In theory, the Canadian Bar Association had established a formidable structure to place itself at the forefront of the human rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s. As the preeminent lawyers’ association in the country, it had access to extensive resources for human rights campaigns. Since having established a permanent civil liberties committee in 1946, the Canadian Bar Association encouraged the formation of civil liberties committees in all of its provincial sections. With a national committee coordinating the work of provincial sub-committees, supported by the resources of the national network, the association was in an excellent position to take a stand on human rights issues, influence public opinion and lobby governments. But throughout the 1960s the Canadian Bar Association civil liberties sub-committee and its provincial counterparts failed to live up to their potential. According to the chairman of the national committee in 1967, the section “during the last year has been, as usual, active in one or two provinces, mildly active in one or two others, and totally inactive in all of the others.”

The Canadian Bar Association was not unaware of the key human rights issues of the period. There were several heated debates on abortion (1966 and 1971) and capital punishment (1971), and on a variety of other issues such as wiretapping, writs of assistance, youth rights and the October crisis. At times, as in the case of writs of assistance, the association lobbied to have the legislation amended. These efforts were most often conducted through the Canadian Bar Association executive and the national network of civil liberties committees was not involved. In 1970 the national civil liberties committee was totally inactive. It finally began work again in 1972 only to spend the next ten years as a minor committee in the Canadian Bar Association, conducting research and passing resolutions at annual meetings. In many provinces, such as Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, the civil liberties section attracted few members and was rarely active, sometimes going years without a meeting. Although the association would eventually play a prominent role during the debates on entrenching rights in the constitution, it’s role in the human rights movements in Canada remains peripheral.