This is page numbers 1063 - 1106 of the Hansard for the 14th Assembly, 5th Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was rights.

Topics

Further Return To Question 380-14(5): Smoking Cessation Programs In The Nwt
Question 380-14(5): Smoking Cessation Programs In The Nwt
Item 6: Oral Questions

Page 1081

Michael Miltenberger

Michael Miltenberger Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we spend in the neighbourhood of $200 million a year in health and social services. If we agree that smoking and drinking, eating the wrong kinds of food, lack of exercise, being overweight are five key indicators, then we are spending a significant amount of that $200 million dealing with both the prevention but also the results of smoking.

I would also like to say at this point as well that as a Legislature, as a territory, that we cannot much longer avoid the need for legislation that will make smoking in public buildings unacceptable across the board. We are now asking municipalities and communities to take that step. If we are going to demonstrate leadership in the coming months and years, that we as a Legislature are going to have to deal with that issue soon. Thank you.

Further Return To Question 380-14(5): Smoking Cessation Programs In The Nwt
Question 380-14(5): Smoking Cessation Programs In The Nwt
Item 6: Oral Questions

Page 1081

The Speaker

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 380-14(5): Smoking Cessation Programs In The Nwt
Question 380-14(5): Smoking Cessation Programs In The Nwt
Item 6: Oral Questions

Page 1081

Bill Braden

Bill Braden Great Slave

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Finally, Mr. Speaker, along with getting support from our partners in other municipalities, what other measures can we bring to bear to prevent people from starting to smoke and to help them kick the habit? Thank you.

Supplementary To Question 380-14(5): Smoking Cessation Programs In The Nwt
Question 380-14(5): Smoking Cessation Programs In The Nwt
Item 6: Oral Questions

Page 1081

The Speaker

Thank you, Mr. Braden. The honourable Minister responsible for the Department of Health and Social Services, Mr. Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 380-14(5): Smoking Cessation Programs In The Nwt
Question 380-14(5): Smoking Cessation Programs In The Nwt
Item 6: Oral Questions

Page 1081

Michael Miltenberger

Michael Miltenberger Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As we have discussed with these last few questions and answers, there is a host of initiatives underway. The biggest issue is going to be to make it unacceptable, to make people recognize the incredible health risks that smoking causes, that it causes to pregnant mothers, that it causes to children, and the terrible impact that second-hand smoke has, which people tend to ignore or not consider an issue. It is very significant. There have been some recent court cases where there have been substantial settlements based on the results of second-hand smoke, so that we have to keep making the case on the front end, the prevention side, the education, being a role model, and keep up that issue, or keep up that approach in dealing with this issue. Thank you.

Further Return To Question 380-14(5): Smoking Cessation Programs In The Nwt
Question 380-14(5): Smoking Cessation Programs In The Nwt
Item 6: Oral Questions

Page 1081

The Speaker

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Item 6, oral questions. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Jane Groenewegen

Jane Groenewegen Hay River South

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Health and Social Services, and somewhat in follow-up to the questions that Mr. Delorey was asking yesterday on the medical co-payment. I had spoken about that previously in the Legislature and today in my statement, I talked about our full complement of physicians, but Hay Riverites are still required to travel to various places to receive treatment and physiotherapy and have babies and do other sorts of things. It is a $250 co-payment each time they are required to travel. With some illnesses, you might have to travel numerous times, and some treatments.

Mr. Speaker, we had spoken to the Minister previously about some kind of a group insurance policy that would cover people who are not already covered for medical travel and pharmaceuticals. There is just a relatively small group of people who are not covered by their employer, or by their First Nation status. I would like to know if the department has checked into that yet. Thank you.

The Speaker

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Minister responsible for the Department of Health and Social Services, Mr. Miltenberger.

Return To Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Item 6: Oral Questions

Page 1081

Michael Miltenberger

Michael Miltenberger Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As we move towards completing the review of supplementary health programs, that option and any other creative option that we can come up with is being considered, as we try to deal with a way to make sure there are no gaps in the service delivery and that any particular part of our society and the people we represent are disadvantaged because of policies that we currently have. Thank you.

Return To Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Item 6: Oral Questions

Page 1081

The Speaker

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Supplementary To Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Item 6: Oral Questions

Page 1081

Jane Groenewegen

Jane Groenewegen Hay River South

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When the Minister talks about looking at supplemental health benefits then, is this particular item that I mentioned, the concept of a group plan policy that people who are not covered by other means could pay a premium and belong to this larger group? Is that the specific item that is being considered in that review? Thank you.

Supplementary To Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Item 6: Oral Questions

Page 1081

The Speaker

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Minister responsible for the Department of Health and Social Services, Mr. Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Item 6: Oral Questions

Page 1081

Michael Miltenberger

Michael Miltenberger Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, that option, among others, have been items that I have discussed as Minister with department officials. We always have to keep in mind, as the Member knows, that we get about $1 million back from the federal government under the non-insured health benefits, so that the approach we take has to be carefully thought-out so that we do not jeopardize some other funding that we have come to depend on in terms of providing services, but yes, it is. Thank you.

Further Return To Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Item 6: Oral Questions

Page 1081

The Speaker

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Supplementary To Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Item 6: Oral Questions

Page 1082

Jane Groenewegen

Jane Groenewegen Hay River South

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So has there been any contact made by the department with companies such as Blue Cross or Green Shield or any of these companies that provide health care insurance? Has there been any initial contact made with them to see if this is even a possibility? Thank you.

Supplementary To Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Item 6: Oral Questions

Page 1082

The Speaker

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Minister responsible for the Department of Health and Social Services, Mr. Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Item 6: Oral Questions

Page 1082

Michael Miltenberger

Michael Miltenberger Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with Blue Cross on some of the medical benefits that we do provide. We have no final answer, and there has not been, as far as I know, a very broad survey, but it is going to be nailed down as we move to a conclusion of this review. Thank you.

Further Return To Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Item 6: Oral Questions

Page 1082

The Speaker

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Final, final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Supplementary To Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Item 6: Oral Questions

Page 1082

Jane Groenewegen

Jane Groenewegen Hay River South

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In preparation for consideration of such a group plan, could the department undertake to at least identify how many people in the Northwest Territories could benefit from such a plan? How many people out there right now are not covered by either employers or First Nation benefits? Thank you.

Supplementary To Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Item 6: Oral Questions

Page 1082

The Speaker

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Minister responsible for the Department of Health and Social Services, Mr. Miltenberger.

Further Return To Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Item 6: Oral Questions

Page 1082

Michael Miltenberger

Michael Miltenberger Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, that is a very reasonable and appropriate question and we will make sure that it is considered as we look at quantifying that particular issue. If we are going to look at creative options we have to know the number of people to be served. That is going to be done. Thank you.

Further Return To Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Question 381-14(5): Medical Travel Co-payments
Item 6: Oral Questions

Page 1082

The Speaker

Thank you, Mr. Minister. The time for oral questions is over. Item 7, written questions. Item 8, returns to written questions. Item 9, replies to the opening address. Item 10, petitions. Item 11, reports of standing and special committees. The honourable Member for Yellowknife South, Mr. Bell.

Committee Report 10-14(5): Report On Bill 1: Human Rights Act
Item 11: Reports Of Standing And Special Committees

October 21st, 2002

Page 1082

Brendan Bell

Brendan Bell Yellowknife South

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Standing Committee on Social Programs is pleased to report on its review of Bill 1, Human Rights Act.

Instituting a comprehensive human rights organization is fundamental to the prevention of discrimination and promotion of equality in our society. Human rights legislation plays a key role in promoting respect, dignity and equal participation of all our citizens. It is a statement on our commitment to international human rights instruments and it is the vehicle through which we promote and enhance equal opportunity for individuals by focusing on the elimination of discrimination.

With the exception of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, every jurisdiction in Canada has enacted comprehensive human rights legislation to protect citizens from discrimination. Currently, the Fair Practices Act governs human rights protections in our jurisdiction. A review of the Fair Practices Act demonstrates that the current regime in the NWT is far from comprehensive. As a result, the Northwest Territories has not received an exemption under section 66 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which means that the federal legislation continues to apply in the NWT. For instance, Mr. Speaker, many provisions in the Canadian Human Rights Act govern employees of the Government of the Northwest Territories.

The Fair Practices Act's deficiencies have provided the impetus for the introduction of Bill 1, Human Rights Act. The proposed human rights legislation creates a comprehensive code for human rights promotion and protection in the Territory. It now defines discrimination, offers greater protection through the expansion of the "prohibited grounds", is wider in its application than its predecessor and creates a Human Rights Commission to deal with complaints.

In particular, Bill 1 creates a legislative scheme to address discrimination in the delivery of services, employment, tenancy agreements, and other important areas of everyday life. By expanding the prohibited grounds and through the creation of the Human Rights Commission and the adjudication panel, Bill 1 brings the NWT up-to-date in human rights protection.

Background to Bill 1, Human Rights Act Review Process

Bill 1, Human Rights Act received second reading in the Legislative Assembly on February 22, 2002 and was referred to the Standing Committee on Social Programs for review.

Prior to this however, the development of a Human Rights Act was the focus of significant consultations by the Department of Justice. The department advised us that in September and October 2000 a preliminary discussion paper on a Human Rights Act for the Northwest Territories was widely distributed for discussion and comment. This document was sent to 16 organizations that were thought to have an active interest in human rights issues and it was further distributed to 38 aboriginal organizations across the Territories. In November 2000 the first draft of the Human Rights Act was tabled in the Legislative Assembly.

Following this, a brochure on the tabled act, as well as the draft bill itself were again broadly distributed to an expanded list of the interested parties. This list included 115 individuals and organizations, including aboriginal governments, non-governmental organizations, band councils and municipal councils.

In the summer of 2001 community consultations were conducted on behalf of the Department of Justice in ten communities. As well, specific consultation meetings were conducted with approximately 30 representatives of municipal, aboriginal, labour and other organizations and societies.

As a result of the input received from these consultations, changes were made to the act, including:

  • • It was requested that a definition of what constitutes discrimination be included in the act. As a result, a number of interpretative sections were added on this point;
  • • It was recommended that a duty to accommodate be included in Bill 1 so that all individuals have the capacity to have their needs accommodated without discrimination based on one of the prohibited grounds. The revised bill makes specific reference to the duty to accommodate in several sections of the act;
  • • It was recommended that the director of human rights need not be a lawyer and this change was incorporated into the existing draft;
  • • Mr. Speaker, it was suggested that the application of the act be extended to include domestic workers. The current Fair Practices Act does not include protections for domestic workers; Bill 1 has been revised to provide domestic workers with the same protection as all other workers covered by the act; and
  • • There was concern that the original draft provided the director of human rights with too much authority. In response, in the revised bill the director is no longer a member of the Human Rights Commission but sits as secretary, is answerable to the commission and answerable procedurally through the appeal process.

These are but a few of the recommendations which were received, assessed and in many instances added to the bill before the legislation was introduced and referred to the committee for consideration.

Mr. Speaker, the task of the Standing Committee on Social Programs was to review Bill 1 in the context of human rights legislation across the country, and in particular to hear the views and suggestions of residents of the Northwest Territories.

Months prior to the hearings we contacted non-governmental organizations, communities, aboriginal governments and organizations in writing to invite all interested parties to participate in our review and provide their input.

Advertisements outlining our proposed review process and soliciting comments from all Northerners were placed in all northern newspapers in April 2002 and again in July 2002. Public service announcements and media advisories were also broadcast in advance of the public hearing dates in each location.

To prepare for the public hearings, the Standing Committee on Social Programs met on several occasions to discuss background research material. The standing committee conducted public hearings on Bill 1 in Inuvik, Fort Smith and Yellowknife from September 4 to September 12, 2002.

While the number of responses and submissions were less than anticipated, the standing committee was impressed with the quality and depth of the presentations and written submissions presented to us.

Preamble

Mr. Speaker, the committee considered whether the preamble should be amended to refer to the international agreements entered into by Canada on equality and on human rights.

The preamble provides the public with an indication of the purpose and the objectives of the legislation. It can also be used as an interpretative tool to assist decision-makers in their application of the statute.

During public hearings, presenters requested that the preamble be amended to recognize the international agreements to which Canada is a signatory. While most presenters were pleased with the current reference to United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, a few of them felt that it was not a sufficient statement on our government's commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights.

Suggestions included expanding the preamble to make reference to the various international instruments on human rights, and to include language that makes it clear that the Legislative Assembly is responsible for human rights in the Northwest Territories. The committee was also asked to clarify the role of aboriginal rights in our society.

Mr. Speaker, the committee suggested an amendment to the preamble to provide for more inclusive language, which makes clear links between the rights protected by the legislation and the responsibilities of our society to protect those rights.

The committee put forward a motion to amend the preamble. The motion passed and received approval of the Minister of Justice. Consequently, the preamble has been amended to reflect the goals set out above.

Mr. Speaker, with your concurrence I would like to turn it over to Mr. Dent.

Committee Report 10-14(5): Report On Bill 1: Human Rights Act
Item 11: Reports Of Standing And Special Committees

Page 1083

The Speaker

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Dent, carry on.

Committee Report 10-14(5): Report On Bill 1: Human Rights Act
Item 11: Reports Of Standing And Special Committees

Page 1083

Charles Dent

Charles Dent Frame Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Aboriginal Rights

Many presenters appearing before the committee were concerned about the impact of Bill 1 on aboriginal rights and land claims agreements. Significant concern arose over the applicability of the Human Rights Act to aboriginal communities, and in particular about the scope of clause 2. Many presenters did not view the protection of individual rights in human rights legislation as automatically conflicting with the collective rights of aboriginal peoples; however, they wanted some assurance that aboriginal rights would be protected in the presence of such a conflict.

The Constitution Act, 1982 provides constitutional protection to aboriginal rights and treaty rights in Canada. Clause 2 of the Human Rights Act provides

"Nothing in the Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection of existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in clause 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982"

The Yukon Human Rights Act provides similar protection to aboriginal rights. Both Bill 1 and the Yukon Human Rights Act attempt to satisfy public concerns about the impact of human rights legislation on aboriginal rights in each territory. Notably, the constitutional protections contained in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the applicable case law make it clear that provinces and territories cannot affect the constitutional rights of aboriginal peoples in Canada.

It was generally understood that clause 2 was intended to be a non-derogation clause to protect aboriginal rights; however, its application remains unclear. While most presenters were supportive of Bill 1, they are concerned about the extent to which the collective rights of aboriginal peoples conflict with individual rights. Two other presenters, for the same reason, did not support the legislation at all.

Mr. Speaker, presenters commented on the fundamental differences in the approach to "rights" amongst aboriginal communities and non-aboriginal communities in the Northwest Territories. Bill Erasmus, National Chief of the Dene Nation, explained how aboriginal rights are tied to the land and to the collective well-being of the community of which one is a member, whereas human rights legislation is based on the rights of the individual. Mr. Erasmus expressed general support of Bill 1; however, he questioned why the wording in clause 2 differs from that used in clause 3, which deals with rights and privileges associated with denominational schools in the territory.

Chief Erasmus is also concerned about how the Human Rights Act will apply to future aboriginal governments. He encouraged the committee to create flexible legislation that anticipates the creation of future aboriginal self-government arrangements. Noting that future aboriginal governments may want the Human Rights Act to apply, Mr. Erasmus sought clarification on the applicability of Bill 1 to current and future aboriginal governments.

Richard Nerysoo of Inuvik expressed concern that the government may use the Human Rights Act to undermine land claims agreements despite the inclusion of clause 2. He urged the Legislative Assembly to ensure that it is serious about not abrogating or derogating from aboriginal rights through Bill 1 or any legislation. Mr. Nerysoo supported the introduction of human rights legislation. He emphasized that his concerns about protecting the collective rights contained in land claims agreements should not be interpreted as a lack of support for the protections provided to individual rights in the Human Rights Act. In his view, collective rights are not a reason to override individual rights; both are interrelated. However, he stressed that the government must meet its land claims obligations, and that it should not use the Human Rights Act or any other legislation to undermine land claims rights.

Mr. Speaker, a related issue raised at the public hearings was whether Bill 1 could provide aboriginal communities with any assistance in the recognition and implementation of their rights. The committee heard about the struggles of aboriginal people for recognition of their aboriginal and treaty rights. The committee also heard that many aboriginal people do not believe that the government is living up to its land claims or treaty obligations, and people wanted to know if their communities could use Bill 1 to implement those rights.

Finally presenters wanted to know whether the Human Rights Act protected them from discrimination within their own communities, such as when some band members receive preferential treatment over others.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 1 is intended to provide protection to all people experiencing discrimination based on any of the prohibited grounds in areas of everyday life that fall within territorial jurisdiction. Aboriginal persons who feel that they are being denied access to services, accommodations or employment within the NWT can make a complaint to the new Human Rights Commission.

Due to the division of powers created under the Constitution Act, 1867, aboriginal governments fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Bill 1 is territorial legislation and does not apply to aboriginal governments. For instance, because band councils fall under federal jurisdiction Bill 1 will not apply. However, anyone experiencing discrimination in areas of public life that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government can seek assistance from the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The committee sought clarification from the Minister of Justice on the underlying purpose of clause 2. Through our discussions, it is evident that the purpose of clause 2 is to provide a clear statement that aboriginal and treaty rights cannot be infringed by the Human Rights Act. Therefore, clause 2 is there to let the public know that Bill 1 does not supersede existing aboriginal and treaty rights. The protection afforded by clause 2 is not "frozen in time", but rather is intended to extend to future aboriginal and treaty rights.

Mr. Speaker, the Human Rights Act does not provide aboriginal communities a vehicle to enforce their existing aboriginal rights, nor does it provide a mechanism for the recognition of rights not yet realized. The committee encourages the government and aboriginal communities to work together to ensure the full implementation of aboriginal and treaty rights in the NWT.

In response to these concerns, the preamble of Bill 1 has been amended to recognize and affirm the protection of aboriginal and treaty rights in the Northwest Territories.

Disability

Mr. Speaker, the definition of disability in Bill 1 was the subject of much discussion. The committee is concerned that the current definition is not sufficiently clear with respect to the protections it creates. In particular, the committee is concerned with the inclusion of "perceived" and "predisposition" in the definition of disability.

Some presenters advocated for a narrower definition, while others sought an expanded definition. Others felt that a more clearly articulated definition is required. Elaine Keenan-Bengts, one of three Fair Practices Officers, was concerned because the current definition does not make specific reference to alcohol and drug dependencies.

A number of presenters thought that by providing a partial list of ailments, disfigurements and infirmities that the legislation is limiting the possibility of adjudicators and courts to recognize new and emerging disabilities. The representative from the NWT Council of Persons with Disabilities stated that the current definition would create misunderstandings because people may think that the list of ailments and disabilities in subsection (a) is exhaustive. She suggested that the committee consider using a definition that is similar to the one used in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Others felt that the definition of disability was too broad in scope because it includes "perceived disabilities" and a "predisposition" to disabilities. "Perceived" disabilities created some confusion; for instance, the current definition does not make it clear as to whom is doing the "perceiving".

Also, it was pointed out that the use of the term "handicap" in the definition of disability in Bill 1 is outdated and should be amended accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, the addition of "perceived" disabilities in Bill 1 is a reflection of the current case law on disabilities and its availability in other jurisdictions. Both Ontario and Nova Scotia incorporate perceived disabilities into their human rights legislation. Ontario's Human Rights Code includes disabilities that a person is "believed to have or have had". Nova Scotia's Human Rights Act applies to "actual or perceived" disabilities.

Recent decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada have affirmed the role of "perceived" disabilities in the analysis of what constitutes a disability. In Quebec (Commission des Droits de la personne et es droits de la jeunesse) v. Montreal (City) (hereinafter referred to as Mercier) (2000), the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the courts should adopt a multi-dimensional approach to interpreting human rights legislation. This requires courts to analyze disabilities from both an objective and subjective perspective. According to the court in Mercier discrimination on the basis of a perceived disability, whether there is an actual disability of not, will be considered unlawful.

The current definition of disability in Bill 1 reflects the principles articulated by the court in Mercier. With respect to the inclusion of "alcohol and drug dependency", the committee is of the view that the case law indicates that the current definition will be interpreted in a manner that includes addictions to drugs and alcohol.

The committee believes that changes are required to address some of the concerns raised at the public hearings. The committee wanted it made clear that the list of examples provided in subsection (a) is not exhaustive, and is there to provide examples of the types of physical disabilities contemplated by the legislation.

The committee proposed that the definition of disability be amended to clarify the meaning and scope of "perceived" and/or "predisposition to" disabilities and to make clearer that subsection (a) is not an exhaustive definition of the physical disabilities covered by the act.

Mr. Speaker, the bill was amended to incorporate these suggestions. The reference to "handicap" has also been removed from the act.

Analogous Grounds

Mr. Speaker, the committee considered whether clause 5(1) of the act should be amended to include "analogous grounds" of discrimination. "Analogous grounds" is another way of saying "similar or same" grounds. Adding it to the act empowers adjudicators to deal with complaints of discrimination that are based on grounds that, although not explicitly recognized in the legislation, should be prohibited because they are the same or similar to those currently listed in clause 5(1).

Both the NWT Federation of Labour and Egale Canada support the inclusion of "analogous grounds" into Bill 1. The committee heard that by incorporating analogous grounds into clause 5 the legislation would provide adjudicators with sufficient flexibility to recognize new grounds of discrimination as they arise. One suggested methodology is to amend clause 5 to incorporate the language from section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Presenters told the committee that the significant Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence in this area would temper the concerns over the uncertainty created by including "analogous grounds" in the act.

The committee raised this issue with the Minister of Justice. Through our discussions, the committee has concluded that including "analogous grounds" into the legislation is not appropriate at this time. We have concerns over how such a provision would apply, particularly over its impact on the private sector. Unlike Bill 1, the Charter applies only to government. Unlike the Charter, the NWT Human Rights Legislation will be easier to amend to incorporate new and emerging grounds of discrimination.

Therefore, the committee determined that an amendment to incorporate "analogous grounds" into Bill 1 is not essential at this time.

Social Condition

The committee considered whether the definition of social condition could be amended to provide for greater certainty in the application of it as a prohibited ground of discrimination. The purpose of including social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination is to protect those who suffer discrimination as a result of being a part of a socially or economically disadvantaged group.

The committee was interested to hear the views of the public about the inclusion of social condition in the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. The public consistently supported its inclusion in the Human Rights Act.

The NWT Council for Disabilities, the National Anti-Poverty Organization, Status of Women Council, Egale Canada and the NWT Federation of Labour were among the presenters who supported the reference to social condition in Bill 1.

Of the presenters in support of "social condition" being part of the act, a few of them are concerned that the current definition is unnecessarily narrowed by the requirement that the complainant be part of a "socially identifiable" group. The National Anti-Poverty Organization is concerned with the possible strict interpretation that this ground may receive from the courts, citing Quebec case law as an example of this narrow approach.

Other presenters are concerned that the current definition is ambiguous. One presenter was opposed to including "social condition" in the prohibited grounds because it creates too much uncertainty and is difficult to apply in practice. This presenter requested an amendment to refer to "net source of income" or "poverty" rather than using social condition.

One presenter requested that the reference to "illiteracy" in the definition of social condition be changed to "levels of literacy" to accord with current language used to describe deficiencies in literacy.

The addition of social condition in Bill 1 addresses economic inequality in the Northwest Territories. Its inclusion in Bill 1 places the Northwest Territories ahead of most other jurisdictions in Canada in protecting residents from discrimination.

The committee agrees that "social condition" is an imprecise term that will, over time, become unambiguous through interpretation by adjudicators and courts. However, the uncertainty created by its inclusion is far outweighed by the potential that the ground of social condition has to advance equality rights in our territory. The committee believes that other terms, such as "source of income" or "receipt of social assistance", do not sufficiently protect residents from discrimination that is based on the complex socio-economic factors encompassed by the term social condition.

Canadian citizens sometimes face discrimination on the basis of their socio-economic status in the delivery of services, rental accommodations and employment. By including social condition as a prohibited ground, the Northwest Territories is able to provide assistance to those suffering discrimination because of their membership in a disadvantaged group. For instance, a single parent with a low income and several children may be denied access to accommodations because of his or her status as a low-income single parent. Our legislation would provide a remedy to this person, if the other party could not show that he had a bona fide justification for the discrimination.

Although Quebec is the only jurisdiction in Canada to include social condition in its legislation, several jurisdictions in Canada do provide protection on the basis of "source of income" or "receipt of social assistance" or "social origin". The federal government, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and New Brunswick are the only jurisdictions in Canada not to provide some protection on the basis of socio-economic status.

More recently, however, the Canadian Human Rights Review Panel conducted an extensive review of the issues surrounding the inclusion of social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. In the end, the Review Panel recommended that the federal legislation be amended to include "social condition" as a prohibited ground of discrimination. After much consideration, the Standing Committee on Social Programs determined that the current definition should remain, with one minor change. Therefore, the committee is recommending as follows, Mr. Speaker.

Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Social Programs recommends that the reference to "illiteracy" in Clause 1 be changed to "levels of literacy".

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would now like to ask if my colleague, Mr. Braden, could continue with the reading of our committee's report.