Debates of March 25th, 1999

Message From The Senate

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

March 25, 1999

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable John Major, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 25th day of March, 1999 at 5 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.

Yours sincerely,

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-11, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in order to add social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we had that interruption. It is nice to know that the Senate is actually doing something.

We have been talking about adding social condition to the charter as one of the conditions that we would no longer be able to discriminate against in Canada, although, again, I do not know how we would define social condition. There is no definition in the dictionary, so it is a hard thing to know exactly how to define.

This leads me to the second point which talks about judicial activism. I am concerned that by adding another category called social condition to the charter the lawyers are going to have a field day trying to interpret for the benefit of the judges and to have the judges rule on what social condition means. Will social condition be used to justify all sorts of interference by the courts into the lives of ordinary Canadians? How do we prove to someone that a social condition is a discriminatory act?

If we need to mail someone a letter, can we ask whether they have a job, or a mailing address, or whether we can do a background check on them? Would that be a discriminatory act? Is it somehow meanspirited and nasty to ask people to do certain things based on their social condition?

Other provinces have added social condition to their provincial charters. Almost without exception they have not been able to use it in the courts. It is so undefined it takes a lot of court time and a lot of imaginative work by the lawyers with very little constructive action on behalf of poor people themselves.

My concern for judicial activism is well grounded in recent decisions that have happened here in Canada. Judges have taken it upon themselves to write laws, reinterpret laws and rewrite laws on behalf of Canada and override the express wishes of the House of Commons. That is a bad trend.

We in this House have voted on the extension of spousal benefits to same sex couples. I think that is a good subject to debate in this place. We will hear good arguments pro and con. Regardless of a person's personal position on it or what they may say in debate, this is the place to decide those things. Instead the courts step in and overrule what was an express decision of parliament that I voted on in the last House. The courts say that regardless of what was done in the House, they are going to make that decision.

We in this place took a position on child pornography and said it is wrong for people to use and possess child pornography. Then a judge in my own home province stepped in and said, “I do not care what you guys said. I am going to interpret that law differently. I am going to strike down the child pornography ruling”. And the justice minister said not to feel so bad, at least it is only in my province. In my province, there is no law now against the use and possession of child pornography.

When judges choose to step in and overrule and make the law in huge decisions, like the Delgamuukw decision which has now tossed my province into complete turmoil on land use and aboriginal use of land issues, it causes havoc.

Within the Reform Party we believe that rather than allow judges to exercise increased and increasing influence in Canada, there needs to be a reasonable balance between the judiciary branch and the legislative branch here in this place.

Part of that balance means that this House should have an opportunity to be involved in the selection and appointment of justices, in reviewing controversial decisions by a judicial review committee, by ensuring that legislation has an adequate preamble as to the purpose of the legislation, what we are trying to accomplish with it, what we do not want accomplished with it and by having good definitions within the law itself and so on.

There are lots of ways to make sure the House of Commons is the supreme law making body in the country and that we do not turn over, by abdicating our role to the judiciary, the chance to unduly not just interpret laws but to actually make laws.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am a sad to advise the hon. member that his time has expired. All comes to a good and timely end.

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General that this honourable House attend him immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-58, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act—Chapter No. 9.

Bill C-61, an act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Pension Act, the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act and the Halifax Relief Commission Pension Continuation Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof—Chapter No. 10.

Bill C-65, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act—Chapter No. 11.

Bill C-35, an act to amend the Special Import Measures Act and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act—Chapter No. 12.

Bill C-76, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of government services—Chapter No. 13.

Bill C-208, an act to amend the Access to Information Act—Chapter No. 16.

Bill S-20, an act to amend the Act of incorporation of the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Mackenzie.

Bill C-73, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1999—Chapter No. 14.

Bill C-74, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2000—Chapter No. 15.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-11, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in order to add social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for Shefford who introduced this bill on the important issue of discrimination to the House.

In my opinion, the Reform Party did not understand this bill at all. It is totally wrong, totally false to say that social condition has produced no result.

Let me say that, since 1977, when social condition was added to the prohibited grounds of discrimination in Quebec's charter of rights, 21 decisions have been handed down.

What tangible results did this have? It was recognized that income security beneficiaries were a group whose social condition was special. The member for Shefford is saying that poor people have a special social condition. This, in my opinion, can be easily proven.

From the 21 decisions handed down in Quebec, the first province, I repeat, to add social condition to the prohibited grounds of discrimination in its charter, five extremely important conclusions were drawn. First of all, it was established that discrimination based on social condition is totally unacceptable and that people, particularly the poor to whom housing may have been refused, have a redress mechanism.

There are many legal precedents. There are many decisions on social condition. And they make it clear to owners that discrimination based on social condition will not be tolerated. Those who are refused an apartment, because they supposedly do not earn enough money as welfare recipients, have a redress mechanism.

Second, the inclusion of social condition in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights gave redress mechanisms to single parents. As I already said, the rich, the well off and those who are free from want do not need this kind of protection.

I do not understand why our Reform colleague would ask what useful purpose it can serve. In view of the plight of the disadvantaged, the legal precedents and the changes it has brought about, that kind of comment is totally uncalled for.

Courts ruled in favour of single parents. One case comes to mind, D'Aoust v Vallières. This was the case of a single mother who had been refused a mortgage to buy her first house despite the fact that she had an income of about $1,000. That decision was handed down in the early 1980s. Her mortgage would have been $300, which is what she was paying in rent.

Because she was a single parent registered for income security, the credit union—I will not name it but it was a credit union in the Quebec City area—refused to even consider her application, even though she could qualify as a home buyer.

Also, some decisions recognized that social condition included a criminal record, so the fact that somebody had a criminal record was not an acceptable ground of discrimination. In other words, social condition means something.

It means at least three things. First, it means education. It also means income, personal wealth, general capital and, above all, it means how people are perceived within the community, according to social class.

Who would dare claim nowadays that the unemployed, welfare recipients and single parents are not victims of stereotypes and prejudice? But what is more, and more unacceptable still, is the fact that such prejudice still has a voice in an institution like the Parliament of Canada.

I remind the House without hesitation that it is often Reform members who promote social prejudice. I do not say all members. Some are obviously very progressive, but a number are not. The remark made earlier by our colleague shows that he is unbelievably unenlightened, and I think his comments are unworthy of a member of parliament.

We should not forget that we do not live in a society where poverty is on the wane. We do not live in a society where the number of poor people is dropping. We live in a society where there are more poor people than ever.

A report by the OECD—not a report by the Bloc Quebecois or the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party—a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which is neutral, reminded us that Canada ranks third for poverty.

Our society is producing more and more poor and that is thanks to government policies. Among industrialized countries, only the United States and Australia have a worse record in this score.

What would social condition offer if it was included in the Canadian Human Rights Act? It would offer redress to have a number of sections in the Employment Insurance Act invalidated.

Which sections? Those who know human rights, those who know Canadian law, those who, like me, have read all the decisions handed down since 1978 know which ones.

That has led to significant improvements in the situation of welfare recipients and single parents. I am willing to bet that as soon as social condition is included in the Canada Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination, we will be able to challenge sections 7.2 and 7.3 of the Employment Insurance Act, which discriminate against labour force entrants.

Those who have never had a job and who make their first employment insurance claim must have 910 hours of work. They are the only ones who have to meet that requirement. This is discrimination. It is not equal treatment.

I am convinced that if challenges on the basis of social condition were allowed under the Canada Human Rights Act, those who are unemployed would win their case, because it must be recognized that unemployment is a social condition.

The same goes for sections 12.3 and 22 regarding maternity benefits.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

I agree.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

My colleague agrees with me and it makes me happy. That shows he has a progressive mind.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

I always agree.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

He always agrees with me. I want to say he is my friend.

We could challenge, based on sections 12.3 and 22, the 710 hours eligibility requirement for maternity benefits, since that requirement does not exist in other parts of the act.

I urge parliament to pass this bill brought forward by the member for Shefford, and I think we would help those less fortunate in our society by giving them the opportunity to challenge and obtain redress, based on social condition, because social condition is a reality. The poor are discriminated against, and we must give them the opportunity to take their case to a human rights tribunal.

I hope all members of the House, including Liberal and Reform Party members, will vote in favour of this bill.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, poverty is a recognized source of inequality and disadvantage in society. In Canada the federal government has lost or relinquished most of its capacity to support Canadian citizens and is creating a culture that puts far more value on wealth than on human values.

In the past Canada has managed to move away from discrimination based on gender or ethnic background, but today we are moving toward a system of discrimination based on wealth. On February 13, 1998, our party put forward the following motion in the House of Commons:

That this House condemns the government for promoting an economy where the gap between the super rich and ordinary Canadian families is widening, risking the future of our youth, and strongly urges the government to introduce in the coming budget measures ensuring every Canadian an opportunity to share in a new prosperity.

Figures tend to indicate that in today's economy a few are getting richer while the majority of the population is not getting a fair share of the wealth in our nation.

A recent report by the Centre for Social Justice indicates that the average income for the richest 10% of families in 1971 was $170,000, 21 times that of the poorest 10%. By 1996 Canada's richest were making 314 times the average income of the poorest.

Bill S-11 is related to a recommendation from the Canadian Human Rights Commission which calls for, among other things, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act that would outlaw discrimination against the poor.

Poverty is discriminatory enough. It prevents full participation in society and can deny adequate housing. It certainly affects educational opportunities and keeps a child in hunger. As Canadians we must not add to that litany by giving the poor no protection or recognition under our laws.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the case of Vriend v Alberta that:

The law confers a significant benefit by providing state recognition of the legitimacy of a particular status. The denial of that recognition may have a serious detrimental effect upon the sense of self-worth and dignity of members of a group because it stigmatizes them—. Such legislation would clearly infringe on section 15(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Code because its provisions would indicate that the excluded groups were inferior and less deserving of benefits.

Poverty is still not recognized as a source of inequality in society. It is true that attitudes cannot be legislated, but attitudes can be changed and can be challenged, especially when decisions such as denying a service are based on discrimination. We will support the objective of ensuring that poverty or social condition cannot be used as a reason for discriminating in Canada.

The NDP is a party that promotes an egalitarian society. We believe in the role of the state in supporting a fair and equitable distribution of the benefits or the wealth generated. For us, society should be a humanistic one in which all members are treated equally, with respect, dignity and fairness. The law must protect a large segment of society that is being discriminated against just because it is living in poverty.

I think it is important to note that the motion before us today gives us an opportunity to speak to the issue of poverty in this country. I believe that this week the Liberal government has finally admitted that there was a great deal of poverty in Canada, given that it is considering appointing a minister responsible for the homeless.

It is interesting that the Liberal government would decide to appoint a minister for the homeless. One would need to look at why there are homeless people in this country today. There are homeless people because there is poverty. I am pretty sure that it is not the rich who are living in our streets. There are very few rich street people out there.

We need to look at why they are in the street, why there are people in my riding who have to go to the food bank, why there are children going to school without breakfast. Teachers know that when such children go home after school, there is probably no supper for them either.

It happens in the counties of Kent, Westmorland and Albert just as it happens in Toronto, British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. We can pretend it is not there, but that will not resolve the problem.

The Prime Minister has appointed the Minister of Labour as minister responsible for the homeless. We are pleased he did, but we must note that no money or information resources came with the title. The minister was given a title. What is her mandate? What resources are available? Who will be working with her?

I also asked for a parliamentary committee to be struck. We know that, if the minister is to really do her job, she will have to review and criticize the policies of her own government. When they changed the unemployment insurance program, they made people poorer. People are not poor for no reason. There are reasons.

Laws passed in this House continue to attack the poor. There has to be someone to make sure that, when legislation is introduced in this House, no group is attacked by it. It is clear that with the changes to the unemployment insurance program the poorest suffered. That is clear.

There needs to be someone to make sure it remains. I hope the minister responsible for the homeless will have the tools and the freedom to change the policies of her own party. That is where the problem starts. She will also need a committee.

If no members of the opposition work with her, how can we be sure that her appointment is not just a title to hide behind? We must make sure that the Liberal government does not find a way to go outside the House and blame everyone else if there are homeless people or poor children in our society so that it is not held responsible. We must ensure that the minister has the tools and latitude she needs to do her job.

Bill S-11 is necessary. This week, I took part in a press conference with my Bloc Quebecois and Progressive Conservative colleagues and our views on this are similar. I supported them. I think that we must sometimes put aside all partisanship and use common sense.

When I see something that can help someone in difficulty, I do it. That is what I did this week when I supported the bill introduced by my Bloc Quebecois colleague. The Progressive Conservative Party joined in as well, but the Reform Party refused. That is often the case. We are having the problems we are encountering today because the Liberal Party is promoting Reform Party policies. This is causing a serious problem.

I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak in favour of this bill. I have no problem supporting it, nor does my party. We must start to pay attention to poverty, to the discrimination that takes place when someone is prevented from opening a bank account because they are on welfare. That is discrimination.

If an individual living in poverty declares personal bankruptcy, he will file for bankruptcy. That person will be told he must have $1,500 to declare personal bankruptcy. The majority of people living in poverty who declare personal bankruptcy do not have $1,500. But the service responsible for managing personal bankruptcies has this arrangement with the government, whereby the child tax credit can be used toward paying this $1,500 fee. The government takes that money out of the pockets of the family to give it to the personal bankruptcy service.

Once again, the children are the ones who are made to suffer when their family is in dire straits.

These are but a few examples of how much injustice there is in this country. I hope all opposition parties that object to the growth of poverty in this country will work together to make the Liberal government more accountable.

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Shefford who sponsored Bill S-11, asked me to convey to the House her deep regret at not being able to take part in today's debate. The member for Shefford who has become a leader in our caucus, a leader in the House and a leader in the country on all issues relating to poverty, was called away at the last moment.

I am therefore speaking for her when I thank all hon. members who have spoken to this private member's bill. Honoured as I am to speak on my colleague's behalf, I am equally proud to speak for myself about Bill S-11, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in order to add social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

As its title indicates, the purpose of the bill is to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act so that no one can be discriminated against simply because they are poor and to offer genuine recourse when such discrimination occurs, for example, when a landlord refuses to rent to someone on social assistance or a bank refuses to open an account for them.

In light of all the contributions to the debate on the bill, it seems that reservations about it are centred mainly on the following two points. One is the wording which has been criticized as too vague to achieve the desired results. The other is the need for wider consultation or an indepth review of the whole issue leading to a complete revision of the Canadian Human Rights Act. I would like to take a few moments to respond to these two objections before wrapping up the debate.

Many speakers have voiced concern about the wording. The term social condition is considered too general. Questions have been raised about the possible impact of too broad an interpretation of the term and the legal implications that could result.

While social condition may seem a vague expression to some, I want to point out that specialists in the area of human rights and the Canadian anti-poverty movement prefer it to all others. It allows for an individual situation to be interpreted on the basis of a whole range of social economic factors, unlike the word poverty which is deemed to be too narrow because it focuses exclusively on economic factors.

Professor Jackman of the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa said when she appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs:

To entrench a prohibition against discrimination based on poverty does not really encapsulate all dimensions of the type of discrimination which people experience. That discrimination relates not only to their economic circumstances, but to all the social and political sterotypes that emanate from being poor. Again, the advantage of talking about social condition rather than poverty is that, within social conditions, we encapsulate notions like source of income, receipt of social assistance, perhaps even the status of being unemployed. These are all conditions that tend to go together, but are not necessarily always together.

Even Canada's chief commissioner of human rights, Ms. Falardeau-Ramsay, the very person who would have to manage the legal repercussions of this addition to the Canadian Human Rights Act, has come out firmly in favour of the term social condition.

Incidentally in March 1998 Ms. Falardeau-Ramsay stressed with respect to this whole issue that human rights were indivisible, affirming that economic and social rights could not be separated from political and legal rights or equality rights.

Finally, those who have expressed concern about this choice of terminology should bear in mind that social condition has been used in Quebec's charter of human rights and freedoms for almost three years and was approved for more than a year by the British Columbia Human Rights Commission.

Moving on to the second point of objection to Bill S-11, we find it is primarily based on a perceived need to carry out an expanded consultation with more stakeholders before this addition is made to the act. We are told that it would be better to wait for the next comprehensive review of the act announced by the Minister of Justice several months ago.

I remind the House that the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs held wide-ranging consultations before the bill was passed by the Senate. It is possible that some points of view were not heard during the process, but there is no reason whatsoever to delay or prevent the passage of Bill S-11.

Interested parties who did not participate in the Senate's consultations will still have the opportunity to propose any amendments they consider helpful during the comprehensive review of the act.

By supporting this bill we can both correct a legislative omission that for many years has been the target of criticism from national anti-poverty organizations and at the same time bring Canada into compliance with the recommendations made in December 1998 and in 1993 by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

In so doing we will, among other things, be sending a strong message across Canada that in this country discrimination against poor people will not be tolerated. It is high time in my opinion that fundamental human rights should be respected in a country like Canada, especially the right to equal opportunity in life.

I would like to remind the House however, in the words of my colleague, the hon. member for Laval Centre:

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 thus has an urgent responsibility to take concrete action to ensure that justice is done to the most disadvantaged members of our society.

Regrettably, as my colleague, the hon. member for Shefford said in her original remarks to the House on Bill S-11, the general obsession with deficit reduction often impels our political leaders to take measures that add to the proliferation of laws and regulations, making it more difficult for the poor and blocking any possibility of their improving their situation.

This state of affairs confirms the popular belief that the people with the power to change things, i.e., the people who make the laws, often just do not realize the scale of the oppression and discrimination suffered by their fellow low income Canadians.

As my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East so justly remarked, “The greatest challenge for us is to get governments, not just the Liberal government but all governments, to examine their record and acknowledge their policies which have quite deliberately and consciously created increased poverty within Canada”.

We have an opportunity today as parliamentarians to do what needs to be done by uniting our efforts as we did in 1989 with the resolution on eliminating poverty. We can recognize social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination and include it as such in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

At the present time the act is neither clear nor consistent. While it aims at promoting equity for all Canadians, in effect it perpetuates the discrimination it seeks to eliminate by protecting only certain vulnerable groups.

The fact that the Canadian Human Rights Act does not include social condition among prohibited grounds of discrimination is an indication of the social and economic alienation of the poor and of their lack of influence in the Canadian political system. To correct this unacceptable situation, we must change our approach and look at poverty from the human rights perspective.

It cannot be said often enough. The prejudices the poor have to face in Canada are similar to those faced by the marginalized groups who are listed in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Yet poverty is still not recognized in law as a direct and dominant cause of inequality and disadvantage in Canadian society.

In conclusion, I call on all my hon. colleagues in this House to join me in rectifying this deplorable legislative omission by voting for this bill.

Also I, like others, would like to wish all members, our pages and our support staff an excellent and safe Easter break.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of Bill S-11 are deemed put and a recorded division is deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, April 13, 1999 at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

It being 5.48 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday, April 12, 1999 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

May I also extend to all hon. members very best wishes for the Easter break. I look forward to seeing all hon. members on their return on April 12, 1999.

(The House adjourned at 5.48 p.m.)