Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Gender Identity

Mr. Speaker, under the issue of gender identity a number of presenters expressed general support for the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act. They also supported an amendment to the legislation to include "gender identity" as a ground for protection. Although the most detailed submissions on gender identity were from Egale Canada and OutNorth, many other presenters appearing before the committee expressed their support for extending human rights protections to include "gender identity".

The committee was told that protection on the basis of "gender identity" is required because of the discrimination faced by transgendered residents of the Northwest Territories. OutNorth described gender identity as "how one perceives one's sex", noting that many people feel that they were born into the wrong body. Gender identity is distinct from one's sexual orientation.

The inclusion of "gender identity" as a prohibited ground of discrimination in our human rights legislation will be a first in Canada. Notably, the Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel recommended that the federal government amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include gender identity in the list of the prohibited grounds. The panel cited the serious harm to those affected as a rationale for adding it to the federal legislation and recommended that the federal government recognize in statute what has already been recognized in case law.

Even though no other jurisdiction provides explicit protection on the basis of gender identity, some provinces do provide similar protection through case law. In particular, tribunal decisions from British Columbia and Quebec have interpreted the ground of "sex" in a manner that provides protection from discrimination based on gender identity. Ontario has created a comprehensive policy that allows for complaints to be made based on gender identity under the ground of "sex".

As noted at the beginning of this report, Mr. Speaker, the fundamental purpose of human rights legislation is to prohibit discrimination and to promote equality so that all members of our community can participate freely in everyday life. Recognition of gender identity as a prohibited ground of discrimination falls squarely within this purpose.

Although some have argued that this protection is already available through case law, the committee believes that it is more useful to be explicit about the types of discrimination the Act aims to prevent. Furthermore, by including it in the legislation, the committee believes that we are furthering the educative goals of the Human Rights Act.

Recommendation

The recommendation then, Mr. Speaker, is that the Standing Committee on Social Programs recommends an amendment to clause 5(1) and to the preamble to include "gender identity" as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Place of Residence

Under the issue of "place of residence", Mr. Speaker, the Status of Women Council requested that the legislation be amended to include "place of residence" as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The committee received a request to amend the legislation to include "place of residence" as a prohibited ground. The Status of Women Council reported that such an addition is necessary to protect people who are denied services because of their residency. It was argued that adding "place of residence" to the legislation would provide protection for residents who move from one community to another and who are denied services or access to programs because of their move.

"Place of residence" is not included as a prohibited ground in any other jurisdiction in Canada. Although committee members feel that there are some residents that may face discrimination in services, accommodations and facilities, we are concerned that including "place of residence" in the bill would detrimentally affect the ability of our government to administer regionally based programming.

Therefore, the committee is unable to recommend the inclusion of "place of residence" as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Language

Mr. Speaker, under the issue of "language", the committee considered whether it is necessary to include "language" as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Notably, the only jurisdiction in Canada to provide explicit protection on the basis of language is Quebec.

The Status of Women Council requested that "language" be added as a prohibited ground of discrimination in clause 5 of the Act. Their concern is that discrimination based on language is not sufficiently covered elsewhere in Bill 1.

After due consideration, Mr. Speaker, it is the committee's view that language rights in government services are adequately protected under the Official Languages Act. "Ethnic origin" has been added as a prohibited ground of discrimination, therefore providing some protection where the language discrimination is related to ethnic origin.

Political Belief, Political Association and Family Affiliation

In the area of political belief, political association and family affiliation, Mr. Speaker, the committee considered whether the protection against discrimination based on political belief, political association and family affiliation should be extended beyond employment to include discrimination in the provision of services and tenancy and other areas covered by Bill 1.

A number of presenters supported the extension of protection from discrimination based on one's political association or belief to include all areas of everyday life covered by the Human Rights Act. The Status of Women Council and others supported an equivalent extension for "family affiliation". The committee heard that some residents, particularly those in smaller communities, feel that they are being discriminated against because of their family affiliation. They stated that the discrimination they experience is not limited to employment, but also occurs in other areas such as housing.

The Status of Women pointed out that "political belief" is protected under the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Another presenter pointed out that discrimination because of a person's political belief or association can occur in accommodations, facilities and services as easily as it can in employment. The committee heard that by not providing protection in these areas the legislation is condoning discrimination in other contexts, including the provision of services or rental accommodations.

The committee understands that clause 7(2) was added to Bill 1 during the public consultations held by the Department of Justice. It is unclear why the protections from discrimination based on "political association" and "political belief" were not included in the general prohibitions in clause 5. The protection from discrimination in employment based on "family affiliation" is unique to the Northwest Territories, and has been included to address concerns over difficulties in small close-knit communities.

Seven provinces and the Yukon Territory include protections for political beliefs or associations. However, there have been few complaints made on this ground in those jurisdictions. Currently it is unclear to the committee why the protection against discrimination based on political belief, political association and family affiliation has not been included in the general prohibitions in clause 5.

Recommendation

A recommendation therefore, Mr. Speaker, is this. That the Standing Committee on Social programs recommends that clause 7(2) be deleted and that the grounds of "political belief", "political association" and "family affiliation" be added to clause 5.

Criminal Convictions

Mr. Speaker, to continue in the area of criminal convictions, the committee was asked to consider an amendment to clause 5 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of a criminal conviction that is "unrelated to the employment, service or accommodation", or alternatively that the current reference to criminal convictions "for which a pardon has been granted" be deleted.

Currently clause 5 protects residents from discrimination that is based on a criminal conviction for which a pardon has been granted. A few presenters pointed out that the reference to "for which a pardon is granted" is unduly restrictive because it does not protect people with a criminal record who have not received a pardon.

The Yellowknife Women's Centre told the committee that most people with criminal convictions are vulnerable to discrimination because they lack the necessary pardon. The representatives from the Yellowknife Women's Centre requested that clause 5 be amended to prevent discrimination based on criminal convictions not relevant to the job. In their view, failing to provide protection for all people whose criminal convictions are not related to employment leads to recriminalization of people who have already served their sentences. Furthermore, they noted that many of our residents (more so than in other jurisdictions) have had some interaction with the criminal justice system, resulting in a higher number of persons with criminal records.

The Status of Women Council advocated for a similar approach asking that the legislation protect from discrimination based on a criminal conviction that "has no bearing on the employment or service being sought".

There was some discussion over the accessibility of the pardon system to residents in the Northwest Territories. It currently takes over two years for the National Parole Board to process pardon applications.

The committee agrees that many of our residents may have criminal convictions for which a pardon has not been granted. However, we are concerned about the implications of expanding this protection to include criminal convictions "not relevant to the job or service". During our discussions, Mr. Speaker, we were unable to reach a consensus on this issue.

As noted in the report of the Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel, six jurisdictions do not offer any protection for persons with a criminal conviction or charge. Three jurisdictions prohibit discrimination on the basis of a pardoned conviction, while four others prohibit discrimination based on a conviction where the conviction is not relevant to the job or service.

While the committee does not believe that this issue requires us to hold off on passing of Bill 1, it is an important issue that warrants further study. Therefore, we make the following recommendation.

Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Social Programs recommends that the Department of Justice study the implications of expanding the current protections with respect to criminal convictions, and submit a discussion paper to the Legislative Assembly outlining whether or not it is necessary to amend the legislation.

"Hate" Material

Mr. Speaker, to the issue of "hate" material. the committee was asked to amend clause 13 to include "hate" materials and to extend the protection from discrimination in publications to electronic mediums. The committee heard that the publication of hate materials is harmful to members of our communities. The Yellowknife Women's Centre suggested that the committee consider adding a provision similar to that provided in the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code to prohibit the publication of hate speech. This legislation also extends the prohibition to include electronic and broadcasting media.

Currently British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Canada prohibit the publication of hate materials. The committee is of the view that it would be useful to extend the prohibitions in clause 14 to include material that is "likely to expose" members of our communities to "hatred or contempt".

Broadcasting and the Internet are both within the federal jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker. In particular, broadcasting falls under the authority of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, which has regulations dealing with the broadcasting of discriminatory material. The federal government is currently studying the regulation of hate speech over the Internet.

Therefore, the committee passed a motion to amend clause 14 to include the publication of "hate" materials.

Harassment

Under the issue of "harassment", the Committee considered whether the prohibition against harassment based on the prohibited grounds should be extended to include all forms of harassment.

A number of presenters made recommendations to improve the protections in clause 14. Several presenters requested that clause 14 be amended to remove the requirement that the harassment be related to a prohibited ground of discrimination so that it covers all personal harassment.

The Status of Women Council highlighted the devastating effects of harassment in the workplace. They pointed out that harassment comes in many forms and may not be directly related to a prohibited ground of discrimination. However, harassment not directly related to a prohibited ground listed in clause 5(1) is not covered by the act. They also requested that the act create obligations for employers to provide a workplace free from harassment, including providing education programs.

Other presenters suggested that the act explicitly refer to "sexual harassment" to make it clear that clause 14 prohibits that form of harassment. Another presenter suggested that a definition of sexual harassment be added to clause 5(3) of the act.

The committee agrees that harassment can be devastating and has detrimental effects on the individual in his or her participation in everyday life. However, no other jurisdiction in Canada has extended harassment provisions to include personal harassment.

Although the committee does not believe that substantial revisions are required, we do believe that the legislation would benefit from a definition of harassment. Defining harassment provides the public with a clearer idea of what conduct is prohibited.

The committee passed a motion to amend clause 14 to include the following definition:

"harass", in respect of an individual or class of individuals, means engage in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome by the individual or class".

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague on the committee, Mrs. Groenewegen, to continue reading the report into the record.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Adverse and Direct Discrimination

A request was made to remove the distinction maintained between direct and adverse discrimination in the act.

Recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on discrimination indicates that it is no longer necessary to maintain a distinction between adverse and direct discrimination. This means that discrimination analysis is the same regardless of whether the discrimination is direct or adverse in nature. The unified test for discrimination created by the Supreme Court of Canada is reflected in the legislation of Ontario, Manitoba and the Yukon Territory.

Therefore, a motion to amend clause 7(5), 8(3), 10(2), 11(2) and 12(2) to remove the reference to direct and adverse discrimination was passed by the committee.

Commission Composition

The committee considered several recommendations on the composition of the Commission, how Commission members should be appointed and what qualifications they should have.

In every community in which the committee held public hearings, we were advised that membership on the Human Rights Commission must be independent from the government and must be representative of the population of the Northwest Territories. Presenters consistently suggested that the Commission membership be representative of the NWT population; however they differed in their approaches to achieving representation.

Three presenters requested that the Commission should be comprised of 50 percent women, or that gender parity be a primary goal of the Legislative Assembly. A few other presenters advocated for regional representation on the Commission. The Status of Women and OutNorth both recommended that the members be selected from various sectors representing disadvantaged groups such as women, persons with disabilities, aboriginal people and workers.

The NWT Federation of Labour suggested that there be seven Commission members selected from specific sectors in the NWT. They suggested that the Commission be comprised of one labour representative chosen by the Federation of Labour, one non-governmental organization representative, one elder chosen by the Legislative Assembly, one aboriginal member and one Legislative Assembly nominee. The remaining two Commission members would be open nominees. They also request that gender parity be a goal in the selection process.

The committee solicited the views of the presenters on whether nominees would represent their "sector" or not. Most presenters who answered this question stated that Commission members were not there to represent sectoral interests, but to promote human rights in the NWT. However, in OutNorth's view representation would be best achieved by appointing persons with experience in being disadvantaged.

Several presenters requested that the term of the Commission members be extended to promote independence from the Legislative Assembly. The committee was also asked to amend clause 18 to allow the Commission members to choose their own chairperson.

The committee also heard that Commission members should have more than an "interest in" and "sensitivity" to human rights as required in clause 16(3). One suggestion is that the Commission members have experience with human rights issues within the diverse cultural composition of the NWT.

The committee believes that members of the Commission should not be chosen to represent particular sectoral interests. Rather, the Commission members are there to educate the public about human rights, to promote the objects of the act and to provide support for the development of human rights in the NWT. As Richard Nerysoo of Inuvik aptly stated, the job of Commission members "...is not about representing individual regions or groups, it is about maintaining and protecting human rights and ensuring that the process has integrity and independence, even from members of the Legislative Assembly."

The committee agreed that the qualifications of the Commission members should be more clearly stated in the Human Rights Act. The committee has recommended that having "experience in" human rights be added as a qualification in clause 16(3). However, the committee encourages the Legislative Assembly to take a flexible approach in determining what is relevant "experience".

The committee does not agree that more Commission members are required. Bill 1 permits the appointment of three to five Commission members, allowing for regional representation in the appointment process if desired.

The committee passed a motion to amend the length of Commission members' terms to four years. This will ensure that the terms of the Commission members will exceed that of the Legislative Assembly. Clause 17(2) has been amended to reflect this change.

The committee also passed a motion to amend clause 16(3) to include a requirement that the members of the Commission have "experience in" human rights. This change has been incorporated into Bill 1.

Clause 18 has been amended to allow the Commission members to choose their own chairperson. The committee recommends that the Commission members create policy guidelines with respect to the length of term of the chair.

Selection Process

Almost all of the submissions made to the committee requested that the Human Rights Commission appointment and selection process be transparent to avoid appointments being made based on "politics" rather than on merit. Several suggestions were made as to how transparency may be achieved.

The Yellowknife Women's Centre recommended that the Legislative Assembly create a hiring committee that would select Commission members. OutNorth suggested that appointments to the Commission be made from various sectors of the Northwest Territories. In their view, the Legislative Assembly should seek nominations from the disadvantaged groups that the Human Rights Act aims to protect to create a "pool" of nominees. The Commission members would then be selected from the pool created during the application process. Any subsequent members would be chosen from the same pool. Expressing concerns over the ability of the Legislative Assembly to choose a representative Commission, OutNorth requested significant public participation in the selection process.

The committee agrees with the public that Commission members should be representative of the population of the Northwest Territories. One possible approach is to create a "screening" committee made up of representatives of the Legislative Assembly and members of the public. This group would be responsible for accepting and screening nominations recommended for appointment to the Human Rights Commission. The committee believes that public participation in the selection process will enhance public confidence in the Human Rights Commission.

Currently, no other jurisdiction in Canada sets out the selection process in the statute itself. Although all jurisdictions have a similar appointment process as the one included in Bill 1, none set out the mechanisms by which Commission members will be chosen. The rationale for not including a particular selection process in the legislation is to allow the Legislative Assembly to create a flexible selection process to appoint members that meet the needs of the jurisdiction.

In order to ensure public confidence in the Human Rights Commission, transparency should be fostered through public participation in the membership selection process.

Recommendation

Therefore, the Standing Committee on Social Programs strongly recommends that the Legislative Assembly create an open and transparent selection process for the appointment of Commission members.

Powers of the Commission

A number of presenters requested that the committee consider increasing the powers of the Human Rights Commission. One such suggestion was that the legislation should provide the Commission with authority in the regulations to publish guidelines or policy statements on its interpretation of the act. The committee is of the view that the Commission already has the authority to create guidelines and policies.

Another presenter suggested that the Commission's regulation making authority be extended to include the ability to set standards for the promotion of human rights in the various settings. Presenters also requested that the Commission be granted the power to monitor the implementation of the act and to make suggestions for the amendment of the Human Rights Act.

Other key suggestions focused on the education role of the Human Rights Commission. Several presenters suggested that the Commission have the authority to engage in research for the promotion of human rights in the NWT. Presenters also requested that orientation programs to educate employers, non-governmental organizations and the public about the new legislation be added to the Human Rights Commission's mandate.

Egale Canada made a useful suggestion to extend the Commission's powers in clause 22 to enter into agreements with community organizations to provide outreach, research and delivery of programs. When the committee inquired whether the different community organizations appearing before it would consider delivering education programs, we were told that the community groups would be interested in doing it if provided with adequate funding.

It was also suggested that Bill 1 be amended to put all the decision-making powers into the hands of the Commission, rather than that of the director. The NWT Federation of Labour also suggested that the Commission, rather than the Legislative Assembly, appoint the director.

It is evident that the legislation envisages the Human Rights Commission as being responsible for promoting the objects of the Human Rights Act through education, hiring of staff, creating policy guidelines and acting as an advisor on human rights issues. The decision to provide the director with the authority to make decisions on complaints is designed to promote efficiency in the complaints process. Because the director is in a position to make decisions on complaints initiated by the Commission, the committee believes that it is necessary that the Legislative Assembly appoint the director.

The committee agrees that allowing the Commission to engage in research on human rights furthers the goals of the Human Rights Act. The committee also believes that expanding the powers of the Commission in clause 22(2) to contract with community groups to deliver education programs designed to eliminate discrimination or educate on human rights issues is warranted. Allowing community organizations to participate in the delivery of education programs potentially increases the number of people educated about human rights. It also allows the Commission to design flexible education strategies to meet regional needs.

The committee subsequently passed a motion to amend clause 20 to allow for the Human Rights Commission to engage in research that it considers necessary to promote human rights and eliminate discriminatory practices.

An additional motion was passed to amend clause 22(2) to allow the Human Rights Commission to contract with community organizations to provide for education programs designed to promote human rights.

Complaint Process

The committee considered whether changes could be made to improve the complaint process created in Bill 1.

Presenters made several recommendations on how the complaint process could be improved or made more accessible to residents of the NWT. The most significant recommendation was to create an arms-length independent advocate to assist parties through the complaint process. The arms-length advocate is dealt with later in this report.

The Fair Practices Officer told us that the proposed process is too complex. She cited the numerous difficulties experienced by southern human rights bodies, and recommended that the government consider using a format similar to the one currently used in the Fair Practices Act. Alternatively, she suggested that the committee consider using a "direct access" type model. The "direct access model" is one that provides the parties with access to the ultimate decision-makers in their case because all complaints are made to the adjudication body.

Another suggested change was that the legislation should include timelines within which the director must make his or her initial review and inquiry into a complaint under clause 30(2) of the act. Presenters also requested an amendment to clause 30 to reflect a commitment to protect the confidentiality of the complainant.

Some presenters thought that the director should have greater authority in the settlement provisions of the act. Clause 33 encourages parties to settle the complaint before adjudication. It was suggested that the director should have the power to "veto" settlements that do not promote the objectives of the act or that appear unfair. Another suggestion was that Bill 1 should incorporate clause 7.4 of the Fair Practices Act, which allows the Fair Practices Officer to continue a complaint even if the parties have settled where the Fair Practices Officer considers it in the best interest of the complainant. We were told that this right to continue a complaint would likely be used when a settlement appears to be unfair or runs contrary to goals of human rights legislation.

The committee is aware that the current structure and process required under the Fair Practices Act runs contrary to some basic principles of natural justice. The Fair Practices Act creates an office of the "Fair Practices Officer", with the Fair Practices Officer bearing multiple and often conflicting responsibilities. The Fair Practices Officer is responsible for accepting complaints, facilitating settlements, investigating complaints and, where necessary, adjudicating complaints. This overlapping responsibility raises significant concerns regarding administrative fairness and independence in the decision-making process. For instance, having the same person investigate a claim and deciding that a hearing is necessary, then also determining whether there has been a violation of the act, can appear to be unfair.

The committee is aware that other jurisdictions have considered modifying their human rights regimes to reduce costs and increase accessibility. With the exception of British Columbia, the committee is not aware of any jurisdiction in Canada that is shifting towards a "direct access" model. Presently, most human rights regimes in Canada have three primary functions: education, investigation and adjudication. The adjudication function is separate from the investigation and education roles of the Commission to promote compliance with the principles of natural justice.

In 2000 the Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel suggested an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to remove the investigation role from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and shift it to the Tribunal to create a "direct access" model. The panel was of the view that the tribunal should determine whether a complaint warranted a hearing or not. However, when making this recommendation the Review Panel explicitly recognized that a direct access model would require significant additional resources and result in greater complexity.

The model that is proposed in Bill 1 does provide complainants with some "direct access" to the adjudication panel. Clause 45 allows complainants to appeal directly to the adjudication panel for a review of the director's decision to dismiss a complaint.

The committee is also sensitive to the concerns about unfair settlements. However in the interest of promoting mediation and encouraging parties to agree to the settlement process the committee declines to recommend changes to clause 33.

The committee believes that our residents would benefit from a timely complaint process. Of particular concern to the committee is the delay in the processing of complaints experienced in other jurisdictions in Canada and at the federal level. The committee supports the creation of timelines on the director's initial review and inquiry into a complaint, but believes that such timelines are better set by the Commission itself. Once created, the Human Rights Commission will be in the best position to determine what is a reasonable length of time to process complaints.

Finally, the committee also believes that the Human Rights Commission and the director will be in the best position to create policies and guidelines to protect the privacy interests of all parties to a complaint. Currently only orders made by an adjudicator will be made public through the public registry created in clause 27(1)(b).

The committee passed motions to amend clause 30(2) requiring the director to inquire and review a complaint as soon as possible or within the time prescribed, and to grant the Commission the power to make regulations to create the timelines referred to in clause 30(2).

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to suggest that Mr. Lafferty carry on with this report. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pay Equity

With respect to pay equity, the committee considered whether pay equity should be included in the Human Rights Act or whether it should be the subject of a separate piece of legislation. Currently the Fair Practices Act provides for equal pay for the same work between men and women in the private sector. Bill 1 proposes to extend this protection to include all grounds of prohibited discrimination so that it is not limited to differences in pay based on gender.

As noted previously, the NWT has not been granted an exemption from application of the federal human rights legislation. Consequently, the pay equity provisions under section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act govern employees of the Government of the Northwest Territories.

Several presenters were unsatisfied with the "equal pay" provisions in Bill 1. They argued that the Human Rights Act should provide for pay equity. Pay equity refers to the application of the principle of "equal pay for work of equal value". Alternatively, Bill 1 prohibits differences in pay based on any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination for work that is the same or substantially the same.

The Fair Practices Act and the proposed Human Rights Act are premised on the principle of "equal pay for same or substantially similar work". The application of this principle requires that where a male employee and a female employee perform the same or substantially similar work, they are to be paid the same wages. Whether work is the same or substantially similar is determined by considering the skills, responsibilities, effort required for each job and the working conditions under which the work is performed.

Mr. Speaker, pay equity refers to the application of the principle of "equal pay for work of equal value". This principle is reflected in a number of other statutes, including the Canadian Human Rights Act. Equal pay for work of equal value acknowledges that women and men are often segregated into different occupations in the workforce, and are paid different wages based on that segregation. This means that there are jobs in the labour market that are predominantly performed by women, and others that are predominantly performed by men. Studies show that jobs predominantly performed by women are paid less than jobs predominantly held by men, resulting in a "wage gap".

It is believed that this gap in men and women's wages is based, at least in part, on the undervaluing of "women's work". Although there are a number of factors contributing to the wage gap between men and women, pay equity assumes that the appropriate way to address these inequalities is to address the inequality in the valuation of work performed by women. Thus, the focus of this approach is the value of the work performed.

Determining whether female employees are being paid the same as their male counterparts for work of equal value is a complex process. It requires employers to evaluate female-dominated job classes and male-dominated job classes and to assign a value to each job. The value of a job is determined through examination of the skill, effort, level of responsibility and conditions of the work. Once the jobs are assigned a point value, the female-dominated jobs are compared to male-dominated jobs of the same or similar point value. Wage discrepancies between the two groups are addressed through wage adjustments; however, only the female-dominated job class is entitled to a wage adjustment.

Mr. Speaker, the Status of Women Council argued that systemic gender discrimination in pay would not end unless the government adopts proactive pay equity in the NWT. They asked the committee to extend the pay equity provisions beyond gender to include all the prohibited grounds of discrimination. We were told that extending the protections beyond gender would facilitate the recognition of other valuable skills such as traditional knowledge.

The committee was asked to amend the legislation to implement proactive pay equity in both the private and public sectors. Presenters suggested that the committee adopt the approach taken in Ontario. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, requires employers with 10 or more employees to implement pay equity in their workplaces. Alternatively, one presenter, a small business owner, cautioned the committee from implementing pay equity in the private sector because of the significant costs associated with evaluating and comparing jobs. In his view, Mr. Speaker, pay equity places too great of a burden on small employers.

The Government of the Northwest Territories has informed the committee that it is working on amendments to the Public Service Act that would implement pay equity in the public sector. The government is of the opinion that because pay equity is a complex and a highly technical process, it is necessary to enact it in separate legislation.

Pay equity schemes can be proactive or complaints-based. Of the jurisdictions in Canada that have implemented pay equity, most do so by requiring the affected parties to negotiate pay equity in the workplace. Only Ontario and Quebec have implemented proactive pay equity schemes requiring employers to meet statutory standards of pay equity. The Canadian Human Rights Act, the Fair Practices Act and Bill 1, Human Rights Act, all rely on complaints-based systems. This means that while discrepancies in pay on the basis of gender are prohibited, employers will not be held accountable until a complaint is laid.

Most jurisdictions that provide for pay equity do so in separate legislation; therefore, many human rights statutes do not include these initiatives. Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia have all enacted separate pay equity legislation. The federal government and the Yukon are the only jurisdictions to have pay equity in their human rights legislation.

Of the six jurisdictions that have enacted separate pay equity legislation, all but two (Ontario and Quebec) apply to the public sector only. As a result, PEI, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have all enacted separate "equal pay for same or similar work" provisions in their human rights legislation or employment standards legislation. These provisions, Mr. Speaker, are similar to what is provided in Bill 1.

Saskatchewan has implemented the Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value and Pay Equity Policy Framework within the public sector. Newfoundland has implemented pay equity in the public sector through collective bargaining. Of the jurisdictions without any form of pay equity, all include "equal pay for same or similar work" in their human rights or employment standards legislation. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is similar to the standard provided in our legislation.

The committee is concerned about applying a "made-in-Ontario" model of pay equity in the NWT. Accordingly, the committee inquired with presenters whether they thought it was appropriate to apply the Ontario model to the NWT given the significant differences between the two jurisdictions. The committee also pointed to the problems that both Ontario and Quebec were facing with non-compliance, particularly with smaller establishments.

The responses received by the committee did not address the concerns raised. Many presenters were unable to offer any suggested alternatives to the committee on these issues. Furthermore, of the presenters that answered this question none were able to supply the committee with information that would support the inclusion of pay equity in the Human Rights Act as opposed to including it in separate legislation.

The committee is satisfied, Mr. Speaker, with the contention of the Government of the Northwest Territories that pay equity should not be included in the Human Rights Act at this time. We have assurances from the Government of the Northwest Territories that pay equity legislation for the public sector is forthcoming. We trust that this will be sufficient to warrant an exemption under section 66 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Acknowledgements

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Social Programs gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice officials in the review process.

The Standing Committee on Social Programs would like to thank all the individuals and organizations who made their views known to the committee at public hearings or through written submissions. The quality and detail of the presentations and written submissions demonstrate the effort and time dedicated to their preparation. The public input received by the committee greatly enriched the review process, and has resulted in changes to the legislation.

The Standing Committee on Social Programs gratefully acknowledges the exemplary service of its Clerk, researcher and Law Clerk throughout the course of our review.

Mr. Speaker, that concludes the report of the Standing Committee on Social Programs' review of Bill 1, Human Rights Act. Therefore, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for North Slave, that Committee Report 10-14(5) be moved into committee of the whole for consideration. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

-- Applause

Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 93(4) and have Committee Report 10-14(5) moved into committee of the whole for tomorrow. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker,

I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Nahendeh, that Bill 25, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 4, 2001-2002, be read for the first time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker,

I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Nahendeh, that Bill 25, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 4, 2001-2002, be read for the second time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill makes supplementary appropriations for the Government of the Northwest Territories for the fiscal year that ended March 31, 2002. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, that Bill 26, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 2, 2002-2003, be read for the second time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill makes supplementary appropriations for the Government of the Northwest Territories for the 2002-2003 fiscal year. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker,

I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Nunakput, that Bill 27, An Act to Amend the Elections Act, No. 2, be read for the second time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Elections Act to provide that persons who became Canadian citizens on or before polling day may vote at the election.

In addition, the bill also corrects two provisions that contain references that no longer pertain in view of earlier amendments to the act. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.