I think that's a really important question, because it gets to the heart of what I think this program is about in many ways, but also what our courts and legislatures have been grappling with for a really long time, the extent to which it has a commitment to equality.
I recognize that some people don't, that some people think equality is just not what they're into, and that's a different matter. But to the extent that we make that commitment, we recognize—and it's interesting in legal history watching the progressive recognition of what it takes, or what equality might mean, or what we might want it to mean—and to the extent that it's about just treating everybody the same....
No, I shouldn't start the sentence that way.
I think certainly our courts, or our Supreme Court of Canada, at least, has recognized that this is quite an impoverished understanding of equality. When we say that the program is about advancing some rights, I think then it's about advancing equality rights, and equality rights particularly as they are recognized as constitutional equality rights, not only in our country but internationally.
If I am permitted.... Okay, I won't go to that anecdote then.
What that commitment actually entails isn't just giving everybody the same thing, because nothing will change in our society to the extent that we do that. If we have half a table here that doesn't have access and wheelchairs in another half that do, and we give the exact same treatment, that half will still not be able to go to the next floor if we don't commit to getting elevators, for example.
That is what equality is really about; that is, making a commitment to those who are disadvantaged, not just to everybody. Of course, what that means is saying that there are some groups who are more deserving of certain resources, because what we want at the end of the day is for them to be able to get to the second floor, or be able to have access to health care benefits. That might mean providing more funds to those who happen to be hearing impaired, for example, or bound to wheelchairs, when they seek medical services.
There are many who would say, “But that's not fair. Why does that group get these resources”—let's say an interpreter—“and we don't?” That's where I think we have to step back from our own interests and say, that's because we're actually committed to what we call substantive equality now, and that is equality, at the end of the day, where those resources are actually available to everybody, not just what you give and what you distribute, but what's available, and what opportunities are there at the end of the day.