Equity in Law-Making

April 12, 2024

History has shown that humanity has a propensity for establishing rules and regulations to govern social interactions and procedures. This inclination towards creating laws and policies has permeated various levels of governance and organizational structures and has eventually shaped many of our social norms and workplace practices. Recognizing the significant impact of law-making on people's lives, I strongly emphasize its importance and consequential effects on individual livelihoods.

Law-making means crafting frameworks that address the diverse circumstances of people's needs, thus necessitating lawmakers to possess the skills to listen attentively and engage with community concerns. 

However, achieving inclusivity in law-making requires diversity within its decision-making bodies. Dominant groups have historically wielded power in most governing bodies and usually marginalize underrepresented communities. Political hegemony can lead to the exclusion of dissenting voices, perpetuating social and political ostracization.

A diverse law-making body that embraces a spectrum of ideologies is essential for promoting community and individual well-being. Failure to uphold diversity often results in discriminatory policies that exclude certain groups and disregard the broader social impact of such decisions. Thus, fostering inclusivity and considering diverse perspectives in policy formulation is vital for creating equitable and effective governance frameworks.

Canada isn’t a stranger to creating and upholding prejudicial policies and practices. Namely, the Chinese Head Tax was a discriminatory tax imposed by the Canadian Government on Chinese immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 

In the 1800s, many Chinese immigrants landed in Canada to perform mostly low-paying labour jobs, which led to the construction of the famous Canadian Pacific Railway. Due to the social hostility towards these landed immigrants, the Canadian Government implemented the Chinese Immigration Act, which required Chinese immigrants to pay a fee ("head tax") of $50. In three years, the head tax would increase to $500.

Chinese Immigration Act, 1923

This tax was meant to discourage Chinese immigration and is an example of institutionalized racism and xenophobia. The repercussions not only impacted Chinese immigrants but also caused social and economic consequences for Canada. Due to the high costs of the head tax at the time, there were disproportionately more Chinese men than women in Canada (almost twenty‐eight to one) (1). In the following years, the Canadian Government eventually recognized its complicity in this prejudice, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized in the House of Commons in 2006. As a result, the Government offered $20,000 in redress to surviving individuals and $10 million for a national historical recognition Program educating Canadians on the impacts of the head tax and racism in Canada (2). Ultimately, the consequences of our political and legal history didn’t end once the law changed, underscoring its tremendous impact even decades later. 

Although we may believe these issues are solely rooted in history, we observe analogous events resurfacing in contemporary Canadian law-making. Take, for instance, Quebec's Bill 21, which prohibits wearing religious symbols by certain public employees in positions of authority. This legislation aims to promote a secular state but fails to acknowledge how it disproportionately impacts marginalized communities, such as Muslims, Sikhs, and Jewish people. Bill 21 inadvertently targets specific demographics and, once again, demonstrates a lack of consideration of the broader impact of the law on people from diverse backgrounds in Canada. 

On the positive side, Canada has also seen movements and policies aimed at promoting equality and justice. Throughout the years, our governing bodies have seen a significant shift in diversity, where more women, racialized people, and disabled people, among other groups, have voices in the decision-making process. More so, we’ve seen the inclusion of more laws to address community concerns on issues like same-sex marriage, sexual harassment in the workplace, and hate crimes. 

Nevertheless, the deterioration of equity-building and human rights violations aren’t in a one-size-fits-all context and are usually a result of a snowball effect of ignorance and bigotry. These disregards in the legal system are not always responsible for perpetuating injustice but certainly uplift a climate of intolerance. As Canada continues to dominate as one of the world’s most multicultural countries, it's only become more important to recognize the importance of equity in law-making.