Power’s Strategic and International Studies Blog

 

Human Rights in Canada
 

Many outside of Canada are not aware that the principal author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was John Peters Humphrey, a native of New Brunswick, Canada. Humphrey wrote the first draft of what would eventually become perhaps the most important human rights document in history. Indeed it has been said that this document, as amended by United Nations’ Commission on Human Rights, has become the international Magna Carta for all men (Roosevelt 1998). Eleanor Roosevelt chaired, and with her Committee successfully advocated that the United Nations General Assembly adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948 (Roosevelt 1998).
 

Globally many human rights supporters view “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the primary international articulation of the fundamental and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. It represents the first comprehensive agreement among nations as to the specific rights and freedoms of all human beings. The Declaration has become a cornerstone of customary international law, binding all governments to its principlesâ€? (Roosevelt 1998). Canada has demonstrated over many decades support for this international perspective regarding human rights and the fundamental values found in nature for man.  Nationally there have been many initiatives recognizing and establishing Human Rights. Canada’s Prime Minister, John G. Diefenbaker’s Bill of Rights, 1960 (The Canadian Bill of Rights 1960) aligns closely with the United Nations’ Universal Declaration. This Act was the earliest expression of human rights law at the Federal level in Canada. Two decades later, Prime Minster Pierre Elliot Trudeau recognized shortcomings in Diefenbaker’s legislation and replaced the earlier Act with The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982). The Charter is contained within a statute entitled The Canada Act 1982. The Act’s fundamental rights and freedoms include: the freedom of conscience and religion; the freedom of thought and belief, the freedom of opinion and expression; and the freedom of assembly and association. The Charter’s rights include: equality rights embrace the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender, age, religion, race or colour; and a guarantee of equality before the law. The legal rights provided by the Act include: the rights of life, liberty and security of person; security against unreasonable search and seizure; and the prevention of arbitrary imprisonment in detention. In addition to the Charter’s provisions there have been many regional and provincial human rights initiatives enacted to protect minority rights against abuse by members of the public.Â
 

The Federal Government’s Canadian Human Rights Act, (Canadian Human Rights Act 1976-77) established the “principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.� Unfortunately the Federal Act applies only to businesses regulated by Federal legislation such as the broadcast industry and chartered banks. Provincial governments have adopted somewhat similar piece of legislation for areas within their constitutional competencies, as set out in the Constitution Act of 1982 e.g. professional organizations and unions. Interestingly, the first statute of this nature was adopted by the Ontario Provincial Parliament in 1944, well prior to the Federal Act.
 

Both Federal and Provincial governments have established human rights commissions to investigate and adjudicate alleged human rights abuses. These commissions are empowered to make binding decisions and provide sanctions and remedies within their constitutional mandate.
 

The best of Canadian values are grounded in the natural law espoused by stoic philosophers and political scientists such as John Locke over 300 years ago. This natural law advocates that there exists universally accepted laws derived from the nature of man and the world. Natural law was at the very core of the political theory influencing the drafters of the Magna Carta; was the rational for the United States Revolution; and today is intended to be the essence, the very core of the constitutional rights and freedoms within Canada.
 

So it would seem fair to conclude that Canadian citizens have an arsenal of statutes and regulations protecting their human rights and freedoms. Canadian indigenous people, as Canadian citizens, should have the same protection. So for all Canadians human rights protection should not be a problem, right?  What is the reality?
 

Indigenous Canadian Citizens - What is the Reality?
 

Canada is the second largest land mass in the world and has a wide range of indigenous enclaves which include Canada’s Arctic’s indigenous people. While the following observations I believe have equal application to Canada’s Northern indigenous citizens I have restricted my examination to the facts and circumstances surrounding Canada’s First Nations indigenous people.
Let me commence my examination by sharing this observation. I am angry with myself, and disappointed in Canadians. Let me share this article that I have previously published.
“On Sunday afternoon, while driving along the seaside near Victoria on Vancouver Island, I was enjoying the view and admiring the million-dollar homes when, without demarcation and for no apparent reason, I saw two large tracts of economically depressed land that jarred my sensibility. Within moments, it became apparent: These were First Nations’ Reserves. Why, I asked myself, would these people choose to live in substandard conditions when they clearly had wealth? They appeared to “own” hectares of prime residential waterfront land. I believe most Canadians, without serious reflection, reach the same conclusion as they view the 600-plus Aboriginal land reserves across Canada. But to draw such a conclusion would be wrong. The situation exists because we let it exist. Canadians have permitted this social injustice to thrive for almost 130 years. The Indian Act segregates First Peoples from Canadian society, and since 1876 has prevented First Nations people from buying and selling their reserve lands.
According to Statistics Canada, about 1.2 million aboriginal people (Metis, Inuit and First Nations) live in Canada – with approximately one-third of them on reservations, (Canada 2007). It is not only the segregation that is appalling but also the standard of living on these reserves. In fact, according to an Indian and Northern Affairs Canada study that applied First Nations’ statistics to United Nations’ Human Development Index, determined the living conditions on Canadian reserves are a third-world quality of life (INAC) 1998). Canada has dropped from first to eighth as the best country in the world as a result of the poor health and housing conditions experienced by First Nations people on reserves.Â
Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto observed in his best seller The Mystery of Capital that citizens of developing and under developed countries remain poor because they cannot access capital (DeSoto 2000). These countries do not have property law and its supporting infrastructure. He could have been writing about Canada’s First Nations people. Sara MacIntyre, B.C. Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation commented, “There is opposition for change within the industry. Chiefs and councils currently control federal funding and the band’s wealth. It is the chiefs and councils that determine who on the reservation gets housing. The Indian industry is big business.”
According to Statistics Canada, the Federal Government turns over to the chiefs and councils about 90 per cent of the $6.9 billion budgeted annually for Aboriginal spending (Canada 2008-09). “Little wonder there is resistance among some native leadersâ€? (Power 2005). Because of our political leaders’ inability or unwillingness over the past 130 years to right this wrong, Canada’s First Nations people have missed the opportunity for wealth creation. Many First Nations communities still worry about having their most basic needs met, let alone worry about wealth creation. Over 107 communities in Canada live under a constant “Boil Water Advisoryâ€? for drinking water (Canada Boil Water Advisories) and mould continues to contaminate almost half of First Nations households (Survey 2002-03). While you and I have seen our home values rise dramatically prior to the global financial meltdown, federal legislation and the surrounding Canadian public policy have prevented First Nations people from participating in this asset appreciation, and continue to trap indigenous Canadian citizens in a poverty cycle. This cycle of poverty and depression needs to end. Statistics Canada reports that the suicide rates of “Status Indiansâ€? in British Columbia are almost three times that of other British Columbian residents (Health 1999).
As a Canadian, to permit this apartheid, to permit segregation of one class of our citizens, to permit these forms of ghettos, is repugnant. Canadian history is littered with examples of how the government has tried to repress First Nations people. One of the worst examples in Canadian history are the residential schools that existed from 1928 until the last one closed in 1996 (News 2008). In all, about 150,000 children were forced to attend these Catholic-operated schools with the purpose of assimilating First Nations children into ‘civil’ society. Regretfully a high number of physical, mental and sexual abuse cases arising from residential schools are still before the courts today. As a result, the education levels amongst First Nations people lag well behind those of their non-aboriginal counter parts. According to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, almost 70% of First Nations students on-reserve will not graduate from high-school (Canada 2001) and only 4% of the aboriginal population will acquire a university degree. Of the Canadian non-aboriginal population, 16% will obtain this level of education (Jod-Annes Brzozowski 2005).
 

Unfortunately these atrocities do not end with residential schools. Under the 1928 Sexual Sterilization Act, thousands of Canadian indigenous people were involuntarily sterilized. It is impossible to ascertain a specific number as thousands of files were destroyed by the Provincial Archives Administration in 1987 (Jana Grekul 2004). In Alberta for example, 4739 cases were presented to the Eugenics Board, and a total 2832 sterilization operations were performed. A disproportionate number of these cases were indigenous people. Out of all of sterilization procedures performed on indigenous people, it is speculated that 77% were deemed “mentally defective� and therefore did not require prior consent (Jana Grekul 2004). Similar sterilization practices were enforced in other Canadian provinces, as well as in the United States.
 

Yet it’s ironic that our political leaders, with increasing frequency, visit developing countries and publicly comment about the importance of observing human rights, in the light of the historical treatment of First Nations people in Canada. During Vietnamese Prime Minister Phan Van Khai’s visit to Canada, our then Prime Minister Paul Martin spent a considerable amount of time lecturing Van Khai on the importance of human rights. “Canadian officials said the tone of the talks shifted during the private portion as Martin brought up as many as 10 cases of Vietnamese people who were harassed or jailed for their political or religious beliefsâ€? (Tân 2006). Of more recent date our current Prime Minster, Steven Harper, while on his way to an Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) conference in Vietnam admonished the Chinese leadership by stating; “I don’t think Canadians want us to sell out important Canadian values — our belief in democracy, freedom, human rights. They don’t want to sell that out to the almighty dollarâ€? (Narvey 2006). “Harper remarked he will not tone down criticisms of China’s human rights record to improve trade relations with Beijing. The Prime Minister made the comments to reporters  after being apparently snubbed by Chinese President Hu Jintao (News 2006). How then can Harper now champion the opposition to the United Nations Declaration supporting human rights for indigenous Canadians? To some it seems Harper’s 2008 public apology in  regards to the treatment of First Nations was an isolated act of recognizing First Nations’ rights (News 2008). How can these same political leaders drive daily past disenfranchised Canadians who have for almost 130 years been denied social justice and basic human rights? It’s time to set this rightâ€? (Power 2005).
 

There have been some modest legal successes in Canada.  First Nations in British Columbia have questioned the provincial title to Crown land successfully. This was definitively established in 1997 by the Supreme court case, Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (Delgamuukw v. British Columbia 1997). This case established that aboriginal title convey “ownership� of resources on the land, which overrides any government interest. As a result of cases such as this, governments and third parties must now consult with First Nations before undertaking development permits. Although in many cases, this consultation process has become another mechanism to confine First Nations’ rights, rather than ensure them. This has left First Nations in need of capacity funding in order to understand the large, complex documents in regards to various government projects impacting their land. This right of consultation is provided for within the United Nations’ Declaration. If Canada supported the Declaration, then First Nations’ legal arguments would be strengthened.
 

Canada admits that the issues surrounding indigenous people are by far Canada’s biggest human rights challenge, yet we are not prepared to adopt the United Nations’ recommendations to implement a United Nations’ Human Rights Council. Consider these cases.  The Lubicon, a band of 500 people in Northern Alberta, have been negotiating with the government for more than 60 years regarding their land claim issues. The Canadian government, notwithstanding two reports from the United Nations urging them to settle the claim with the Lubicon, refused to settle. The reason, according to many, was simply that their land was scheduled for construction of a $983 million pipeline to support Alberta’s oil sands production (News 2008). The police shooting of Dudley George occurred in 1995, when the Stony Point band set up a barricade to reclaim sacred burial land that was seized in order to build a military camp. Dudley George, one of the leaders of the protest, was unarmed at the time of his shooting. Justice Linden ruled that the Ontario Provincial Police, former Ontario Premier Mike Harris and the federal government were all responsible for George’s death (News 2009). Domestic violence against indigenous women rates as one of the biggest human rights concerns for aboriginals. Statistics show that 24% of aboriginal women in Canada are victims of spousal violence, compared to 7% of non-aboriginals (Canada 2006). This is more than three times the average of non-aboriginals. Amnesty International has intervened in such cases as the land rights of the Lubicon Cree; the police shooting of Dudley George; and violence against indigenous women (International 2008). The United Nations and Amnesty International clearly recognize the severity of human rights issues facing Canadian aboriginals. It is troubling that the Canadian government, while cognizant of these shortcomings, continues to dolittle.
Â
Canada is not the only country that faces challenges with First Nations’ communities. Australia, New Zealand and the United States constantly adopt similar human rights positions, to the detriment of their indigenous citizens. These are the same countries opposed the UN Declaration. Arguably, Australian indigenous people experience some of the worst conditions, comparatively to indigenous citizens of the other three nations. “In 1999-2001 the life expectancy of Indigenous Australians was 17 years less than that of non-Indigenous Australians. Between 1999 and 2003, Indigenous people died at almost three times the rate of non-indigenous people� (Welfare National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey, 2004-05). These life expectancy rates have been compared to those of developing countries such as Pakistan and Indonesia (Gerry St. Germain 2006). The indigenous people of Australia have yet to negotiate any treaty with their government, unlike their counterparts in the United States and Canada. The Declaration would lend moral support to the injustices experienced by Australian aboriginal people, and indigenous people world-wide.
 

What is the Essence of the Declaration?
 

So it would seem that Canada, at all levels of government, has put legal protections in place to safeguard human rights for its citizens. So why is it that the Canadian government opposes this UN Declaration? To answer this question we need to examine the Declaration and consider its implications for Canada.
 

The genesis for the declaration arises from the United Nations’ Economic and Social Council’s (ECOSOC) Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP). The WGIP’s mandate was to develop a minimal set of standards that would protect indigenous people. Recognition of the need for standards and protection has been well documented. The WGIP was impacted by a study undertaken by José R. Martinez Cobo. Cobo, a Peruvian and onetime Secretary General of Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (OPANAL), outlined in a study the marginalization, exploitation and oppression suffered by indigenous people globally. Cobo’s works had a significant impact on the WGIP.
 

The first draft declaration on the rights of indigenous people was completed by the WGIP and received approval in 1994 from the UN Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. From 1994 to 2007 the process moved forward at a snail’s pace.
 

The breakthrough came in the 11th session of the working group during 2005/6 when the Peruvian Chairperson, Mr. Luis-Enrique Chavez, consolidated the earlier proposals into a final document for negotiation. The final document was adopted by the Human Rights Council in June, 2006 and submitted for consideration by the General Assembly at the 61st session in 2007.  At that session on September 13, 2007 the Declaration was approved.
 

There are a number of offending and contentious provisions identified by Canada’s Federal government contained within the Declaration. The Declaration included the right to self-determination of indigenous people and control over the natural resources existing on their traditional lands. It provides inter alia comprehensive provisions addressing issues including cultural rights, collective rights, rights to education, rights to health, rights to employment and language rights. Further, the declaration provides that indigenous people have the right to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions. The Declaration recognizes indigenous people have the rights of free men to develop as they choose in accordance with their own aspirations and needs (natural law). The Declaration specifically prohibits discrimination against indigenous people and further provides for full and effective participation as stakeholders in all matters that are likely to impact them. The United Nations recognized the tension that would be created in developed countries such as Canada with a large indigenous citizenry if they adopted the declaration. Accordingly the global institution included the provision, ‘… to encourage harmonious cooperative relations between states and indigenous people’ in order to mitigate the impact of the Declaration.
 

And therein lies the problem. The human rights and freedoms contained within the declaration, it would seem, significantly enhance the human rights and freedoms currently enjoyed by indigenous citizens of Canada. While the declaration is non-binding, it would provide judicial weight to the increasing number of cases brought before the courts as indigenous citizens attempt to implement and exercise control over what is or was formally their lands, rights and freedoms. The UN declaration, for example, could possibly influence legal disputes over fishing rights, land claims, residential schools and self-government.
 

Recall Prime Minister Harper’s admonishment to the Chinese Premier: “I don’t think Canadians want us to sell out important Canadian values– our belief in democracy, freedom, human rights.â€?  It is difficult, it seems to me, to reconcile the Federal government’s position and our Prime Minster advocating global human rights to other world leaders while rejecting the UN Declaration on what seems to be purely economic grounds. Let us examine closer the tension between these positions.
 

Pros and Cons
 

The UN Declaration would not be legally binding in Canada as it is only a declaration, not a treaty. Even if the Canadian government decided to make the declaration a treaty, treaties cannot be implemented without Canadian legislation. Notwithstanding, it does provide legal weight to any judicial and / or moral case put forward by indigenous people regarding a vast array of outstanding contentious issues, some  of which have been outlined above.Â
 

The case for the Declaration internationally was best articulated by the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, Mr. Sha Zukang.  Undersecretary Zukang claimed the Declaration was “tangible proof of the increasing cooperation of States, Indigenous Peoples and the international community as a whole for the promotion and protection of the human rights of indigenous peoples� (UNPFII 2007). Mr. Sha Zukang went on to say that the UN “has fulfilled its role as the world’s parliament and has responded to the trust that Indigenous Peoples around the world placed in it, that it will stand for dignity and justice, development and peace for all, without discrimination� (UNPFII 2007).
 

In Canada, at the forefront supporting the Declaration is Phil Fontaine, former national chief of the assembly of First Nations.  Fontaine told the CBC news that “Canada’s stance,  … , it’s a stain on Canada’s reputation internationallyâ€? (News 2007).  The Indian Act, it seems to this writer, is archaic and perpetuates destruction of indigenous culture.  Even the name of the Act ‘Indian’ does not represents its constituency. These are Canadian First Nations citizens, not Indians.
 

The evidence suggests Canada’s opposition to the declaration is rooted, it seems, primarily on economic grounds. The paramount concern is land and resources in a global ecosystem, and the provisions contained within the declaration dealing with these items. For example, the Declaration requires prior informed consent of indigenous groups before enacting any new laws or administrative measures. Canada’s ambassador in 2007, John McNee noted that, “under that article 26 of the Declaration, indigenous people have the right to the lands, territories and resources as they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquiredâ€? (News 2007). McNee considers this clause as, “… overly broad, unclear and capable of a wide variety of interpretationsâ€? (News 2007). The Ambassador’s observation regarding the ambiguity and vagueness of the document are at the very core of the Canadian Government’s opposition. It would seem, according to McNee and like minded opponents to the Declaration, that the document lacks specifics (Canada 2006) and this lack of specificity, they contend, gives rise to many different and possible competing interpretations.
 

The Federal minister charged with responsibility to represent Canada’s indigenous citizens, Indian affairs Minister Chuck Strahl, is also a leading opponent to the Declaration.  Strahl feels that there is insufficient guidance within the declaration to enable implementation. Furthermore, Strahl claimed that the provisions of the Declaration conflict with Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms (News 2007). The Minister noted that Canadian citizens under this 1982 Act rely heavily on it to protect not just the rights of aboriginals but the rights of all Canadians. The problem, of course, is that after 130 years Canadian indigenous citizens have not had the protection Strahl refers to in the Charter and the Constitutional Act. The human rights’ short comings for these Canadians have been very much in evidence.
 

The Canadian government argues the Declaration must be consistent with Canada’s constitutional framework. If not, the government argues that section 26 of the Declaration supporting the land claims traditionally owned could result in reopening previously settled land and resource claims and existing treaties within Canada.  Is there merit to this argument? The Canadian Constitution provides for recognition of existing original treaty rights.  The Declaration being non-binding would only be persuasive in Canada’s Supreme Court. Accordingly, while sensitive to the argument, on balance having full regard to the competing positions it seems to this author that it fails.
 

The response is similar to the government’s Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ argument that the Declaration may allow less flexibility than provided under section 1 of the Charter or under section 35 of the Constitution Act. Again I respond that while persuasive, the Declaration never the less is not binding. The evidence is irrefutable, after one hundred and thirty years of history this nation has not afforded basic human rights protections on a large number of issues for indigenous Canadians.
 

So the Federal opponents view article 26 as the most problematic of the lands and resources provisions, especially the phrase, “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquiredâ€? (Canada 2006). It is the Declaration’s support for indigenous people, their land, and their resource rights that this author feels are at the root of the opposition. The government suggests that implementation of the Declaration may raise serious questions about retroactive application of existing treaties.  Existing and current treaty negotiations would be impacted by the global human rights spotlight if Canada was to support the declaration. But this is an economic rationalization. If this was to come to pass does this position justify diminishing Canadian indigenous people’s human rights?  That is the question. How will the courts of global public opinion judge Canada’s position? How will Canadians view our political leadership’s action?
 

There are many lesser clauses in the Declaration relating to conservation and protection of the environment  (article 29);  self-government  (article 4);  free, prior and informed consent (articles 10, 11, 19, 28, 29 and 32);  military issues (articles 10 and 30); border control laws (article 36) unfettered right of transit and commerce across borders; language and culture, education and intellectual property and the indigenous legal system (Canada 2006); all of which raise concerns for the Federal government.
 

For me the inflection point in the dialogue between proponents and opponents came when Canada’s prime minister Stephen Harper stated, “We shouldn’t vote for things on the basis of political correctness; we should actually vote on the basis of what’s in the documentâ€? (News 2007). Recall Undersecretary Mr. Sha Zukang’s observation representing the other end of the continuum stated, “It (the declaration) will stand for dignity and justice, development and peace for all, without discriminationâ€?(UNPFII 2007).  So the correct position according to Harper at its core is that Canadians are only required in this case to meet their social obligation, the bare minimum required at law and are not required to adopt a social responsibility stance - for Canada this would mean just to do the right thing. Regretfully it seems there is evidence to conclude that this decision is substantially grounded in economics and not on the fundamentals of natural justice. Remember Locke’s comment that “a ruler is legitimate so far as he upholds the lawâ€? (Locke 1690).
 

So reluctantly but firmly I reached the conclusion that the dissent to the Declaration is not about human rights, rather it’s about money. It’s an economic issue that is viewed by the Federal Canadian government as the paramount factor, rather than providing the basic natural justice rights to Canadian indigenous people.
 

Having reached this strategic inflection point the question then became: is Canada’s position on the Declaration simply an anomaly in its long-standing march towards establishing global human rights or is it the symptom of something more sinister?
 

Transformation in Canadian Values
 

In examining this emerging second hypothesis I found a number of antidotal pieces of evidence indicating that since 9/11 Canada’s political leaders have turned a ‘Nelsonic eye’ to the human rights and freedoms and their duty to protect the rights of its citizens in order to support the war on terror, and to align Canada’s economic interests with those of the United States of America. Increasingly there are some observers who question the validity of whether or not there is ‘a war on terror’ as declared by the former Bush administration. Indeed a better descriptor might be a ‘war on peace’. Certainly grounds for dialog.
 

This contraction in Canadian human rights comes at a time when Spain’s parliament is in the process of extending some human rights to gorillas, chimpanzees, baboons, and orangutans. Spain is the first country to explicitly acknowledge the legal rights of non-humans. Spain’s declaration on great apes, developed in 1993 by a group of primatologists, ethicists, and psychologists, provides that nonhuman apes are entitled to the rights of life, liberty, and protection from torture. According to the Spanish declaration, apes may not be killed except under “strictly defined circumstances,â€? such as self-defense. They may not be imprisoned without due legal process, and they may not be subjected to the “deliberate infliction of severe pain,â€? even if doing so is said to benefit others. Incarcerating apes for circuses, or using them in television commercials or filming will also be forbidden. Sanctions for offenders are provided under Spain’s penal code. The Times of London notes that this initiative by Spain could be the beginning of a trend toward granting similar rights to other nonhuman animals (O’Carroll 2008).
 

Other countries have also taken steps in recent years toward recognizing nonhuman apes as moral persons who possess an inherent worth and dignity. In 2002, Germany’s parliament voted to add the phrase “and animalsâ€? to a clause in the country’s constitution requiring the state to uphold the dignity of humans. In 1992, Switzerland passed an amendment to its constitution that recognized animals as “beings,â€? and not “thingsâ€? (O’Carroll 2008).
 

While Spain and other European nations, it seems, are embracing human rights and expanding the constituency they are willing to protect, in Canada it would seem this nation is incrementally withdrawing the protections afforded by the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Evidence to support this observation appears daily in the Canadian national newspapers.
 

We need look not much further than Canada’s The Anti-terrorism Act (The Anti-terrorism Act 2001) to support the position that there has been an encroachment on the human rights of Canadians. It is important, as we undertake this examination, to recall that the administration of justice and more specifically the protection of the rights of a nation’s citizens is the firmest pillar of government. In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, the Canadian Federal government created Canada’s first anti-terrorism legislation, defining what constitutes terrorism and making it a punishable offence within Canada’s Criminal Code. The Anti-terrorism Act (bills C-36 and C-42) was bulled through the House of Commons and the Liberal dominated Senate by the Liberal ruling party, using their majority, to pass a motion curtailing debate and rejecting all of the opposition’s amendments. The fast track motion passed with a vote of 190 in favour and 47 against. The Act became part of the Criminal Code on December 18, 2001. The changes to the Code were said at the time to be “aimed at disabling and dismantling the activities of terrorists groups and those who support them.” Many Canadians remain today unaware of this Act.
 

Increasingly politicians and protesters are raising concerns that the legislation trampled on civil liberties because it gave police sweeping new powers, including the ability to arrest people and hold them without charge for up to 72 hours if suspected of planning a terrorist act. These powers include electronic surveillance, and the provision for the designation of a group as a terrorist organization that in turn makes it a crime to knowingly collect or provide funds, either directly or indirectly, in order to carry out terrorist crimes. The justification for the legislation was provided by Liberal Justice Minister Anne McLellan who stated: “We believe that people everywhere are entitled to live in peace and security.� McLellan noted the provisions had three main objectives: to suppress existing terrorist groups, provide police with new investigative tools, and strengthen prison sentences for terrorists. The bills also contained provisions to comply with new UN rules and similar laws that were adopted by the U.S. and Britain for combating terrorism.  There are few human rights’ checks and balances contained within the Act.