Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T06:09:17.100Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Reputations of Human Rights Commissions in Canada*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

R. Brian Howe  and
Malcolm J. Andrade
R. Brian Howe
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University College of Cape Breton
Malcolm J. Andrade
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to report on a study of the reputations of provincial human rights commissions in Canada among interested community organizations, women's groups, and minority groups. The focus of the study was on the reputations of commissions for effectiveness, responsiveness, and fairness in handling human rights complaints and implementing programmes against discrimination. The study was designed to test for an hypothesized relation between levels of public funding of commissions and their reputations in the above areas. It was anticipated that the lower the commission's funding the poorer the commission's reputation. Results of the study show that while commissions have generally poor reputations among community organizations, their low ratings are not related to levels of funding. The suggestion made is that poor reputations may be related to other factors such as high community expectations of rights delivery in an increasingly rights-conscious political culture and the structure of human rights procedure.

Résumé

L'objet de cet article est de rendre compte d'une étude sur la réputation des commissions provinciales des droits de la personne au Canada auprès des organismes communautaires intéressés, notamment des groupements de promotion des droits des femmes et des minorités. Plus précisément, cette étude portait sur la réputation des commissions en ce qui a trait à leur efficacité, à leur capacité de répondre aux attentes de ces groupements et de la communauté en général ainsi qu'au caractère équitable de leurs actions, tant dans le traitement des plaintes qui leur sont soumises que dans l'implantation de programmes contre la discrimination. L'étude avait pour but de vérifier s'il existait une relation entre le niveau de financement public des commissions et leur réputation eu égard aux aspects ci-haut identifiés. Les auteurs avaient posé pour hypothèse que moins le niveau de financement d'une commission serait élevé, plus mauvaise serait sa réputation. Les résultats de l'étude démontrent que même si les commissions ont généralement une réputation médiocre auprès des organismes communautaires, leur faible performance n'est pas liée à leur niveau de financement. Les auteurs suggèrent plutôt que la faible popularité des commissions peut découler d'autres facteurs tels les attentes élevées de la communauté en matière de droits de la personne dans une société de plus en plus consciente de l'importance de tels droits et la procédure applicable en matière de droits de la personne.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , Fall/automne 1994 , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See, for example, Day, Shelagh, “The Process of Achieving Equality” in Cholewinski, Ryszard, ed., Human Rights in Canada (Ottawa: Human Rights Research Centre, 1990)Google Scholar; Norman, Ken, “Problems in Human Rights Legislation and Administration” in Martin, Sheilah & Mahoney, Kathleen, eds., Equality and Judicial Neutrality (Toronto: Carswell, 1987)Google Scholar; Hill, Daniel & Schiff, Marvin, Human Rights in Canada (Ottawa: Canadian Labour Congress)Google Scholar; and Howe, R. Brian, “Human Rights in Hard Times” (1992) 35:4Canadian Public AdministrationCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. For examples of newspaper articles and reports, see Anderson, Doris, “Human Rights Take a Beating Across Canada” Toronto Star (28 July 1984)Google Scholar; Callwood, June, ”Human Rights Legislation Still Plagued by Wrongs” Globe and Mail (1 August 1985)Google Scholar; Locherty, Lorraine, ”New Cases Swamp Rights Commission” Calgary Herald (14 November 14 1989)Google Scholar; Santin, Aldo, “Funding, Politics Cited for Agency's Fading Role” Winnipeg Free Press (14 August 1990)Google Scholar; Sullivan, Dave, “Protecting Rights Comes at a Cost” Halifax Chronicle-Herald (3 December 1990)Google Scholar; and Cardozo, Andrew, “Human Rights Takes a Backward Step” Toronto Star (9 December 1992)Google Scholar. Funding as well as other problems were the subject of a national television story “Under Attack”, W5, CTV Television (8 March 1987). The funding problem also has been common theme of editorials in the Canadian Human Rights Advocate.

3. See Howe, R. Brian, “The Evolution of Human Rights Policy in Ontario” (1991) 24:4Canadian Journal of Political Science 787CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kallen, Evelyn, Label Me Human (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989) at c. 6Google Scholar; Knopff, Rainer, Human Rights and Social Technology (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1989) at c. 3Google Scholar; and Hill & Schiff, supra note 1 at c. 4.

4. Still the best and most comprehensive analysis of human rights commissions and their roles is Tarnopolsky, Walter & Pentney, William, Discrimination and the Law (Toronto: Richard De Boo, 1985)Google Scholar.

5. For statistical purposes, civil liberties groups and labour organizations were grouped together.

6. National organizations included the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the National Council of Women, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped, the National Association of Native Friendship Centres, the Canadian Labour Congress, and the Canadian Rights and Liberties Federation. Examples of visible minority organizations were the Chinese Canadian National Council and the National Council of Barbadian Associations; examples of non-visible minority organizations were the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Canadian Polish Congress.

7. One disability organization in Saskatchewan, for example, made copies of the survey for all member groups in the province to fill out and return.

8. On the per capita measurefor the five-year period, higher funding provinces were Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Québec, Manitoba, and Ontario while lower funding provinces were Newfoundland, British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. On the per case measure, higher funding provinces were Nova Scotia, Québec, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick, while lower funding provinces were Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, Newfoundland, British Columbia, and Ontario.

9. One exception in low ratings for public education was the commission in Québec.

10. In the areas of systemic discrimination, affirmative action, and reasonable accommodation, the provinces of Québec, Ontario, and Manitoba have the strongest provisions. Authority in other provinces is relatively circumscribed.

11. This is in accord with problems noted by Norman and Day in note 1. It also is referred to by Ruff, Kathleen, “Critical Survey of Human Rights Acts and Commissions in Canada” (Paper presented at the Conference on Discrimination in the Law and Administration of Justice, Kananaskis, Alberta, October 1989)Google Scholar.

12. It finally was ruled in 1992 to be a ground of discrimination.

13. For a discussion of the establishment of the British Columbia Council and implications, see Black, William, “Human Rights in British Columbia” in Canadian Human Rights Yearbook 1984-85 (Toronto: Carswell, 1985)Google Scholar, and Howe, supra note 1.

14. The cynical view was expressed that the Manitoba Commission was concerned that public and governmental support would decline if the Commission began to emphasize the rights of gays and lesbians.

15. Ontario Human Rights Code Review Task Force, Achieving Equality: A Report on Human Rights Reform (Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, 1992)Google Scholar. The Report was prepared by an independent Task Force chaired by Mary Cornish, based on wide input from community groups and relevant governmental bodies.

16. Examination of past and recent Commission Annual Reports indicate that the majority of cases indeed do take over a year to be dealt with.

17. See Greene, Ian, The Charter of Rights (Toronto: Lorimer, 1989) at c. 2Google Scholar; Tarnopolsky & Pentney, supra note 4 at c. 1 and 2; and Howe, supra note 3 at 787–93.

18. Greene, ibid. at 1.

19. See Tarnopolsky, Walter, The Canadian Bill of Rights (Toronto: Macmillan, 1978) at c. 1Google Scholar, and Howe, supra note 3.

20. The focus of Greene, supra note 17 at 8–17.

21. See Knopff, supra note 3 at c. 3, and Flanagan, Thomas, “The Manufacture of Minorities” in Nevitte, Neil & Kornberg, Allan, eds., Minorities and the Canadian State (Oakville: Mosaic, 1985)Google Scholar.

22. For discussion of public opinion surveys, see Howe, supra note 1 at 467–69.

23. Eckhoff, Torstein, “The Mediator, the Judge, and the Administrator in Conflict-Resolution” (1967) 10 Acta SociologicaCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24. For early history, see Howe, supra note 3 at 787–93, and Tarnopolsky, Walter, “The Iron Hand in the Velvet Glove” (1968) 46 Canadian Bar ReviewGoogle Scholar.

25. The terms “human rights legislation” and “human rights commissions” only begin to come into use during the early 1960s.

26. This term was used by Tarnopolsky, supra note 24.

27. For analysis in Ontario, see Howe, supra note 3 at 793–98.

28. This trend is noted by Executive Director of the Ontario Human Rights Commission McPhee, Robert, “Changing Times in Intergroup Relations in Ontario” (August 1973) 13 Human Relations (Ontario Human Rights Commission)Google Scholar.

29. Bell v. The Ontario Human Rights Commission (1971), 18 D.L.R. (3d) 1.

30. See Administrative Information Manual on Human Rights Commissions and Council in Canada (Commission des droits de la personne du Québec, 1991)Google Scholar. The longest complaint handling times indicated were in British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Québec, and the Federal jurisdiction.