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.