials that are used to
challenge popular myths and stereotypes about people ... Human Rights on this
continent is a skillful blend of educational and Legal techniques in the
pursuit of social justice." (Dr. Dan Hill, former Chairman and Director of
the Ontario Human Rights Commission).
Despite the fact that: diverse and very
narrow pieces of human rights legislation did exist in several provinces by the
late 1800s, it can justifiably be argued that "It was not until near the
end of World War II that modern human rights legislation started to
spread."(10) The Racial Discrimination Act introduced in Ontario in 1944,
the B.C. Social Assistance Act of 1945 and the Saskatchewan Bill of Rights Act
of 1947 were all major accomplishments in this area. However, the Ontario and
Saskatchewan Acts were quasi-criminal statutes which declared certain acts
illegal and provided for sanctions, such as fines. While they were certainly an
improvement, they had a number of failings.
"Experience soon showed, as it had in
the United States, that this form of protection, although better than none, and
having a certain usefulness by way of indicating a government's declaration of
public policy was subject to a number of weaknesses. There was a reluctance on
the part of the victim of discrimination to initiate the criminal action if
complaint to the police failed to result in a prosecution. There were all the
difficulties of proving the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, and it. is
extremely difficult to prove that a person has not been denied access for some
reason other than a discriminatory one. There was reluctance on the part of the
judiciary to convict, probably based upon a feeling that some of the
prohibitions impinged upon the traditional freedom of contract, and the right
to dispose of one's property as one chose. With out extensive publicity and
education, most people were unaware that such legislation existed for their
protection. Members of minority groups, who were the victims of discrimination,
tended to be somewhat sceptical as to whether the legislation was anything more
than a sop to the conscience of the majority. Finally, and this was as
important a factor as any, the sanction in the form of a fine did not help the
person discriminated against in obtaining a job, a home, or service in a
restaurant or hotel or barbershop."(11)
As a result of these weaknesses, most
provinces began enacting new types of human rights provisions based on a model
introduced in New York State in 1945. Fair Accommodation and Fair Employment
Practices Acts were initiated first by Ontario in 1951 and 1954, and other
provinces followed suit over the next fifteen years. These Acts provided for
assessments of complaints, for investigation and conciliation, for the setting
up of commissions or boards of inquiry where conciliation provided unsuccessful
and, only as a last resort, prosecution and the application of:
sanctions."12 Then in 1962 Ontario consolidated all human
rights legislation into the Ontario Human Rights Code, which was to be
administered by the Human Rights Commission created a year earlier. By 1975 all
provinces had established human rights commissions, and in 1977 a federal one
was created by the Canadian Human Rights Act. Following is a list of existing
Federal: Canadian Human Rights Act S.C. 1976-77
Alberta: The Individual's Rights Protection
Act, S.A. 1972, c. 2; as amended 1973, c. 61.
British Columbia: Human Rights Code of
British Columbia, S.B.C, 1973, c. 119; as amended 1974, c. 87 and c. 114.
Manitoba: The Human Rights Act, C.C.S.M., c.
H-175, enacted by S.M. 1974, c. 65; as amended 1975, c. 42; 1976, c. 48; 1977,
c. 46; 1978, c. 43.; Employment Standards Act, R.S.M. 1970, c. E-110; as
amended 1975, c. 42; 1976, c. 48.
New Brunswick: Human Rights Code, R.S.N.B.
1973, c. H-11; 1974, c. 20 (Supp), 1976, c. 31.
Newfoundland: The Newfoundland Human Rights
Code, R.S.N. 1970, c. 262; as amended 1973, Act. No. 34 and 1974, Act.
Nova Scotia: Human Rights Act, S.N.S. 1969,
c. 11; as amended 1970, c. 85; 1971, c. 69; 1972, c. 65; 1974, c. 46; 1977, c.
18 and c. 58.; Labour Standards Code, S.N.S. 1972, c., 10; as amended 1974, c.
Ontario: The Ontario Human Rights Code,
R.S.O. 1970, c. 318; as amended 1971, c. 50,, s. 63; 1972, c. 119; and 1974, c.
73. The Employment Standards Act, 1974, S.O. 1974, c. 112.
Prince Edward Island: Human Rights Act,
S.P.E.I. 1975, c. 72; as amended 1977, c. 39.
Quebec: Charter of Human Rights and
Freedoms, S.Q. 1975, c. 6; as amended 1.976, c. 5; 1977, c. 15; 1978, Bill 9.
Saskatchewan The Saskatchewan Human Rights
Commission Act, S.S. 1972, c. 108; as amended 1973, c. 94; 197677, c. 81, s.
6.; The Fair Employment Practices Act, R.S.S. 1965, c. 293; as amended 1972, c.
43; The Fair Accommodation Practices Act, R.S.S. 1965, c. 379; as amended, S.S.
1972, c. .42.; The Saskatchewan Bill of Rights Act, R.S.S. 1965, c. 378, as
amended, S.S. 1970, c. 56; 1972, c. 104; 197475, c. 44; The Labour Standards
Act, S.S. 1969, c. 24; as amended 1971, c. 19; 1971, c. 4; 1972, c. 59; 1973,
c. 51, 1973-74, c. 53, 1974-75, c. 22, repealed by 1976-77, c. 36 Labour
Standards Act (1977).
Northwest Territories: Fair Practices
Ordinance, 0.N.W.T. 1966, c. 5; as amended 1974, c. 4.
Yukon Territory: Fair Practices Ordinance,
R.O.Y.T. 1971, c. F2; as amended 1974, c. 7.
Labour Standards Ordinance R.O.Y.T. 1971, c.
LI; as amended 1973, c. 13; and 1974, c. 9.
ii) Analysis of Legislation
I .A. Hunter described the evolution of
Canadian human rights legislation in the following terms:
"Canadian human rights legislation
began in 1793 by freeing children of slaves; it evolved through stages of
proscribing racist signs, requiring fair employment and accommodation
practices, until today it comprises an inclusive code of social conduct. Both
the activities to which the legislation applies and the prohibited grounds of
discrimination have been steadily enlarged. Freedom of contract with whom one
chooses, freedom to dispose of one's property, freedom to discriminate in the
choice of one's tenants or employees, have all been subordinated to a public
policy which declares the primacy of human dignity."(13)
Human rights legislation, or more accurately
anti-discrimination legislation, has been enacted at the federal and provincial
levels, and in both the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Both the prohibited
grounds of discrimination and the enforcement procedures contained in this
legislation are similar in all jurisdictions. The anti discrimination
legislation sets out a number of prohibited discriminatory practices based upon
which an individual who feels he has been aggrieved may make a complaint to the
Human Rights Commission, or other appropriate body, which will then use a
variety of mechanisms from conciliation. through adjudication and, finally,
penal. sanctions and injunctive relief to resolve the dispute. The primary goal
of' such legislation, and of the extralegal. programs in education and
information undertaken 'by the various commissions, is to conciliate
differences between individual, and between individuals and institutions, and
to attempt to bring them to a realisation of their common humanity. Basically,
the legislation and the commissions are involved in a difficult task of
The publication or display of discriminatory
signs, symbols or other representations is prohibited in all jurisdictions in
Canada. The prohibited grounds are race, religion, national or ethnic origin,
sex, or colour. Age is a prohibited ground of discrimination in Alberta,
British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and in the federal legislation. The
federal legislation includes pardoned conviction. The British Columbia, Prince
Edward Island, and Quebec legislation. includes political convictions as a
prohibited ground of discrimination. Manitoba and New Brunswick include
physical handicap or disability within their legislation. The Quebec
legislation includes any type of handicap or disability. All jurisdictions
except Alberta and Saskatchewan include marital, civil or family status among
their prohibited grounds of discrimination. Manitoba legislation includes
source of income. The Quebec legislation includes language, social condition,
and sexual orientation as prohibited grounds of discrimination.
The Alberta legislation allows a sign to
express a bona fide qualification for employment even if it is discriminatory.
Both the Manitoba and the Alberta legislation do not include as prohibited
signs that identify facilities generally used by one sex. The New Brunswick
Human Rights Commission is empowered to allow exceptions based on bona fide
qualifications pertaining to sex or marital status.
Discrimination in the areas of public
accommodations, services, and other facilities is prohibited in all
jurisdictions. The grounds upon which such discrimination is prohibited in all
jurisdictions are race, religion, colour, sex, and national, ethnic or place of
origin. Age is a prohibited ground in the federal legislation, Manitoba, and
New Brunswick (19 and over). Marital or civil status is a prohibited ground of
discrimination in the federal legislation, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland,
Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, the Northwest Territories, and the
Yukon. Pardoned conviction is a prohibited ground of discrimination in the
federal legislation. Physical or mental handicap is a prohibited ground of
discrimination in Newfoundland, and Quebec. In Quebec, social condition and
sexual orientation are additional grounds of prohibited discrimination.
In British Columbia, Manitoba, and Ontario,
the anti-discrimination legislation allows exceptions to the prohibition of the
provision of public accommodations, services, or other facilities on the
discriminatory, grounds of sex where public decency is at issue. In addition,
British Columbia allows an exception to the prohibited ground of sex where it
is necessary to determine insurance benefits or premiums. Where accommodations,
services or facilities: are usually used by one sex, Yukon legislation allows
Prohibitions against discrimination in
employment practices have been enacted in all jurisdictions. Prohibited practices
include such matters as the terms and conditions of employment, promotions, and
transfers. The prohibited grounds of' discrimination are race, religion,
national or ethnic origin, colour, and sex., Age is a prohibited ground of
discrimination in federal legislation, Alberta (45 to 65), British Columbia (45
to 65), Manitoba, blew Brunswick (19 and over), Newfoundland (19 to 65), Nova
Scotia (40 to 65), Ontario (40 to 65), and Prince Edward Island (18 to 65). The
federal legislation prohibits discrimination based on a pardoned conviction.
Marital status is a prohibited ground of discrimination in the federal
legislation, Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland,
Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Northwest Territories and the
Yukon. In Quebec, social condition is a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Physical disability or handicap is a prohibited ground of discrimination in the
federal legislation, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and discrimination
on the basis of any kind of handicap is prohibited in Quebec and Prince Edward
Island. Political belief is a prohibited ground of discrimination in British
Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and Quebec. The Quebec
legislation prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation,
language and social condition.
Much of the legislation allows exceptions to
the prohibited discriminatory practices where there is a bona fide
qualification for employment. In addition, some of the legislation permits an
exception where, in cases of age, sex or marital status, they are considered,
by the Human Rights Commission, to be bona fide in the operation of an
insurance, retirement, or seniority plan. The Prince Edward Island and Quebec
laws allow exceptions from complaints of discrimination for charitable,
philanthropic, political, religious, or educational institutions operated on a
non profit basis, and for institutions which are devoted exclusively to the
well-being of a particular ethnic group.
Legislation in Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Quebec forbids any employment agency
to discriminate against any person seeking employment. The Prince Edward Island
legislation forbids employment agencies from accepting discriminatory inquiries
from any employer or prospective employee. All of the anti-discrimination
legislation prohibits the use or circulation of application forms or the
publication of advertisements or the making of any inquiries concerning
employment which directly or indirectly expresses preferences on grounds on
which discrimination is prohibited. In particular, the Alberta, Manitoba,
Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, and Northwest Territories
legislation have a specific provision against requiring any applicant to
furnish information concerning matters which are prohibited discriminatory
practices. The prohibition of discriminatory practices in matters related to
employment, on the grounds outlined above, apply to trade unions, employee associations,
and professional, business, and trade associations. All jurisdictions have
provisions in their anti-discrimination legislation requiring equal pay for
equal work without discrimination on the grounds of sex.
All Canadian jurisdictions have enacted
provisions prohibiting discriminatory practices in the area of property rental
and occupancy. The federal legislation covers both commercial premises and
residential accommodation. The Yukon provisions cover self-contained residences
which are located in apartment buildings with more than six dwelling units. The
Northwest Territories legislation covers self-contained apartment dwelling
units without any limitation on the size. Legislation in Alberta, Newfoundland
and Nova Scotia cover occupancy in either commercial or self-contained dwelling
units. The prohibition in the Quebec legislation is general in that it
prohibits discrimination in any juridical act thus including occupancy or lease
agreements. The occupancy provisions of the anti-discrimination legislation in
the other jurisdictions cover all types of dwelling units. Prohibited grounds
of discrimination are the same as those which were Listed above in reference to
The Manitoba legislation provides an
exception where the occupancy of any housing units is restricted to one sex
only and it also provides a preference for elderly persons. Ontario and the
Yukon have a similar exception to that allowed in Manitoba. Where the New,
Brunswick Human Rights Commission. determines that sex or marital status is, a
bona fide qualification for occupancy, it can authorise an exception to its;
governing statute. In Nova Scotia, an exception to any prohibited ground of:
discrimination may be allowed where the dwelling unit is a single, non advertised,
non listed room in a dwelling, the rest of which is occupied by the landlord
and the landlord's family. The prohibition in the Quebec legislation does not
apply where the lessor or his family resides in the dwelling and leases only
one room which is not advertised by public notice.
In all jurisdictions, except the Northwest
Territories and the Yukon, the anti-discrimination legislation applies to the
Crown. In Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, British Columbia and
the Northwest Territories, the Human Rights Commission may approve special
programs which are designed to promote the welfare of specified,
underprivileged, minority groups. In each of these jurisdictions, these special
programs, also known as affirmative action programs, may be initiated in either
the public or the private sector, and must be approved by the Human Rights
Commission in order to be exempted from the prohibited discriminatory practices
covered by the anti-discrimination legislation. There is a similar provision in
the federal anti-discrimination legislation allowing for application to the
Human Rights Commission for the approval of affirmative action programs.
The procedures set up for the implementation
and enforcement of the human rights legislation in all jurisdictions is
virtually Identical. In all cases, the Acts operate through a complaint
process. In Alberta, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba, and the federal
legislation, the Human Rights Commission may undertake an investigation on its
own initiative without waiting for a complaint from a citizen who feels he has
Once a complaint has been made, it must be
investigated by the Human Rights Commission. The initial informal investigation
into a complaint is done by an officer of the Human Rights Commission who is
generally instructed and trained to attempt to effect a settlement between the
complainant and the alleged discriminator at this early stage of the
proceedings. Generally, the investigation officer is either. an employee of a
government department or the Commission. If this informal attempt at
conciliation fails, a more formal inquiry including a hearing by a board,
tribunal, or commission could then be held. The finding by this body and its
order, once it has adjudicated on the relevant issues, is binding and
enforceable in the courts through either injunctive or penal relief if there is
Some of the orders which a commission, board
or tribunal can make are described by I.A. Hunter in the following words:
"Board orders commonly include such
requirements as: (a) a letter of assurance against further discrimination to be
sent to the Commission and often to the complainant; (b) the posting of human
rights cards in the respondent's rental premises or place of employment; and
(c) notification to the Commission of future rental vacancies or positions of
employment for a specified period. Of course if the apartment or job sought is
still available (an infrequent occurrence given the lapse of time between
filing of complaint and inquiry) the board could order that it be offered to
the complainant, but usually the complainant has found alternative
accommodation or employment. In any event. Canadian boards have recognised the
injustice of ordering a respondent to give the complainant the denied apartment
or job if it is presently occupied by an innocent third party.
Many boards of inquiry have awarded
financial compensation to the complainant. This may take two forms: an order of
compensation, analogous to special damages, for out-of-pocket expenses incurred
as a direct result of the discriminatory act; and, more recently, financial
compensation, analogous to general damages, to alleviate the humiliation and
indignity of the discriminatory act.
Needless to say, the full procedure provided
for in the anti-discrimination legislation of all jurisdictions is rarely
resorted to. Many cases of alleged discrimination are either found to be
without foundation or are conciliated at an early stage of the procedure. It is
only in very rare cases that it is necessary to set up a human rights tribunal
whose findings are! binding. It is even rarer for the Human Rights Commission
to have to resort to the common law courts to seek either injunctive or penal
In addition to establishing internal
mechanisms for the protection of human rights, Canada has accepted a number of
international standards internally by ratifying conventions, and has also
played a role in the development of international protection mechanisms
primarily as a member state of the United Nations. For example, the Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was ratified by
Canada in 1952, the Convention on the Political Rights of Women in 1957, and
the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Civil
and Political Rights in 1976. Both federal and provincial governments have been
involved in special programs such as the 25th anniversary of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1973), the Decade to Combat Racism and Racial
Discrimination (196878), and International Women's Year (1975). In 1975, Canada
was one of the prime movers in ensuring that strong human rights provisions
were inserted in the Helsinki accords.
In the past Canada has been recognised for its
participation in international human rights issues through Professor John
Humphrey, who served with Eleanor Roosevelt on the U.N. Human Rights Commission
responsible for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and later
became Director of the Human Rights Division, and Lester Pearson, who received
a Nobel Peace Prize in 1956. Since 1977 Canada has again had a representative
serving with the U.N. Human Rights Commission (this is an elected position, and
is currently filled by Dr. Walter Tarnopolsky, professor at law at Osgoode Hall
and noted human rights expert).
Outside the U.N. Canada has further
enunciated Its human rights concepts by means of foreign policy decisions.
Addressing the Conference on International Human Rights in 1978, the Secretary
of State for External. Affairs stated:
Canada has moral and legal obligations to be
involved in the promotion of human rights both at home and abroad. Canadians
are demonstrating growing interest in perfecting the protections for human
rights at home. They are also increasingly making known their hope that the
Canadian government will observe a morality which reflects Canadian standards
in its dealings with other governments." (14)
Some examples of this policy include the
proscription of arms sales to Portugal during the 60's because of Portuguese
colonial policies, the condemnation of: apartheid and the institution of visa
requirements for South Africans, and the acceptance of numerous Ugandan,
Vietnamese, South American and other political. refugees. More recently Canada.
has taken a strong stance on the issue of decolonization, particularly in
Africa, and is a member of the Group of Five which presented a proposal for
solution of the Namibian situation to the Security Council in April 1978.
A statement by the representative to the
General Assembly, M. Pierre Charpentier, summarises the Canadian position in
We continue to support negotiated
settlements where they are possible. Our approval of the report of the Special
Committee entails the approval of the great majority of recommendations but not
each and every one. 'We consider that each foreign economic investment in non
self-governing territories must be judged on its own merits and that some,
particularly in the smaller territories, are often desirable. We fully endorse
the Security Council resolution 418 which institutes a mandatory arms embargo
against South Africa and which requires that states refrain from any
co-operation with South Africa towards the development of nuclear weapons; however,
we do not consider that normal political and economic relations with South
Africa constitute collaboration. We believe that international organisations
must operate within their specified mandate. We fully support, however, the
approach to this item embodied in the consensus adopted at this session on the
question of Guam, namely that the maintenance of military bases in any non
self-governing territories should not inhibit the right of the people of that
territory to self-determination." (15)
However, the paradox between Canada's formal
government policy and private economic commitments has occasioned much
discussion within Canada and abroad. A special Canadian Dimension (16)
issue of December 1977 on Africa devoted an entire article to this problem. The
author points out that in no case has the government prevented private economic
involvement, and that at most it is officially critical of investment in the
"illegal" regimes of Namibia and Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) while saying
almost nothing concerning the "legitimate" concerns in South Africa.
On the other hand, Canada actually did enact as laws certain provisions of the
U.N. sanctions on Rhodesia and withdrew trade commissions from South Africa,
whereas no such action. has been taken in the case of Namibia. In 1970 the
World Council of Churches reported that a total of $210 million was raised by a
consortium of the largest. banks in America, Canada and the U. K. in direct
support of South Africa. Three Canadian banks subsequently contributed a direct
loan to the South African Central Bank in 1972 (Bank of Commerce $ 13 million,
Toronto Dominion $3 million and Bank of Montreal $2 million) . At a
shareholders' meeting in 1976 the Chairman of the Royal Bank of Canada formally
rejected the suggestion of an embargo on loans to South Africa and was
supported by his colleagues. It would therefore appear that there is a conflict
between the official position and the economic reality but the government has
so far taken the position that there is no need for intervention as the
governmental and private sectors must be considered separate spheres of
In terms of economic, cultural and social
rights, Canada's international role has been primarily one of providing aid.
Professor Humphrey has stated that:
"One of the chief claims of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights to a place in history is its recognition
of the fact that all human beings, are entitled to enjoy not only the
traditional civil and political rights but, also are entitled to enjoy the
economic, social the economic, social and cultural rights without which, for
most people, the traditional rights have little meaning."(17)
Dr. Noel Kinsella, Chairman of the New
Brunswick Human Rights Commission, has further pointed out that:
"By the time the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights appeared in 1966, the list of these
rights was longer and much more comprehensive than that proclaimed by the
Declaration. This is an important development. It may be attributed, in part,
to the increased size of the United Nations and to the fact that the leaders of
many newly independent nations regard economic development and the attainment
of a higher standard of living as most important priorities.
To accept the notion of economic, social and
cultural rights, however, is one thing, but to give them effect, whether
domestically or internationally, is quite another matter.
First of all we must under stand that unlike
the civil and political rights which are self-executory, these new rights are
what some call, programmatic. That is, in order for these rights to have any
tangible content the community, the domestic and international community, must
develop and implement programmes which will make possible the economic climate
for full employment, social security, health, etc. For some states in the world
today there is a perception that the civil rights are a luxury which cannot be
afforded until a certain economic development has been achieved."(18)
Canadian aid in 1978, primarily through the
Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) was $1.2 billion. This
amounted to 0.45% of the GNP, falling short of the U.N. goal of 0.7% to which
Canada has committed itself. At present this aid is frequently "tied"
to purchase of Canadian goods. Besides, a plan implemented in the U.S. by
President Carter to withhold or tie aid for countries accused of human rights
violations has met with little response in Canada, despite private members'
bills presented by Andrew Brewin (NDP) (Bill C272, Foreign Aid and Human Rights
Act, first reading 30 October 1978) and David MacDonald (PC) (Bill C330,
Foreign Aid Prohibition Act, first reading 30 October 1978).
At present there are a number of human
rights issues in Canada which are cause for concern at both federal and
provincial levels. The blatant and sometimes official discrimination described
in the historical section has for the most part faded from memory, but there
are exceptions. There is also a higher incidence of subtle intentional
discrimination than most Canadians would care to admit, as well as
discrimination that is committed unintentionally through a lack of
understanding or consciousness.
In recent years the remaining examples of
blatant discrimination have tended to centre around Canada's immigrant
population. It goes without saying that most Canadians condemn these acts of
violence vigorously. Nevertheless, this problem has reached the critical stage
in areas such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, where the influx of new
Canadians has been greatest. Violent incidents involving East Indians,
Pakistanis and blacks from the Caribbean occur with discouraging frequency.
Unfortunately, the current economic climate has done little to deter this
trend, despite publications by the Department of Manpower and Immigration which
make use of statistics to disprove a number of work-related myths about
immigration. In addition to isolated incidents of violence, it has been
reported that a well-organised hate propaganda organisation continues to
operate in southern Ontario by means of taped telephone messages. The federal
Human Rights Commission has recently established a special committee to
investigate this particular manifestation of overt discrimination. The other
major area of overt racial discrimination involves native people. Publications
such as the popular one originating from the difficulties in Kenora in 1975 (a
pamphlet by a white housewife, entitled Bended Elbow) reflect the deeply
ingrained biases which exist against natives in our society.
Examples of overt discrimination can also be
found directed. at various other categories of Canadians. A recent book
entitled Bilingual Today, French Tomorrow has enjoyed huge sales. The police
chief of a small Ontario town recently defended the refusal of a restaurant
owner to admit epileptics or blind persons with guide dogs. Both American and
Canadian sociologists have uncovered a surprisingly high incidence of
work-related sexual harassment among working women, as well as the battered
wife syndrome. Gay rights groups carrying out lawful demonstrations are
frequently the victims of violent assaults by onlookers.
Federal immigration policy itself is also
subject to criticism as reflecting a racial bias, despite the stated intent to
select individuals on a point merit basis, because the actual effect is to
significantly limit the influx of Third World immigrants. However, in
comparative perspective one could argue that the policies of other major
receiving countries, such as Australia, the U.S. and Great Britain, are
significantly more stringent. In fact, the Canadian system was used as a model
by Australia when it announced its intention to introduce a new and less biased
Immigration Act early in 1979.
Overt discrimination can generally be dealt
with under existing human rights legislation in terms of punitive action..
However, this does not eliminate the prejudicial attitudes which are the root
cause. Moreover, a certain number of categories of offences are not covered
under current legislation. For example, the present situation concerning the
prohibited grounds for discrimination has been outlined above, but a current
problem in both federal and provincial jurisdictions is the extension of these
grounds. Much has been written, both in Canada and abroad, about the merits of
including "physical handicap", 1. sexual preference",
"marital status", "political opinion" and "age 1. as
additional grounds. As indicated earlier, some of these are already included in
some provincial legislation., but none have been included in the federal act
(with the exception of physical handicap, which is only applied with regard to
In addition there appears to be a need for
an affirmative action policy of some type to combat the underlying prejudicial
attitudes. This is true not only for the problems of immigrants and natives,
but also for other disadvantaged groups such as women, the handicapped and the
aged. At present a number of very different policy approaches exist (as
outlined below) in countries such as the U. S. , Britain and Sweden, and some
effort has been made by the federal government to evaluate these different
methods. Some programs have been established in Canada, particularly in the
federal civil service, but little real progress appears to have been made. Advisory
councils for women and the handicapped have constantly bemoaned their
impotence, and Public Service Commission statistics indicate that many
disadvantaged groups are actually losing ground.
The basic options for affirmative action
policy can be summarised as follows:
(a) Voluntary compliance with suggested
(b) Informal quotas.
(c) A formal quota system.
Each of these can apply:
(a) Within the public sector.
(b) Within the public sector and any private
companies which have government contracts (this is called "contract
(c) Within the public and private sectors in
Naturally any number of permutations and
combinations are possible; some countries have used different approaches for different
subjects, (e.g., in the U.K., informal quotas for women, but formal quotas and
contract compliance for the disabled), while other. countries have preferred to
adopt one policy format for all subject areas.
Using "physical handicap" as an
example, a variety of these policy options can be found internationally. West
Germany, Britain, the Netherlands, and Japan have formal quota systems. Sweden
has a voluntary compliance system augmented by compulsory adjustment
groups" for employers of more than 50 persons. All of these involve both
the public and private sectors. The U.S., on the other hand, has an informal
quota system (which intentionally avoids the word quota and is referred to as
an "affirmative action system") that involves the federal government
and private companies through contract compliance. All of these countries also
have a number of supportive programs; Britain and West Germany have Disabled
Registers and Resettlement Officers, Sweden has a complex tax break system and
special equipment assistance programs; and the U.S. has a President's Committee
on Employment of the Handicapped, which has initiated several programs in
conjunction with the AFLCIO. In addition a number of private institutions such
as universities have initiated their own versions of quota systems.
A major problem with the concept of
affirmative action in North America is the tendency of the average citizen to
equate it unequivocally with a quota system. The word "quota" appears
to have an extremely negative sociological connotation for much of the populace
in general. As the European examples have demonstrated, however, the formal
quota is not essential to a definition of affirmative action. On the other
hand, experience 'has tended to indicate that those countries with the most
successful programs have in fact employed a type of quota system.
The American federal system has demonstrated
one method of overcoming this problem, essentially by semantics. The
universities; have provided other solutions setting aside" by percentages
or, flat rate numbers, or the opening up of additional positions for special
students in the professional faculties. Here! again there have been examples of
successful (Harvard) and unsuccessful. (University of California) methods. Both
the Bakke and DeFunis cases have demonstrated the dangers of "reverse
discrimination" charges and a general backlash effect. In both cases, the
plaintiff was refused entry to a professional college while less qualified
minority or disadvantaged students were admitted. In short, there is a fine
line between the 1, acceptable and "unacceptable" means of
implementing such programs.
In Canada, as in the U.S., the political
fact of federalism has also hindered human rights progress. At present there is
a definite need to co-ordinate the various federal programs for the different
categories of disadvantaged, and to achieve an overall policy approach.
Moreover, there is a pressing financial problem f or those voluntary groups
engaged in the educational and promotional aspects of human rights in order to
alter attitudes. In difficult financial periods such as the present these types
of voluntary groups are often the first to be affected by government cutbacks,
and federal government programs of this nature also appear to have encountered
restraints. Given Canada's recent additional international commitments
vis-à-vis the U.N. Conventions, this is yet another problem which remains to be
F . Entrenchment
For many years, a vigorous controversy has
raged around the question of the entrenchment of a Bill of Rights. Most
proposals of this sort have dealt largely with the rights included in the
present Bill of Rights. Most of a legal and political nature. Several
propositions have dealt with so-called "egalitarian rights or anti-discriminatory
First of all, what is meant by entrenchment?
It is a means by which legislation is enacted so that it cannot be amended or
repealed by the ordinary legislative procedure. Entrenchment of legislation can
be into a constitution whereby its alteration would be subject to the
established constitutional amendment procedure. It can also be effected by a
provision in the enacting legislation for its repeal or amendment in accordance
with a specified procedure e.g. subject to approval by a referendum or a
special legislative majority such as two-thirds or three-quarters of the
Members of the legislature present and voting. (19)
There are strong arguments both in favour of
and against the entrenchment of human rights either in the Constitution or by a
special legislative provision. Those who are in favour of entrenchment affirm
that it is necessary to have such a protection to ensure that rights and
freedoms are not subject to the political whim of the day They, see the
possible danger of particular attitudes becoming overwhelmingly popular,
although in direct contradiction with the basic values of Canadian society, and
thus leading to the sweeping away of many. acquired and legislated rights
without reflection on the longer term implications of such an action. Those
who, oppose the entrenchment of human rights affirm that it will lead to the
replacement of parliamentary sovereignty by, judicial sovereignty all
legislative., action would, consequently, be subjected. to the entrenched portions
of the Constitution dealing with human rights. The opponents of entrenchment
argue that the final decision on policy would be made by, representative
members of the judiciary, rather than by elected members of the legislative
branch. They also say that.. entrenchment is not possible in a parliamentary
system since it is in direct contradiction with the principle o f legislative
sovereignty. (20)The proponents of constitutional entrenchment respond to this
argument by saying that the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty does not
apply to Canada since the framework of government is based in part upon a
written constitution and legal custom provides for judicial review of any
conflicts of jurisdiction between the federal and provincial levels of government.
Despite this controversy, several proposals
have been made in the last decade for the entrenchment of egalitarian rights or
anti-discriminatory legislation in 'the Canadian Constitution. In 1968, the
federal government, as part of the constitutional review process of 1968-71,
proposed that a number of prohibited criteria of discrimination be included in
a Canadian Bill of Rights which would subsequently be entrenched in the
Constitution. It was submitted that discrimination based on race, national
origin, colour, religion, ethnic origin, or sex should be prohibited in the
areas of employment, admission to professions, education, the use of public
accommodations, facilities and services, contracting with public agencies, or
in the acquisition of property and interests in property. No constitutional
amendment formula was proposed by the federal government.
At the second meeting of the Constitutional
Conference held in Ottawa on February 10-12, 1969, the federal government put
forward the following slightly revised variation of its earlier position. It
was proposed that an entrenched Charter of Human Rights should provide that
every individual in Canada should not be discriminated against because of his
race, colour, national or ethnic origin, religion, or sex in employment or in
membership in any professional, trade or other occupational association, in
owning, renting, holding, or otherwise possessing property, or in obtaining
public accommodations, facilities and services. (22) The recommendation of
entrenchment was not accompanied by a constitutional amendment formula.
Although the Victoria Constitutional
Conference held in June of 1971 considered the whole range of human rights and
freedoms, the resultant Canadian Constitutional Charter, which included
political and language rights, and did provide for a constitutional amending
procedure, did not deal either with egalitarian rights or anti-discriminatory
legislation or their entrenchment.
The Special Joint Committee of the Senate
and the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada recommended in 1972 that
a Bill of Rights should be entrenched in the Constitution. The Committee
recommended that the Bill of Rights should state that no person shall receive
unequal treatment by reason of sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, or religion,
and that it should have a clause which would prescribe the right of the
individual to equal treatment under the law. The Committee furthermore
recommended that these same prohibited grounds of discrimination should apply to
employment, membership in a professional, trade or other occupational
association, the obtaining of public accommodations and services, and the
owning, renting or holding of property. It was also suggested by the Committee
that it would be necessary for both the federal. and provincial legislatures to
enact legislation at their respective levels to implement the general
provisions entrenched in the Bill of Rights. Entrenchment was to be protected
by subjecting the Bill of Rights to the constitutional amending formula. The
Committee recommended that the constitutional amending formula, when applied to
any changes in the Bill of Rights, should require the agreement of' the federal
Parliament and a majority of' the provincial legislatures, including; those of
every province which at any time has contained 25 per cent of the population of
Canada, at least two Atlantic, provinces, and at least two Western provinces
which would have a combined population of at least fifty per cent of all the
Western provinces. (24)
Neither the 1978 Constitutional Amendment
Bill nor the Report of the 1978 Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the
House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada dealt with egalitarian rights or
anti-discriminatory legislation, although they did discuss legal and political
rights, as well as the entrenchment of human rights and freedoms.
The Canadian Bar Association Committee on
the Constitution recommended that a Bill of Rights be entrenched in the
Canadian Constitution once there has been agreement between federal and
provincial levels of government as to its extent, and the method of
entrenchment and amendment to which it would be subject. The Committee
suggested that it would not be desirable to have egalitarian rights spelled out
at length in a constitutional document but that it would be preferable that
there be a clause providing for equality before the law which would thus deal
with unjustified discrimination based on sex, race, national or ethnic origin,
colour, or religion. The entrenchment of this clause and any other rights
agreed to by the various levels of government would be protected by the
constitutional amendment process recommended by the Canadian Bar Association.
The Committee recommended that since both the federal and provincial legislatures
would have to enact legislation to entrench the Bill of Rights, it would be
necessary to involve both levels in its amendment. The agreement of Parliament
and a majority of the provincial legislatures including all provinces that at
any time have had or may in the future have 25 per cent of the population of
Canada, at least two of the Atlantic provinces, and at least two of the western
provinces (including at least one of the two most populous provinces) would be
Without being specific, the Pépin-Robarts
Task Force on Canadian Unity recommended that those egalitarian rights upon
which both the federal and provincial governments can agree should be
entrenched in the Constitution. These entrenched egalitarian rights would be
protected by the constitutional amendment formula. The Task Force recommended
that the amendment procedure should be started by a bill initiated either in
the House of Commons or in the Council of the Federation and passed by a
majority of the House of Commons and a majority of votes in the Council. Once
this has occurred, the ratification of the proposed amendment of the entrenched
egalitarian rights would be by a Canada-wide referendum requiring approval by a
majority of electors voting in each of four regions (the Atlantic provinces,
the province of Quebec, the Province of Ontario, and the Western provinces and
The discussion of the entrenchment of
egalitarian rights and anti-discrimination legislation has thus far been
largely academic . Although there have been several serious proposals in this
area, they have not met with any success because the! eleven governments
involved in the constitutional amendment process have been unable to agree
either on the extent of such rights or on the acceptability of and necessity
for entrenchment. Underlying all this, of course, is the failure to agree to a
constitutional amending formula upon which entrenchment would be based. Like
many other aspects of constitutional change in Canada, this area of discussion
is fraught with complex entanglements and will not be satisfactorily resolved
with ease or, indeed, in the near future.
In this paper, we have examined the
historical development and legislative enactment of egalitarian rights and
anti-discriminatory mechanisms. Historically, the Canadian public, legislators
and courts have not always dealt with individuals and groups who are different
from the bulk of the population in the most enlightened, even-handed way.
Unjustified and often irrational discrimination is an aspect of Canadian
history and experience that should not be denied or underestimated.
Since the end of the Second World War, there
has been a widespread legislative response to unjustified discrimination in
Canada. All jurisdictions have Human Rights Commissions, or their equivalents,
which enforce anti-discriminatory legislation, and engage in educational
programs which are aimed at effecting attitudinal change. Although
discrimination would now appear to be less pervasive in Canada than it has been
historically, there continue to be instances where it is shown to still exist
in concrete form.
1. Walter Tarnopolsky, The Canadian Bill
of Rights, McClelland and Stewart, Toronto, 1975, p. 3.
2. Maurice Cranston, What are Human
Rights? Bodley Head, London, 1970, p. 11.
3. In 1978 journalists in both Montreal and
Toronto posed as employers and telephoned various employment agencies to fill
fictional positions; all requested the agencies to provide only non-Asian,
non-black applicants. Most agencies agreed outright, some pointed out that this
was illegal but they probably could arrange it, and only a few refused flatly
to go along.
4. Walter Stewart, But Not in Canada,
Macmillan, Toronto, 1976, p. 39.
6. A Japanese ship chartered by thirty-six
Sikhs wishing to immigrate legally to Canada was kept at bay in Vancouver
harbour for two months in 1914 while various police forces, immigration
officers and Members of Parliament manoeuvred to block their entry and
eventually forced them to return to Asia .
7. Stewart (1976), p. 48.
8. Ibid., p. 69.
9. Peter Russell, Leading Constitutional
Decisions, McClelland & Stewart, Toronto, 1973, p. 194.
10. W. Tarnopolsy, "The Control of
Racial Discrimination in Canada", in Practice of Freedom
(publication pending, Carleton Library Series). This article was presented at
the December 1978 Federal-Provincial Conference, "Human Rights in Canada -
The Years Ahead".
11. Ibid., p. 11-12.
13. I.A. Hunter, "Human Rights
Legislation in Canada: Its Origin, Development and Interpretation",
University of Western Ontario Law Review, Vol. 15, 1976, pp. 21-58, p. 57.
14. Ibid., pp. 55-56.
15. Hon. Donald Jamieson, Address to
Conference on International Human Rights, Ottawa, Canada, 26 October 1978.
16. Explanational Vote on Resolution (AC
4/323/1-35, L-36 and L-37) by M. Pierre.
17 "Canada and Southern Africa" Canadian
Dimension, Vol. 12, NO. 1, December 1977.
18. J.P. Humphrey, "The International
Law of Human Rights in the Middle Twentieth Century", The Present State
of International Law, Kluwer, The Netherlands, 1974, p. 75-105.
19. N. Kinsella, "Human Rights: A Brief
Global Review", Address to Conference on "Human Rights in Canada -
The Years Ahead", Ottawa, 1978, p. 6.
20. Walter Tarnopolsky, The Canadian Bill
of Rights, 2nd Revised Edition, McLelland and Stewart Limited, Toronto,
1975, c. 3.
21. Douglas A. Schmeiser, "The Case
Against Entrechment of a Canadian Bill of Rights", Dalhousie Law
Journal, Vol. 1, 1973-74, pp. 15-50.
22. Tarnopolsky (1975), The Canadian Bill
of Rights, pp. 110-112.
23. Government of Canada, A Canadian
Charter of Human Rights, Information Canada, Ottawa, 1968, pp. 24-26.
24. Government of Canada, The Constitution
and the People of Canada, Information Canada, Ottawa, 1969, pp. 18-22,
and p. 54.
25. Canada, Final Report of the Special
Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution of
Canada, Queens Printer, Ottawa, 1972, pp. 9-11 and 18-22.
26. Canadian Bar Association, Towards a
New Canada: Report of the Committee on the Constitution, Canadian Bar
Foundation, Ottawa, 1978, pp. 19-20 and 143-149.
27. Government of Canada, A Future Together:
Report of the Task Force on Canadian Unity Minister of Supply and Services,
Ottawa, 1979, pp. 102-104 and 108- 109.