|
PRINCIPLE TWO: TRANSFORMING BEHAVIOUR Putting the “Human” Back into Human Rights Discrimination is something that is lived and felt by Canadians in their daily lives. A person with a disability has to ask a stranger for help with a bank machine if the machine is too high to reach from a wheelchair. A woman is sexually harassed by her manager at work. An Aboriginal person is denied a job because of his race. A visible minority member is singled out for differential treatment. Key Question: In your experience, what are the best practices which will lead to changing discriminatory behavioural patterns? |
A human rights system needs to be able to answer two simple questions to be credible and effective: What does the victim of discrimination need to begin healing? And what will make the person or the organization responsible for discrimination change its behaviour? The traditional reaction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and other similar bodies has been to turn to formalized processes to resolve human rights issues – investigation, an adversarial process before a tribunal and binding, formal remedies. However, formalized processes are not the only way, and often not the best way, to deliver what is just, fair and timely. The primary goal of a public body like the Canadian Human Rights Commission should be to establish what is and is not acceptable behaviour under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Then, the Commission should work with all parties to find the best way to repair the damage, deal with the issues that led to the discrimination and ensure it does not happen again. Procedures have to be highly flexible and creative. They have to allow for the active participation of complainants and people responsible for discrimination in finding solutions. They have to be accessible. They should include a range of remedies to repair the harm done to the individual and to address the root causes that led to the discrimination in the first place. Processes need to encourage the development of respectful relationships among the parties. Alternative Dispute Resolution Current Situation Under the Commission’s new approach to human rights, the focus is on finding solutions that are better able to resolve human rights issues and restore dignity. This idea is at the heart of the Commission’s approach to alternative dispute resolution (ADR), described in the section 2003: A Year of Change and Results. Proposed Legislative Change Key questions: Have you been involved in ADR? How was your experience? How will these proposed legislative amendments affect you? Should mediation become mandatory, and if so, in what type of cases? |
The Commission has already taken a number of steps over the past year to strengthen its alternative dispute resolution capacity and to ensure that the public interest is met throughout the ADR process. Areas for possible legislative, regulatory or policy change include measures to make the processes more efficient and effective, such as: - binding timeliness for conciliation;
- encouraging the development and use of internal ADR mechanisms consistent with human rights in federal departments, agencies and Crown corporations, and federally regulated companies; and
- introducing the option of binding arbitration.
PRINCIPLE THREE: A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM For a national human rights system to be credible, it must be available to all Canadians who suffer discrimination. This has been recognized by Parliament as, over the years, the meaning of discrimination has expanded to include new groups and new grounds. Aboriginal People: There are still groups of Canadians who do not have access to human rights protection at the federal level. In 1977, when the Canadian Human Rights Act was first introduced, an exception was included in the legislation preventing Aboriginal people who have suffered discrimination under the Indian Act from filing complaints (s. 67). This means that government action or action by band councils which flows from powers in the Indian Act are exempt from scrutiny by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Aboriginal people are the only people in Canada who do not have full access to a human rights complaint mechanism when they encounter discrimination. Until the exemption in section 67 of the Act is amended, they will continue to be unable to file the same range of human rights complaints as all other Canadians. Social Condition: There are also other gaps in the legislation that the Commission proposes be filled. Chief among them is the addition of “social condition” as a ground of discrimination. Since 1976, when Canada ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the government has had an obligation to look at poverty as a human rights issue. In many respects, Canada has fallen short in meeting this duty. The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has commented on the persistence of poverty in our country for particularly vulnerable groups and has called on Canada to “expand protection in human rights legislation . . . to protect poor people . . . from discrimination because of social or economic status.” Key Question: What are your views on the addition of these proposed amendments to the CHRA? |
The Commission is therefore proposing that Parliament consider adding the ground of “social condition” to the Canadian Human Rights Act to respond to this need. Most provincial human rights codes include grounds related to poverty, such as “social condition” or “source of income.” The idea is that a person’s social condition must not be used to discriminate against him or her. For instance, financial institutions may assume that all people who have low paying jobs are an unacceptable risk for a loan. Or, an employer may impose unnecessary job requirements that deny employment to capable people who have low literacy skills as a result of their social disadvantage. In the past, it has been proposed that “social condition” be added to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). In addition, the CHRA Review Panel recommended a number of other precisions to the grounds, including clarification of the definition of disability, prohibition of mandatory retirement and the addition of gender identity, among others. It was also proposed that references to international human rights standards be added to the preamble and that the Commission be given the mandate to report on the government’s domestic implementation of its international human rights treaty obligations. The Commission supports these legislative changes.
|
Printable Version
Email This Page
