For each event read the description of the event and the impact upon human rights law. For some items, there are additional videos and readings also. You are encouraged to pursue some of the opportunities to extend your learning.
Alt text - This is an image of the Royal Proclamation. It was a paper document that outlined the process through which Europeans would settle in the Americas
Source: By Kingdom of Great Britain [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Please read the description written by the First Nations and Indigenous Studies Department at the University of British Columbia.
The Royal Proclamation is a document that set out guidelines for European settlement of Aboriginal territories in what is now North America. The Royal Proclamation was initially issued by King George III in 1763 to officially claim British territory in North America after Britain won the Seven Years War. In the Royal Proclamation, ownership over North America is issued to King George. However, the Royal Proclamation explicitly states that Aboriginal title has existed and continues to exist, and that all land would be considered Aboriginal land until ceded by treaty. The Proclamation forbade settlers from claiming land from the Aboriginal occupants, unless it has been first bought by the Crown and then sold to the settlers. The Royal Proclamation further sets out that only the Crown can buy land from First Nations.
How did this change impact the development of human rights law in Canada?”
The article continues to discuss the impact of the Proclamation:
Most Indigenous and legal scholars recognize the Royal Proclamation as an important first step toward the recognition of existing Aboriginal rights and title, including the right to self-determination. In this regard, the Royal Proclamation is sometimes called “the Indian Magna Carta.” The Royal Proclamation set a foundation for the process of establishing treaties. For example, treaty-making typically involved presence of both parties -- the First Nation and the government, for there to be some form of consent between the two, and for the First Nation to be compensated for any lands or resources taken. However, the Royal Proclamation was designed and written by British colonists without Aboriginal input, and clearly establishes a monopoly over Aboriginal lands by the British Crown.
Source: What is the Royal Proclamation? http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca
Extend your learning opportunity.
View Justice Murray Sinclair discuss the Royal Proclamation of 1763
Alt text: This is a map of Canada (The Province of Quebec) in 1774. It defines the borders of the province. Source: William Robert Shepherd [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.
Following the end of the Seven Years War, Britain faced the challenge of governing a French, Catholic society. The Quebec Act, 1774 was an act of British Parliament that was created to outline the way in which the province would be governed. Key facets of the Act included religious freedom for Catholics (keep in mind that Great Britain was a largely Protestant nation) and it allowed for citizens to participate in government as representatives. The American Loyalists perceived this Act as “Intolerable.” It was a contributing factor to the American Revolution.
How did this change impact the development of human rights law in Canada?
Through the Quebec Act, 1774 both religious freedoms and democratic rights were solidified in law. Americans and British subjects did not welcome the changes as they felt that the Act stripped them of certain political freedoms.
Alt text: This is a painting of Leaders gathered in Quebec City in 1867 to create the British North America Act. Source: Library and Archives Canada.
On July 1st, 1867 the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Quebec and Ontario (called the Province of Canada at the time) were joined together through this legislation to legally create the country of Canada. It outlined the responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments.
How did this change impact the development of human rights law in Canada?
The country was to be governed by a Constitution that clearly outlined the responsibilities of the state to the citizens. This was progress on the road to the protection of democratic and legal rights. Metis Canadians were excluded from this document.
Extend your learning opportunity.
Read the original text of the law on the Canadian Department of Justice website or read the CBC article and test your knowledge.
This highly controversial legislation articulates the relationship between the First Nations of Canada and the federal government. The Act is broad as it governs land, status, economic interests and governance structure. It has been amended over the years to change the most overtly discriminatory element. Writer William Henderson describes the Indian Act as
“an evolving, paradoxical document that has enabled trauma, human rights violations and social and cultural disruption for generations of First Nations peoples. The Act also outlines governmental obligations to First Nations peoples, and determines ‘status’ — a legal recognition of a person’s First Nations heritage, which affords certain rights such as the right to live on reserve land.”
Source: Henderson, William B.. 2006. Indian Act. The Canadian Encyclopedia. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/indian-act/ (accessed August 1, 2016).
How did this change impact the development of human rights law in Canada?
This legislation created an ongoing relationship among First Nations groups and the government that was discriminatory, paternalistic and eurocentric. Ceremonies such as the potlatch that were central to Aboriginal culture were outlawed. It resulted in the unequal treatment of women. This prompts the question, “If we know that the Act is flawed, why isn’t it altered or abolished?”
Erin Hanson; writing for Indigenous Foundations at the University of British Columbia answers that question in this way:
The Indian Act is a very controversial piece of legislation. The Assembly of First Nations describes it as a form of apartheid. Amnesty International, the United Nations, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission have continually criticized it as a human rights abuse. These groups claim that the Canadian government does not have the right to unilaterally extinguish Aboriginal rights—something the government could legally do to status Indians up until 1985 through the process of enfranchisement, and can still control through status.
Yet despite controversy, the Indian Act is historically and legally significant for Aboriginal peoples. It acknowledges and affirms the unique historical and constitutional relationship Aboriginal peoples have with Canada. For this reason, despite its problematic nature, efforts to outright abolish the Indian Act have been met with widespread resistance. (See, for example, the White Paper, 1969). As Harold Cardinal explained in 1969,
We do not want the Indian Act retained because it is a good piece of legislation. It isn’t. It is discriminatory from start to finish. But it is a lever in our hands and an embarrassment to the government, as it should be. No just society and no society with even pretensions to being just can long tolerate such a piece of legislation, but we would rather continue to live in bondage under the inequitable Indian Act than surrender our sacred rights. Any time the government wants to honour its obligations to us we are more than happy to help devise new Indian legislation.
RCAP identifies this situation as a paradox that is key to understanding the Indian Act and the relationship between the Canadian state and status Indians. The Indian Act legally distinguishes between First Nations and other Canadians, and acknowledges that the federal government has a unique relationship with, and obligation to, First Nations. At the same time, any changes to the Indian Act through history have historically been proposed or established unilaterally by the government. Although there are many differing opinions on how to confront the issues presented by the Indian Act, Aboriginal leaders widely agree that if any alternative political relationship is to be worked out between First Nations and the government, First Nations will need to be active participants in establishing it.
Extend your learning opportunity.
CBC has an interesting article entitled 21 Things you may not know about the Indian Act.
The podcast Everything you wanted to know about Native people but were afraid to ask is also a great place to start if you have questions about Aboriginal Canadians.
Alt text: This is a photograph of former Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker.
Source: By National Film Board of Canada. Still Photography Division. Photographer: Gar Lunney Credit: Gar Lunney / Library and Archives Canada / C-006779 [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.
Following the introduction of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was introduced on the world stage, the Canadian government came under pressure to create a human rights document for Canada. The government of John Diefenbaker introduced the The Canadian Bill of Rights in Ottawa on August 10, 1960. It recognized a number of freedoms including freedom of religion, of the press and of speech.
How did this change impact the development of human rights law in Canada?
Though it was a very positive step forward it had a limited impact because it did not apply to the provinces and the courts did not apply it to expand rights protections for Canadians.
Please read the following excerpt from the Canadian Human Rights Commission:
In 1977, Parliament created the Canadian Human Rights Act. It was the first federal human rights law in Canada, and the first federal law against discrimination.
The law also created two separate organizations to apply the Act and ensure its effectiveness:
The Canadian Human Rights Commission receives discrimination complaints and helps people settle them. It also promotes the idea of equality in Canada.
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal acts like a court. Sometimes the Commission sends discrimination complaints to the Tribunal, which then hears the evidence about the complaint and makes decisions on whether discrimination has taken place and what should be done about it.
How did this change impact the development of human rights law in Canada?
The purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act was the same in 1977 as it is today: to promote equal opportunity and give people in Canada a way to challenge discrimination when based on any of 11 different grounds (reasons) listed in the Act, such as race, age and sex.
The Act protects people who work for or receive services from the federal government, First Nations governments or private companies, like banks and broadcasters, that must follow rules set by the federal government.
Source: “Milestones of Human Rights in Canada”,Canadian Human Rights Commission. http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/eng/content/milestones-human-rights-canada
Alt text: This is a photograph of former Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Source: By Rob Mieremet / Anefo (Derived from National Archives) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.
Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau brought the Constitution under Canadian control in 1982. It made the nation autonomous from Great Britain as it contained a method for altering the Constitution; known as the amending formula, it contained all earlier legislation pertaining to governance such as the BNA and it entrenched the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Constitutional law.
How did this change impact the development of human rights law in Canada?
The rights protected in the Charter apply to the entire nation. All levels of government must abide by the Charter and in the decades that followed the courts have interpreted and applied the law in a way that has expanded the rights and freedoms of individuals in this country.
Extend your learning opportunity.
Watch Trudeau introduce and explain the thinking that guided the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.