Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on private member's Bill S-11, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in order to add social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
This is a short bill. It contains only two clauses. But it nevertheless addressed a shortcoming in the existing Canadian human rights legislation, a major shortcoming, by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of social condition.
The first clause of the bill states that:
-
Section 2 of the Canadian Human rights Act is replaced by the following:
-
The purpose of this act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that every individual should have an equal opportunity with other individuals to make for himself or herself the life that he or she is able and wishes to have, consistent with his or her duties and obligations as a member of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, social condition, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.
Clause 2 reads as follows:
- Subsection 3(1) of the act is replaced by the following:
3.(1) For all purposes of this act, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, social condition, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted are prohibited grounds of discrimination.
It might be interesting to take a brief look at the meaning of “social condition” and its importance in the various provinces.
In Quebec for instance, this ground of discrimination is part and parcel of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, whose section 10 reads as follows:
(Discrimination forbidden)
- Every person has the right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, colour, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap.
Moreover, the Ontario Charter of Human Rights stipulates that receiving social assistance is a banned ground for discrimination only in connection with housing. In Manitoba, in Alberta and in Nova Scotia, source of income is a forbidden ground for discrimination. In Saskatchewan, it is receiving social assistance, while Newfoundland refers to social background.
In fact, all of these provisions are aimed at banning discrimination based on poverty. In practice, however, this is unfortunately limited to being a welfare recipient.
Only the Quebec law includes a broader interpretation by having integrated the term “social condition” without restricting it to receiving social assistance. Quebec jurisprudence has, in fact, defined social condition as encompassing income, occupation, level of education, and social background. It is therefore a very broad interpretation, one aimed at clearly emphasizing that it is forbidden to discriminate against the poor, who are becoming more and more numerous as we know.
One example of discrimination based on social condition is a landlord's refusal to rent to a person solely because that person is on welfare. Here, the reason for refusal is not based on the ability or inability to pay the rent, but solely on the fact that the person is receiving social assistance.
Another example, under federal jurisdiction this time, would be a bank's refusal to open an account for a person on welfare. It is a matter of public knowledge that certain banks do not hesitate to charge for opening an account, this being particularly aimed at social assistance recipients.
I think this bill sends the message that at the dawn of the third millennium discrimination against poor people is unacceptable. Quebec long ago adopted this value. It is high time the poor were protected against discrimination in areas of federal jurisdiction.
At a time of globalization and free trade, it is more important than ever that individuals' basic rights be respected, especially the right to equal opportunity.
In this context, it is totally unacceptable for business people, such as the president of Bombardier International, to be anxious about the Prime Minister's discussion of human rights in Malaysia. It is true that it may be easier for the little guy from Saint-Maurice to talk about human rights in Malaysia than to respect them in Vancouver.
Nevertheless, it is regrettable when fundamental human rights are sacrificed at the altar of international trade.
We cannot fail but protest the fact that current Liberal government policies are broadening the rift between rich and poor. More and more children are growing up in poverty in Canada, more and more families are poor.
Entrenching Bill S-11 in the charter should amount to more than wishful thinking. The best way to fight discrimination against social condition is to improve the living conditions of our fellow citizens who find themselves in difficult economic straits incompatible with human dignity.
This government must take specific action to ensure justice for our society's most disadvantaged. Changing the employment insurance plan, returning to the provinces the money savagely cut from transfers, reducing income tax for the middle class—these are all ways to show that the improvement of social conditions is a priority of this government.
Unfortunately, I fear that such wishes, while easily realized, will not become a reality. However, I would hope that Bill S-11 will be passed unanimously by this House. It at least will become a reality.