Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate this very important issue. It is a matter of great importance not only to the residents of Waterloo-Wellington but to all Canadians.
I support the essence and spirit behind Bill S-11, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to add social condition as a protected ground under the act. I believe the drafter of Bill S-11 intended it to provide protection to the poor and to prohibit discrimination based on economic discrimination. This is laudable and should be supported by all members.
My concern is not with the object and aim of Bill S-11 but rather the overly broad and necessarily confusing nature of the exact wording. Simply using an open ended term such as social condition will add confusion to the act and will result in an endless sea of litigation.
If we are serious about assisting the poor and disadvantaged in society, we must create opportunities for jobs and provide education, training and the necessities of life so that they will be able to participate as full and equal members of society. We must provide a remedy through our human rights legislation for prejudicial treatment of the poor in a manner that makes that protection meaningful.
This year we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the UN declaration of human rights. It is a fitting time to review our current human rights legislation to ensure that it protects the most vulnerable of society. In Canada we have honoured our commitment to the declaration for 50 years. I might remind all members of the House that article 25 of the declaration states:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself or herself and his or her family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, old age or other lack of livelihood and circumstances beyond his or her control.
Recently the United Nations in its human rights development index report gave Canada top marks as being the best place in the world to live based on 1995 data. The hon. member mentioned that in her opening speech. I believe that Canada received the high rating because Canadians take our commitment to human rights very seriously. That is why the government is committed to a broad review of the human rights act in this area. We want to ensure that the act is an effective instrument that protects the human rights of all Canadians.
Let us go a step further and note that although Canada received high marks the authors of the report cautioned Canadians to note that there was a growing wealth disparity among Canadians. This is unacceptable. Acknowledging this, the federal government is very committed to protecting all Canadians. We are particularly concerned with designing programs that provide specific relief to the most needy.
The Government of Canada and provincial and territorial governments have agreed that children are a top public priority and have jointly participated in the design of the national child benefit system. This initiative is an important one which aims to prevent and reduce the depth of child poverty and to promote attachment to the workforce.
In addition, the 1997 federal budget announced a $850 million per year increase to the Canada child tax benefit for low income families. The 1997 Speech from the Throne committed at least an additional $850 million within this mandate for the national child benefit, and this was confirmed by the recent 1998 budget.
The addition of the ground of social condition as stated in Bill S-11 is to extend the protection currently provided by the act to include economic rights. However we need to ask what we mean by economic rights. We must be very clear on the meaning of this additional ground if we want the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the tribunal and the courts to understand the exact type of problems we hope to address by adding the words social condition to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Let us sit back for a minute and examine the purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act, what it can achieve and what impact adding this new ground will have on the act as a whole. The Canadian Human Rights Act is an anti-discrimination statute. It does not provide for rights directly but rather it provides for redress of an individual or a group of individuals who believe that they have been the victim of discrimination.
The act covers discriminatory acts in the context of employment and the provision of services and facilities customarily available to the public. Notably the act only applies to the federal sector. This includes the federal government and federally regulated employers and service providers such as banks, airlines, railways, telecommunication and interprovincial trucking companies. The vast majority of small businesses, schools and religious institutions are governed by provincial human rights legislation.
Groups that appeared before the senate committee on the bill such as the National Anti-Poverty Organization provided firsthand experience about the poor in Canada. They spoke of the plight of the homeless, the problems of people below certain income levels finding housing, for example, and the difficulties they encounter in accessing services from banking to telephones. These are some of the problems ostensibly that this amendment was designed to resolve.
However this motivation may be somewhat misplaced. First, housing is primarily a provincial matter. Many provincial human rights codes currently provide as an enumerated ground of discrimination sources of income or receipt of social assistance.
This ground provides a remedy for discrimination for individuals living on social assistance. For example, when a landlord refuses to rent to a family because it is on social assistance, this type of discriminatory act is captured by the provincial human rights codes that contain the ground of social assistance.
It is important to note that the only province in Canada that has the ground of social condition in its human rights legislation is Quebec. Quebec formally added this ground in 1996. There have not been a large number of tribunal decisions on this ground but we know at this point that this term includes both the objective element of being poor with the social aspects of prejudicial treatment against people who are poor. It is too early to determine the impact of adding this ground in Quebec and of course the impact on the federal jurisdiction as I stated earlier is not clear.
There are problems in the federal jurisdiction that do not need to be talked about here but clearly need to be addressed. The National Anti-Poverty Organization for example, citing Quebec statistics found that 80% to 90% of the poor were refused services from the banks, services such as cheque cashing or opening an account. I understand that the banks have taken some measures to correct these actions. We must be sure that no one is denied a service because the source of their income is provided by the state.
I am concerned that the banks and telecommunications companies may not be doing enough to ensure that their policies do not discriminate against the poor. It is this type of situation that needs to be looked at in the broad review of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
We will look at determining the scope of the problem of the poor in this country in the context of what relief the Canadian Human Rights Act could possibly offer. We will then work to find a solution that is tailor made to address the specific problems that we uncover.
Left as it is, Bill S-11 simply incorporates a term that might make us feel good but it does not effectively address the problems in the federal context nor provide a truly effective remedy for the poor.
By comparison, look at the prohibited grounds currently listed in the act, for example, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, and conviction for which a pardon has been granted. For the most part these grounds are immutable characteristics.
We know what the ground marital status means for example. It includes single, common law, same sex partners and married couples. This ground has resulted in changes to federal programs to ensure that they do not discriminate on the basis of someone's marital status.
I am strongly in favour of addressing the real needs of the poor. No one can support discrimination against anyone simply because his or her income is below a certain level. But I am concerned that we have not in any meaningful way fully canvassed the legal implications of the term social union in the federal context. There would be real concerns in terms of where we are heading.
Does it mean we must not discriminate because of someone's level of income? We apply different income tax rates based on different income levels. Does it mean then that the Income Tax Act could be suspect as potentially contrary to the human rights act if we adopt such a term? We would have to be very careful.
We would also have to note carefully the employment insurance program which requires specific criteria to be met before someone is eligible to obtain benefits. Would this program also be suspect?
Could RRSP provisions be subject to scrutiny under the Canadian Human Rights Act given that individuals of certain income types and levels, or very low levels of income cannot take advantage of this provision? I certainly hope not. That would be most unfortunate.
If we are going to provide additional protection for the poor, and I believe we should and I think all members of this House believe we should, we want it to be meaningful. Let us take the time then through the broad review of the Canadian Human Rights Act to research this problem and to find a solution that will provide meaningful protection for the poor. I believe that is what all Canadians want.