Mr. Chairman, I would like to give a little bit of a broader context for this question, as well, just to fit it in...well, to give you as complete an answer as possible. There are a number of grounds of discrimination under Bill 1. Some are quite clear, like religion, race. Social condition is new. It is not very clear. A definition was included to set out a framework for interpretation. Under the definition, the person has protection against discrimination if he or she is part of a disadvantaged group. The disadvantage has to be social or economic and result from poverty, source of income, illiteracy, meaning a lack of literacy skills, level of education or another condition that is similar to these. The definition is quite broad already. This is where the government's concern comes in with the change of terminology, because we would be the only jurisdiction in Canada with a definition. We are introducing something new into our law.

It is the government's position that if illiteracy was replaced with the words level of literacy, it could increase the scope that is already broad and have it further impact on employers. The meaning of the word illiteracy in the dictionary is that a person is not able to read and write. This is often going to result in difficulties getting employment. When one uses the words level of literacy, you are starting to get into the idea of different degrees of ability. For example, level of literacy could be interpreted to mean that a person cannot read or write at all, that a person could read at a grade 5 level, a person could read at a grade 8 level, a person could read at a grade 10 level.

If the definition is broadened, it could increase the scope of the duty to accommodate on employers. In employment situations, duty to accommodate means that an employer has to adapt work arrangements to make adjustments for people who come under a ground of discrimination. The duty says that the employer has to accommodate a person unless this would cause undue hardship.

I will provide an example relating to the duty to accommodate in the context of the words illiteracy, or level of education. Say, for example, you have an employee with a job in a company. The employee can read and write at a basic level to operate within that job. There is another job posted within the firm. It calls for reading at a higher level than the employee has at present. Now, the question becomes, is the act going to impose an obligation on the employer to do something to accommodate the person at the higher reading level? Should the employee have the right to complain under the Human Rights Act, if the employer fails to do something to give the person that job because their level of literacy is not sufficient to get the job at the higher level or a different job at a higher pay scale, and that is where we could see a difference between...possible difference in interpretation between the words illiteracy, which means cannot read and write, one would assume adequately to perform basic skills, and level of literacy.