search

HOME HISTORY ENCYCLOPAEDIA ARCHIVES RESOURCES NEWS ABOUT

STATE FUNDING CONTACT

Human Rights Law

Home > History > Human Rights Law
Sub Navigation

Human Rights Law

| Copyright Dominique Clément / Clément Consulting

1.
With2. the support of organized labour, the Jewish Labour Committee and its leader, Kalmen Kaplansky,
were3. at the forefront of the campaign for anti-discrimination legislation in Canada. Kaplansky was adept
4.
at raising funds and overcoming divisions within the labour movement. By the 1950s, a coordinated
national strategy was in place, and it produced tangible results. The federal government introduced a fair
employment practices law in 1953 and added an anti-discrimination provision to the National Housing
Act in 1960, largely in response to labour movement lobbying. The New Brunswick government enacted
:
fair employment practices legislation in 1959, less than a year after the provincial federation of labour
began to lobby for anti-discrimination legislation. Successive Quebec governments had resisted
implementing anti-discrimination laws, but thanks to the efforts of the Montreal JLC committee (the
United Council for Human Rights) and the Quebec Federation of Labour, the provincial government
passed An Act Respecting Discrimination in Employment in 1964. In a brief to the Quebec premier, the
JLC claimed the support of forty social movement organizations representing unions, churches, Jews,
students, ethnic minorities, women, and prisoners. Ottawa’s

first anti-discrimination legislation, in 1952, was largely

the product of a campaign by organized labour and its allies in Parliament. In Nova Scotia and
Saskatchewan, municipal labour councils, provincial labour federations, and the JLC worked closely to
secure anti-discrimination legislation and to improve existing legislation (the Halifax Human Rights
Advisory Committee and the Nova Scotia Association for the Advancement of Coloured People were also
part of the campaign). If fair employment practices legislation already existed, organizations such as the
British Columbia Federation of Labour or the Toronto Labour Committee for Human Rights lobbied for
fair accommodations practices legislation. As the federal Department of Labour acknowledged, “it can be
stated without qualification that the history of fair employment practices legislation in Canada testifies to
the effectiveness of the fundamental educational groundwork carried on by labour.” [Clément 2014]

Unlike the Saskatchewan Bill of Rights, fair employment and practices statutes were based on an
administrative (not criminal) model. They empowered a minister (usually the minister of labour) to
appoint an investigator, and if necessary, the minister could appoint an independent ad hoc commission to
consider the case and recommend a remedy (such as a fine or an offer of employment). Complainants did
not have to resort to the courts, and the administrative apparatus favoured an initial attempt at conciliation
rather than direct confrontation. For the complainants, this model had the added benefit of placing the
burden of investigation on state officials, rather than requiring that they themselves hire (and pay) their
own lawyers and investigators, as most did not have the resources to pursue complaints on their own. The
administrative model required them to prove a balance of probabilities of guilt, not guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt, the more demanding standard of criminal proceedings. If, however, the complainant
continued to face discrimination, the case would be referred to the courts. In this instance, the burden of
:
proof was more stringent, and the complainant would receive no remedy (court-imposed fines were
collected by the government).

For these reasons, anti-discrimination laws were ineffective. Of the 502 complaints received between
1951 and 1962, only 1 was successfully prosecuted under Ontario’s Fair Accommodation Practices Act
(Morley McKay, the racist owner of an Ontario cafe, was fined $25 and an additional $155 for costs in
1955). The number of complaints investigated in other jurisdictions from the mid-1950s to the late 1960s
was a fraction of those received in Ontario: Manitoba (2), New Brunswick (15), Quebec (24), and
Saskatchewan (30). The federal legislation also went largely unused: only thirty people sought relief
under the law between 1953 and 1960.

The failure of early anti-discrimination measures is easy to explain. The legislation was unwieldy and
difficult to enforce. Discrimination was notoriously hard to prove. Responsibility for enforcing the law
was hoisted onto the shoulders of civil servants who had no expertise, and often little interest, in the issue.
Governments were unwilling to dedicate the necessary resources to enforce the legislation. Moreover,
with no budget for education or promotion, it is likely that few people were even aware that the law
existed.

The 1960 case of Gerri Sylvia, a young black woman living in Winnipeg, exemplified the failure of such
laws. After a year of struggling to find work as a waitress, she picked up the phone and called David
Orlikow. An NDP member of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly, he was the secretary for the local Joint
Labour Committee to Combat Racial Discrimination (and, later, national director of the JLC). Orlikow
drove around the city with Sylvia, and as he waited in the car, she walked into Hilton Restaurant,
Raphael’s Restaurant, South Seas Restaurant, and Zoratti’s Restaurant to apply for jobs that had been
advertised in the newspaper. Her applications were quickly rejected, and in some instances, no one even
bothered to ask about her qualifications. The next day, Orlikow sent two white women to the same
restaurants to apply for the same jobs. They were promptly offered the positions. Orlikow brought the
case to the provincial minister of labour, who appointed a commission under the Fair Employment
Practices Act. After numerous delays, the commission dismissed the case on a technicality. In addition to
citing lack of evidence, the inquiry’s chairman, G.F.D. Bond, insisted that Sylvia was not looking for
work, only investigating whether the restaurants practised discrimination, and thus was not genuinely
denied employment (Sylvia had filed a complaint in the previous year after ten cafes refused to hire her,
but that complaint was dismissed without an inquiry due to lack of evidence).

Continue Reading the Human Rights Law

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

History
:
 Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Gouzenko Affair
Human Rights Activism
Human Rights in Foreign Policy
Human Rights Law
October Crisis

Further Reading

The readings lists available on this site deal with a range of topics from human rights to biographies and
specific events.

Citing Website

Any use of material or referencing content from HistoryOfRights.ca should be acknowledged

by the User and cited as follows:

Clément, Dominique. “page title or document title.” Canada’s Human Rights History.
www.HistoryOfRights.ca (date accessed).

History
Human Rights Activism
Human Rights Law
Human Rights in Foreign Policy
Gouzenko Affair
October Crisis
Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Events and Issues
Biographies
Social Movements

Resources
Archives
Readings
Historians
External Resources
State Funding
:
About
Research Projects
Books
Articles
Presentations
Community

Twitter @ HistoryOfRights
Twitter feed is not available at the moment.
Home Encyclopaedia Archives Resources News About Contact Terms of Use State Funding
© 2023 COPYRIGHT CLÉMENT CONSULTING. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA
: