Thank you.
Good morning, honourable members.
I would like to take this opportunity to speak to you about poverty as a human rights violation and about concrete actions the federal government can undertake to ensure that Canada complies with its international human rights obligations and ceases to violate the rights of some of its most vulnerable and marginalized citizens.
As you are likely aware, Canada is a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It imposes fundamental legal obligations on Canada, including a duty to ensure that all citizens enjoy the right to social security, which includes the right to adequate social assistance and the right to an adequate standard of living. Currently Canada is in violation of both obligations.
For many years, the federal government reported to the United Nations that the conditions in the Canada Assistance Plan were the cornerstone of Canada's implementation of its obligations under the covenant to ensure that people living in poverty had an adequate standard of living. However, since the repeal of the Canada Assistance Plan in 1996 and its replacement by the Canada health and social transfer, the United Nations has been very critical of the lack of conditions imposed by the federal government on its social transfers to the provinces.
The Canada health and social transfer imposes only one condition on the provinces with respect to social assistance: there can be no minimum residency period as a prerequisite to eligibility for social assistance. Otherwise, the provinces are free to establish whatever type of social assistance scheme they wish, including those that violate rights contained in the covenant. This stands in stark contrast to the conditions the federal government imposes upon the provinces with respect to the health transfers via the Canada Health Act.
In 1998, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights criticized the government for its hypocrisy in ensuring basic human rights by attaching standards to health care, while at the same time stripping away basic rights to social assistance. At that time, the committee wrote that Canada
did, however, retain national standards in relation to health, thus denying provincial “flexibility” in one area, while insisting upon it in others. The delegation provided no explanation for this inconsistency. The Committee regrets that, by according virtually unfettered discretion to provincial governments in relation to social rights, the Government of Canada has created a situation in which Covenant standards can be undermined and effective accountability has been radically reduced.
In 1998, the committee also specifically recommended that Canada consider re-establishing a national program, with specific cash transfers for social assistance and social services, that would include universal entitlements and national standards.
In its most recent review of Canada's compliance with its covenant obligations in 2006, the committee once again expressed concern that federal transfers for social assistance and social services to provinces and territories do not include standards in relation to some of the rights set forth in the covenant, including the right to social security. The committee also urged the state parties to establish social assistance at levels that ensure the realization of an adequate standard of living for all.
It is clear what Canada must do to fulfill its legal obligations under the covenant. Covenant standards must be adopted with respect to social transfers to the provinces.
Subsection 36(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, created a constitutional commitment jointly on the provinces and the Government of Canada to provide, inter alia, essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians. Accordingly, subsection 36(1) can readily be seen as both a constitutional source of and a vehicle for the government to establish covenant standards with respect to its social transfers to the provinces.
Finally, it is important to keep in mind that the standards being discussed would not be national standards dictated by Ottawa, but would be international standards contained in the covenant ratified by 160 countries. The standards would reflect shared worldwide values rather than those having their origins in Ottawa.
There is no excuse, in a country like Canada, which prides itself on respecting human rights, both domestically and internationally, for these rights violations to continue unchecked. The current economic downturn means that more and more Canadians will be forced to rely on social assistance. They will endure further indignities due to the inadequacy of social assistance rates across the country.
Canada's next review of its covenant obligations before the UN committee is in June 2010. It is my sincere hope that at that time, Canada will be able to tell the committee of its success in living up to its covenant obligations, which are owed to all Canadians.
Thank you.