Anti-discrimination laws going back to before the First World War prove Canada isn’t as systemically racist as some claim
By Danny Randell
and David Hunt
In 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared that systemic discrimination is embedded “in all [of Canada’s] institutions.” This statement came after the forceful arrest of a First Nations Chief by two RCMP officers. Four years later, the narrative persists that Canada is a systemically racist country.
But is it?
When we look at Canada from a legal and historical perspective, the evidence points to the opposite: anti-discrimination has been a cornerstone of Canadian law for many years, as outlined in our new study for the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy.
 |
| Related Stories |
| Why almost everyone is wrong about racism
|
| I still call it Aunt Jemima
|
| What is Critical Race Theory anyway?
|
 Danny Randell |
 David Hunt |
Canada’s efforts to prohibit discrimination date back to before the First World War. In 1913, Prince Edward Island passed legislation mandating that treatment for tuberculosis victims be provided without discrimination based on “class, creed, or nationality.”
In the 1930s, British Columbia and Manitoba introduced anti-discrimination measures, and over the next two decades, most other provinces followed suit. Ontario took further steps in 1944 by banning discriminatory signs and symbols targeting race or creed. In the early 1950s, the province passed additional laws prohibiting discrimination in hiring and accommodation.
By 1959, seven out of 10 provinces had enacted anti-discrimination legislation. At the federal level, the Fair Employment Practices Act, which prohibited workplace discrimination based on race, colour, and religion, had already been in place for six years.
By 1975, all provinces had introduced human rights legislation prohibiting various forms of discrimination – seven years before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted. At that time, Canada could already claim 23 laws that banned discrimination in various forms and contexts.
This is Canada’s historical record.
When the Canadian Human Rights Commission claims that “systemic racism is deeply entrenched in Canadian society,” it does so contrary to the facts. Ironically, the very existence of the CHRC is a testament to Canadians’ ongoing efforts to combat racism.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself mandates equality under the law and prohibits discrimination by the government based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. Since 1982, all provinces and territories have updated their human rights legislation to align with the Charter, extending anti-discrimination protections to actions by both government and private citizens or organizations.
While Canadian law allows for interpretation in many areas, when it comes to discrimination, the message is clear: it is not allowed – except in one area. Under section 15(2) of the Charter, reverse discrimination, often referred to as “employment equity” or “affirmative action,” is permitted if its purpose is to improve the conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.
In fact, Canada is so committed to being anti-racist that it permits ‘soft’ racism against the majority population in an effort to correct past injustices. ‘Soft’ racism refers to subtler forms of discrimination, using policies like affirmative action or employment equity. Unlike overt racism, which is openly hostile, ‘soft’ racism occurs when certain racial groups are given preferential treatment to address “historical wrongs.” While these policies aim to promote equality, they can unintentionally disadvantage other groups, leading to discrimination that is less direct but still significant.
Moreover, the logic behind reverse racism is flawed – discriminating to end discrimination is as contradictory as it sounds. In fact, the data does not support the need for affirmative action.
If systemic discrimination isn’t rooted in our legal system, where else might it be found? The workplace is often cited as another area of concern. However, using Statistics Canada data, Matthew Lau, a Senior Fellow with the Aristotle Foundation, has shown that differences in workplace earnings between racial groups are minimal once sociodemographic factors, such as education, are considered.
While Canada is not systemically racist, that doesn’t mean bigotry doesn’t exist. Racists, like criminals, do exist in Canada. But using the same flawed logic behind systemic racism claims, we would have to conclude that Canada is a systemically criminal state, which is clearly not the case.
As a nation governed by the rule of law, Canada ensures that everyone, regardless of race, creed, colour, or national origin, is equal before and under the law. This long-standing respect for individuals should be celebrated as the significant achievement it is, not dismissed by those seeking to promote a popular narrative for political gain.
When claims arise that Canada is systemically racist, remember: Canada’s long history of laws and deep-rooted commitment to legal equality tell a different story. Nearly every form of discrimination has been legally prohibited in Canada for generations.
Danny Randell is a researcher at the Aristotle Foundation, and David Hunt is the research director at the Aristotle Foundation. They are two of the three authors of When did Canada end systemic racism? An historical and legal review.
For interview requests, click here.
The opinions expressed by our columnists and contributors are theirs alone and do not inherently or expressly reflect the views of our publication.
© Troy Media
Troy Media is an editorial content provider to media outlets and its own hosted community news outlets across Canada.
