Introduction

Thank you very much Lewis. Bonsoir tout le monde - bienvenue à Edmonton.

Lewis, I couldn’t possibly live up to that generous introduction, but thank you very much.

You know, it is interesting, I guess when you leave, people remember you much more kindly than when you were there. But thank you. Minister Shirley McLellan and for all our visitors, I do reassure you that if you do want to be a women in politics you don’t have to all be named McLellan in our town — but it helps.

Minister McLellan, Mayor Smith, President Frasier, my dear friend and former colleague Jean Forest, Monsieur Lafontaine, Lewis, it is a great pleasure for me to be here this evening and, with my department, to be one of the sponsors of this conference. And I also bring best wishes from my colleague, the Honourable Sheila Copps and the Department of Canadian Heritage, which is also a sponsor of this conference that has been organized by such a hard-working group of men and women. I was just mentioning to Robinson who was one of the organizers of this conference — Robinson, Jack, Gerry, and others, came to see me about 18 months ago in my office and they had this wonderful idea about the celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and I remember them leaving my office and thinking after they had left that this group of individuals have a tremendous idea, but this is all so amazingly ambitious. I wonder if they are going to be able to pull this off.

But, in fact, we are all here this evening and I think we would all agree that they have done a tremendous job, so ‘Congratulations’.

In some ways it is perhaps ironic that a representative of government should be given the honour of launching this conference on human rights, since the human rights movement has been largely about individuals seeking protection from the abuses of the state. The progress that the world has made in advancing human rights in the last half-century is due primarily to the efforts of non-governmental players — human rights activists, NGOs, legal scholars and international civil servants.

If he were alive today, John Humphrey, the Canadian law professor who headed the UN’s Human Rights Division during its first 20 years — and who was a leading proponent and a principal architect of the Declaration — might be addressing this gathering in my place. Indeed, it would have been appropriate for any number of prominent human rights activists, many of whom are attending this conference, to tender these opening remarks.

But, if there is a reason for asking a government official to launch a conference celebrating the Declaration’s 50th birthday, it is that the adoption of the Declaration represented the moment in history when a large number of governments — 48 in all — agreed voluntarily and in writing to forgo part of their sovereignty in order to advance the rights of individuals. They did so after one of the most terrifying tragedies of this century, the Holocaust, had revealed its full horror.

The drafting and signing of the Declaration was an act of collective imagination that seized on what is best in us — hope, reason, and compassion. And we are, today, still captivated by its promise.

Birth of a Vision

And although it is generally acknowledged that those 48 governments never intended to incur a legal obligation to guarantee the rights set forth in the Declaration, that’s ultimately what they did. By adopting the Universal Declaration, the members of the UN General Assembly approved the blueprint for a colossal construction project that continues to this day and that forever changed the international legal landscape.

From the beginning — and despite the fact that the onset of the Cold War dramatically slowed the drafting of the legally binding covenants that were to complete the International Bill of Human Rights — the Declaration quickly became the inspiration for legally binding human rights treaties. Its provisions began almost immediately to influence national constitutions and regional instruments. Within two years of the Declaration’s adoption, the countries of Western Europe had transformed most of its provisions into conventional law by signing the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950).

In the last 30 years, the Declaration has spawned a whole body of international law — binding legal standards — that details the rights of individuals and the obligations of governments; treaties that refine and elaborate the lofty principles set out in the Declaration. Some of those treaties, like the more recently adopted Convention on the Rights of the Child, have received near universal ratification.

Others, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and, Cultural Rights and Political Rights, have been ratified by about three quarters of United Nations members. The number of ratifications of these treaties continues to grow, and impending anniversaries of the Universal Declaration still have the power to coax new signatures from reluctant governments.

When officials from 171 nations gathered in Vienna for a World Conference on Human Rights in June 1993, the timing was intended to galvanize action by governments to make good on the promise of the Universal Declaration in the five years leading up to its 50th anniversary. In their Program of Action, the delegates in Vienna called on all governments to ratify the main international human rights treaties, with the result that more than 1,000 new ratifications or accessions to these treaties have been deposited in the last five years alone.

But the ratification of a human rights treaty, important as it is, is only a first step. It is not enough for governments to pledge to safegurad the rights of individuals within their jurisdictions. They must go further. They must give practical effect to those guarantees — in domestic legislation, in judicial decisions, in public policy and in executive action. And they must promote dialogue, education and training, taking concrete steps to ensure that the values and principles set out in international treaties are institutionalized in civil society.

Even in Canada, where we pride ourselves on our broad acceptance of international human rights norms, work remains to be done to move from the promise to the performance of our international obligations. The challenge for lawmakers and law enforcers everywhere in the next 50 years will be to translate the growing body of paper commitments into the actual daily enjoyment of human rights by even more individuals.

From Vision to Reality: The Canadian Experience

The signing of the UN Declaration was the starting point of the international human rights movement. Canada’s commitment to the legislative protection of rights and freedoms was signaled in 1958 when a draft Canadian Bill of Rights was presented to Parliament.

The Prime Minister at the time, the late John Diefenbaker, told the House of Commons that he saw the Bill of Rights as a first step for Canada to live up to the UN Declaration. He stated at the time: "this measure...is the first step on the part of Canada to carry out the acceptance either of the international declaration of human rights or of the principles [contained in] that noble document."

Since the Bill was enacted in 1960, we have built a solid domestic human rights framework, including federal and provincial human rights legislation, and finally, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For Canada, the Charter has done more to make international human rights law a domestic reality than any other Canadian action. Both the drafting history of the Charter, and its final text, exhibit the rich influence of the Universal Declaration and other international human rights instruments, and Canadian courts have not failed to take notice. At least 135 reported judicial decisions have cited the Declaration or other international human rights instruments as aids in interpreting Canadian human rights legislation, including the Charter.

Perhaps one of the most inspiring of these statements was made by the late Chief Justice Brian Dickson in 1987 in a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313) where he wrote:

And later in that judgement, he said: "I believe that the Charter should generally be presumed to provide protection at least as great as that afforded by similar provisions in international human rights documents which Canada has ratified."

The growing tendency of Canadian courts to consider international human rights standards in interpreting Canadian law is a development to be encouraged. Consider the Supreme Court decision in the Keegstra case, a landmark decision respecting our ability to take measures to combat hateful speech in light of the guarantee of freedom of expression.

In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada deemed the negative consequences of derision, hostility and abuse encouraged by hate propaganda on individual self-worth to be irreconcilable "in a nation that prides itself on tolerance and the fostering of human dignity through...respect for the many racial, religious and cultural groups in our society." The Court cited various international human rights instruments which called upon states to prohibit incitement to hatred and noted that such international condemnation of hateful speech buttressed the objective behind Canada’s prohibition.

The Government has a responsibility to promote and uphold human rights by ensuring that federal legislation respects international human rights obligations and the Charter. Through legislative review, officials in my department are involved in reviewing new legislation, policies and programs for consistency with the Charter and, in certain circumstances, for consistency with Canada’s international human rights obligations.

But, expecting governments to safeguard human rights, on their own, even in a democratic society as open and tolerant as ours, is insufficient. It is for this very reason that we have the good fortune to have so many institutions — the courts, federal and provincial human rights commissions, and other admistrative tribunals — whose mandates and responsibilties are to ensure that Canadian citizens are protected from human rights abuses.

And here is where domestic and international human rights mechanisms play a critical role. I note that the Canadian Human Rights Commission, one of these mechanisms, celebrates its 20th anniversary this year, and the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, its 25th Anniversary.

For over 10 years, the Government of Canada has also sought to advance our understanding of equality and official language minority rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms through a program that enables individuals and groups to challenge federal legislation in the courts. This Court Challenges Program has been used to strike down federal legislation found to be discriminatory, and it has done much to foster and promote a human rights culture in Canada.

But such domestic mechanisms are still not enough. That is why we have international human rights regimes with their monitoring mechanisms. One monitoring mechanism is the requirement that states report on the extent to which they have complied with their obligations under human rights treaties. In this way, states are put under the uncomfortable spotlight of international scrutiny.

As a matter of fact, as many of you in this room will be aware, Canada is presenting its reports to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural rights this very week. This will be a challenging exercise for the Canadian delegation — but one from which we hope to learn and grow. Of course, coming over here this evening I was listening to the six-o’clock news, and I got a first-hand description of just how rigourous and challenging the days’ activities were for the Canadian government in relation to reporting to that international organization.

Another monitoring mechanism is the individual petition system that enables individuals to petition the UN directly when they believe their rights have been violated. It is important that governments recognize the jurisdiction of the various treaty bodies to hear such petitions.

So far, the act of according recognition has not been as whole-hearted as we might have hoped, for reasons that are perhaps understandable. No government wants to be brought before an international tribunal for failing to live up to its international obligations. Yet, if human rights guarantees are to have real meaning, alleged violations by a state should be reviewable by an international tribunal. One of the most important aspects of individual complaint procedures is that it allows state practices to be scrutinized at the international level — after domestic scrutiny has been exhausted. States, including Canada, need to open to such scrutiny and be prepared for potential crticism.

Since Canada signed the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, recognizing the jurisdiction of the UN Human Rights Committee to receive and rule on human rights complaints from individual Canadians, we have had the dubious distinction of being much complained against. But, if I may turn that criticism into a compliment, I think this is indicative of a healthy and active human rights culture in Canada. Most cases are dismissed as inadmissible or for not revealing a violation. However, one of the first Canadian complaints heard by the UN Human Rights Committee resulted in Canada repealing a provision of the Indian Act. This sent a clear signal to all Canadians: the right to address human rights issues does not stop at national borders.

All of these mechanisms — domestic and international — are the institutional after-effects of the Universal Declaration and we should embrace and use them. But, in saying this, I do not mean to minimize the difficulty for governments of doing so.

This brings me to one final point about implementation. If we are really to make progress on some of the emerging human rights issues of the day, governments must do even more than revise their laws, set up domestic redress mechanisms and recognize the jurisdiction of international tribunals.

This is especially true when it comes to addressing issues such as social and economic inequality . Allow me to address this point briefly, because I know that it is currently the focus of considerable discussion and that Mary Robinson has addressed it recently.

Achieving a great measure of economic and social equality in an era of economic globalization has proven to be a significant challenge for all governments. This includes Canada, where we too face issues such as the growing disparity between rich and poor, child poverty, homelessness and the unacceptable living conditions of some Aboriginal peoples. Increasingly in Canada, federal and provincial governments are working together in areas such as social services, health and employment equity to turn international commitments into action.

One example of this enhanced partnership approach is Canada’s National Children’s Agenda, with its equalization payments to disadvantaged families and an Aboriginal Head Start program that seeks to achieve not only equality of opportunity for Aboriginal children, but equality of results.

But, all of us, rich countries as well as poor, still have a great deal of work to do to fulfill the promise of the Universal Declaration. And, our work may increase in the future. This is partly because our concept of human rights is evolving, encompassing, for some, issues that could not be conceived of by the drafters of the Universal Declaration. As recently as 10 years ago, violence against women was considered by all but feminists to be a matter for criminal law, not human rights law. Yet by 1993 at the World Conference on Human Rights, governments had made the elimination of violence against women "in public and private life" a central plank of the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action.

I note that there are many emerging issues on your agenda for discussion over the next couple of days, and I certainly look forward to hearing the results of your deliberations because I do believe that they may well inform and help my department and our government in its work as we begin the challenging activities and new phases of human rights protection and action in this country, such as the long awaited review of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Conclusion

In 1948, could we possibly have imagined the world in which the Universal Declaration would be tested 50 years later? Could we, 50 years ago, have foreseen the human rights implications of economic globalization? Could we have perceived the issues that new reproductive technologies might one day raise or divine the extent to which communications technologies might one day threaten individual privacy?

These issues are being placed on the "rights" agenda because of pressure from social justice groups, women’s groups, disability rights activists, environmental groups, artists and writers the world over. And the pressure is growing at an ever-accelerating pace, in a phenomenon the Globe and Mail recently called "the globalization of conscience."

As this human rights consciousness gains strength, government action and inaction will come under growing public scrutiny. And, I believe this is good. History shows that governments usually don’t relinquish their sovereignty easily or graciously. One of the great accomplishments of the international human rights movement is the steadiness with which it has held a mirror up to our actual, not our idealized, social and political lives.

Fifty years ago, the UN Declaration gave us our benchmarks and now, after a period of reflection, celebration, and accounting for our actions, we look to people like you, in this room this evening, to take us to the next step, to the next level. And in choosing these steps, remember that an international criminal court was one of the unrealized goals of the original drafters of the Declaration. We now have an international criminal court to deal with the Rwandas and Kosovos of the next millennium. Remember also that for some years we fought for a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. And now we have her — Mary Robinson, who will be speaking here tomorrow evening.

Let me conclude by reflecting on a speech given by Karl Popper, an Austrian philosopher, to the Institut des Arts in Brussels in the wake of the Second World War. Karl Popper offered an insight that should appeal as much to the prodders, as it does to governments: "The appeal of utopianism arises from our failure to realize that we cannot make heaven on earth. What I believe we can do instead is to make life a little less terrible and a little less unjust in each generation. A good deal can be achieved in this way."

Fifty years — two generations — after the signing of the Universal Declaration, I believe that we can share, perhaps rejoice, in the prudent optimism of Karl Popper. Life is a little less terrible — life is a little less unjust. And in large part because of the commited people, men and women, around the world, and here this evening — who have an unwavering commitment to human rights and to the inherent dignity, value and equality of all persons, regardless of where they live.

Thank you very much.