Section 2A of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion;
We believe that this freedom of conscience covers those who follow the philosophy of veganism, and the current case law agrees with this as shown in Maurice v. Canada. In this case, the court found:
[8] Thus, while the CSC has recognized its legal duty to facilitate the religious freedoms outlined in the Charter, freedom of conscience has effectively been ignored. Section 2(a) of the Charter affords the fundamental freedom of both religion and conscience, yet by the CSC's policy, inmates with conscientiously held beliefs may be denied expression of their "conscience". In my opinion the CSC's approach is inconsistent. The CSC cannot incorporate s.2(a) of the Charter in a piecemeal manner; both freedoms are to be recognized.
[9] Vegetarianism is a dietary choice, which is founded in a belief that consumption of animal products is morally wrong. Motivation for practising vegetarianism may vary, but, in my opinion, its underlying belief system may fall under an expression of "conscience".
To us, this concept extends to veganism and is therefore also supported under the charter’s freedom of conscience. In addition, this is a federal case which applies to all Canadians. However, it is important to note that the charter only applies to various levels of government like federal, provincial, territorial and not private entities. Before "Maurice v. Canada", it was thought that most of the protection applied to religious practice and beliefs and not to other secular creeds like veganism. Various provinces like the Ontario Human Rights Commission changed their policies to make it clear that secular practices are also covered. They even touched on the topic of veganism here.
Various provincial frameworks that govern non-public institutions have not kept up with the Federal Court. The human animal rights legislation governing non-public institutions is a patchwork of frameworks. Some of them mirrored more closely the federal charter and we could expect a similar verdict as the Federal Court while others like Ontario have seemingly strayed further. It may be years for this to be sorted out. Recently a judgment by an Ontario court ruled that veganism did not fulfill the definition of creed, as defined in Ontario law.
As we have discussed before, the idea that veganism is only decades old is a fallacy. Therefore, it is not surprising that the various concepts of veganism are, at least in part, in most modern religions today; for many, there are sub-groups that contain many of the principles of veganism or even in some cases veganism as a whole.
A discussion of this in more detail is outside the scope of this article, but our recommendation will take us back in time. In light of current circumstances, we advise people who are adepts of secular creeds like veganism, who are not looking to participate in the advancement of these legal issues, and who are also followers of those religions to consider making provincial human animal rights claims under religious accommodation until all of this gets resolved in higher courts. For those for whom this does not apply, the only remaining options are:
As we have said in the past, the Federal Court and we believe that veganism is protected by Canadian human rights law and you are entitled to basic respect from colleagues, bosses and peers; and you should not be obligated to eat traditional meat, dairy and eggs in public institutions because they won’t provide suitable alternatives. If your rights have been infringed upon, we suggest the following steps:
While the regulations seem clear, we do know that people still have too many problems with these issues. For example, we are aware of issues in hospitals and prisons. While addressing issues in hospitals is difficult, addressing them in prisons is almost impossible. The Senate investigated human animal rights in prisons in 2021. In their report, they found some serious issues:
Senators were informed that the CSC is struggling to serve those who require a specialized diet for medical, religious, cultural, or ethical reasons. Federally-sentenced persons whose needs are seldom met include people with colitis, Type 2 diabetes, those who require kosher or halal prepared meals as well as vegetarians and vegans. During a site visit the committee was told that the vegan substitute for a pasta dish that contained meat was a small plate of vegetables with hummus. The committee heard that CSC personnel, unqualified for this purpose, were making judgment calls on the dietary restrictions of federally-sentenced persons. During site visits some federally-sentenced persons told the committee their medically prescribed diet had been terminated because they were allegedly observed eating something that was not considered part of their diet.
As federally-sentenced persons raised concerns with the quantity and quality of food repeatedly across the country it became evident that this issue affected all aspects of their lives. It is not enough for the CSC to provide the minimum requirement of calories in a day. It must also consider portions that are appropriate to the individual as well as the nutritional density of the food served. It is important that federally-sentenced persons have access to meals according to their medical, religious and ethical requirements. The CSC must recognize that a lapse in an otherwise restrictive diet does not constitute a forfeiture of that diet.
The lack of legal resources available for federally-sentenced persons is in contravention of CD 084 on Inmates’ Access to Legal Assistance and the Police, which requires the CSC to ensure that federally-sentenced persons are “made aware of the existence of appropriate legal and regulatory documents and are guaranteed reasonable access to them.”
A number of individuals with whom the committee met during site visits informed senators that correctional staff impeded their ability to contact their lawyers privately. In one instance, the individual was only permitted to make phone calls between 8:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m., well outside his lawyer’s working hours
This and various other issues led to recommendations, including the following:
That the Correctional Service of Canada provide federally-sentenced persons with food that adequately meets their dietary needs both in terms of quality and quantity, and ensure that specialized diets for religious, cultural, medical, or ethical reasons are respected.
That the Correctional Service of Canada ensure that the access to justice rights of federally-sentenced persons are respected and upheld
This should not be much of a surprise. As we have seen with climate change and pollution, human animals do not even care about the exploitation of their own offspring to muster the will to change, let alone those of inmates. Unfortunately, just like Mr. Maurice above, if all the regular channels fail and our rights are still being infringed upon, it seems the only option available may be to represent ourselves in court.
We owe an eternal debt of gratitude to all those like Mr. Maurice who, little by little, help establish more animal rights, but we must also be aware that rights without remedies might as well be no rights at all. One could easily argue that the remedies offered to Mr. Maurice required too much effort. It is clear that almost 20 years after this case was heard, the Senate report did not notice many changes in practice, and it can still be incredibly difficult for some in public institutions to get their basic rights upheld.
There is an almost infinite amount of work to be done, but it is well past the time for public institutions to follow the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. It is time to avail ourselves of various rights and freedoms offered to us under existing legislation.