Eleni Bakopanos

[Flag Day, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, next Monday is flag day.

On February 15, 1965, Canadians watched with pride as our new maple leaf flag was raised for the first time on Parliament Hill. Thirty-four years later we are still proud as the flag has become an important symbol for all Canadians.

Throughout our history, the maple leaf has always been a solemn symbol of the values that unite Canadians. The flag pays tribute to all Canadian men and women, irrespective of race, language, beliefs or opinions, who have built this magnificent country of ours.

As a first generation Canadian, the flag has always represented to me the opportunity that is available to all Canadians including the privilege of being elected to the House where the flag was first conceived.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by stating that contrary to what was said, the Minister of Justice strongly endorses the premise of Bill S-11 and the hon. member's desire to take a concrete step forward to assist the poor in Canada.

To be denied services, accommodation or employment because one is poor is totally unacceptable in Canada and totally unacceptable by this government.

All Canadians are justifiably proud of their human rights protection. We believe strongly in the inherent worth and dignity of each member of society. If we are serious about protecting the poor, I believe we should do it right.

This government will soon be announcing a comprehensive review of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This review will give us the opportunity to look very seriously at how we can best enhance human rights protection for the poor in this country.

If we really wish to ensure adequate human rights protection for all Canadians, then we must proceed in a thoughtful and principled manner. We need to look at what human rights need to be protected and how they can be protected in the federal sector. In our opinion, this can best be done in the context of examining the Canadian Human Rights Act as a whole.

The present government is proud of its human rights achievements. We amended the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and we brought in legislation requiring that all victims of discrimination be accommodated.

Recently, we passed a bill to facilitate the integration of the disabled into the criminal justice system. We also increased compensation to victims of human rights discrimination and improved the structure of the human rights tribunal. We have brought about advances in the protection of human rights in Canada.

Our government's efforts to improve the rights of the disabled recently won recognition. During a visit to the United States, our Prime Minister was presented with the Franklin Delano Roosevelt award, an award given to the country that has most advanced the rights of the disabled.

The government has improved the CHRA in a time when some would limit or dismantle the protection given to the most vulnerable in our society. The Minister of Justice is not content to rest on these improvements. She is committed to an examination of the act in its entirety.

In September the auditor general indicated, first, that the current act needed to be modified to better serve Canadians and, second, that the Canadian Human Rights Commission needed updating in order to process complaints more efficiently.

These are some recommendations that merit a careful review. We understand that there are other concerns that also need to be addressed. This is why the Minister of Justice will soon be announcing the process for the comprehensive review. It is because we are launching the review that I am saying let us wait for the review to examine how we can best prevent discrimination against the poor.

It seems curious that we would begin to launch into examination of the prohibited grounds of discrimination under the CHRA on the eve of a more fulsome review of all aspects of the legislation. To simply add a new ground that is not well understood and may not produce the results that we all desire will not help the poor.

An overly simplistic response in the absence of a detailed analysis on this very important issue could result in endless litigation. That is not what we all want. We want changes to policies and programs to ensure that the already disadvantaged in our society are not further disadvantaged by attitudes and treatments that do not respect the dignity of all members of the human family.

While we believe it would be responsible at this time for the government to expand the prescribed ground of discrimination to take into account the real needs of the poor, I would like to make it clear we are not suggesting for a moment that we do not need to ensure that the act provides protection for the poor. For example, I am well aware of the recent provincial report on homelessness released in Toronto known as the Golden report which clearly demonstrates the need to address many of the problems facing the poor.

At the top of the list the problems confronting the poor in Canada is the issue of affordable housing. I would like to discuss this problem in some detail as it is a problem raised by some of the senators in supporting the bill and by many of the witnesses that appeared before the Senate committee.

Without question discrimination and accommodation is a serious problem that must be addressed. Individuals on social assistance, particularly single, separated or divorced mothers, face many burdens in obtaining any form of accommodation. The Golden report documents that the face of homelessness has changed and indeed there are now entire families that are homeless.

An Ontario Board of Inquiry, the Human Rights Code, December 22, 1998 decision in Kearney v Bramale Ltd., questioned the rules pertaining to the portion of an individual's income that can be allotted for accommodation. This income testing rule was held to be unfair as it unduly limited the small pool of housing available to the poor. There is a wide divergence across Canada in human rights codes and the use of terminology covering discrimination against the poor.

In Ontario, for example, the Ontario Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination on the basis of receipt of public assistance. It is this ground, along with the grounds of sex, marital status, citizenship, place of origin and family status, which is used in the Kearney case to challenge the income testing rules used by some landlords to determine eligibility to rent an apartment and which has as its impact the effect of denying housing to many individuals with a low income. It should be noted that the existence of a social condition type ground in Ontario is limited to occupancy and accommodation situations.

By comparison, in British Columbia the residential tenancy act prohibits discrimination on the basis of lawful source of income. Yet it is interesting to note that these two provinces only use this ground to prohibit discrimination in the field of accommodation.

Let me continue to review the provincial human rights legislation on this issue. In addition to Ontario and British Columbia, which I have already mentioned, in Alberta the human rights and multiculturalism act includes source of income as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Manitoba and Nova Scotia have a ground called source of income. Newfoundland protects social origin. Saskatchewan protects receipt of public assistance. Yukon, Northwest Territories and P.E.I. do not protect any poverty related ground directly. New Brunswick on December 9, 1998, introduced an amendment to the human rights act to add social condition.

Overall we can see there is diversity in the use and application of the term social condition. For the most part the term is used to apply to situations involving accommodation. In the federal sector there is very little residential accommodation outside housing for military, RCMP or foreign service officers.

Adding the ground of social condition to prohibit discrimination in housing is not necessarily a practical solution as housing is primarily a provincial matter. In this it may be that in the provincial context that the ground of social condition may have a greater impact.

At the present time, Quebec is the only province to ban discrimination on the basis of social condition. It added this to its legislation texts in 1976. It would be worthwhile to examine the repercussions arising in Quebec from its inclusion.

The term “social condition” refers to an individual's place in society. This is determined by a number of factors, particularly family background, employment, level of education, and physical capacities. The connection between social condition and the discrimination must be proven. A cause and effect relationship must be demonstrated in each case.

Even in Quebec, where the definition of “social condition” is a broader one, the majority of complaints relate to cases where an individual has been refused accommodation.

In this province there has been a few limited cases involving employment situations. In the case of Lambert v. Quebec, ministère du Tourisme, the complainant was in receipt of social security benefits. He participated in a government work program that provided him with less than the minimum wage. To permit someone on social assistance to receive less than the minimum wage was held to be discriminatory.

Now let us turn to the federal context. As I have stated, there is less scope for discrimination against the poor in the context of residential housing as this field is primarily a provincial jurisdiction. However there are other issues that do need to be examined in the federal sector.

We have all heard from Canadians about concerns raised with regard to situations that may arise in the banking and the telecommunications sectors, although the banks have made more recent changes to ensure that low income individuals have better access to banking services. Groups such as the National Anti-Poverty Organization have alleged that the banks may in certain situations discriminate against the poor. I am not in a position to judge or even comment on these allegations.

However, before we can amend the law we need to know the exact nature of the problem and how and whether we can resolve it with the human rights legislation. In other words the government is proposing a comprehensive review of the Canadian Human Rights Act in order to make sure that we do it properly.

[Points Of Order, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday a question was raised by the member for Wild Rose regarding two cases involving sentencing of aboriginal offenders. I stated that these two cases were on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada when in fact there are two other cases. There was confusion in terms of the cases that were before the supreme court under section 718.2(e). One of these cases, R. v Gladue, has been heard and is on reserve. The other, R. v Wells, also involves conditional sentencing and has not yet been heard.

I want to also put on record that the sentencing judges clearly stated that although they considered the offenders' aboriginal background, this was not a factor that affected the sentences that were ultimately imposed.

[Points Of Order, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to clarify an answer I gave yesterday to a question by the member for Wild Rose. May I be permitted to continue?

[Justice, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my answer to the question still stands. The case is before the Supreme Court of Canada and I will not comment on a case that is before the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Justice, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, since the cases are before the Supreme Court of Canada, we will not comment on them.

[Justice, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the particulars of this case. Nowhere is it stated that a judge has to take that into consideration. He has to read the law and he has to interpret the law. I think that is what the judge did in this particular case.

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 3rd, 1999]

Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991. It should be noted that 191 state parties have ratified the convention. Article 43 of the convention provides for the establishment of a UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to review reports of states parties which have ratified the convention. As a party to the convention and pursuant to article 44 of the convention, Canada is required to submit a report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on the measures it has adopted which give effect to the rights recognized in the convention and on the progress made on the enjoyment of those rights. Canada presented its first report in 1994. The Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children, the coalition, also made a presentation at that time. One of the recommendations of the UN committee was that a permanent monitoring mechanism be established to assess Canada's compliance with the convention. In its concluding observation on Canada's first report, the UN committee stated that it is “concerned that sufficient attention has not been paid to the establishment of a permanent monitoring mechanism taht will enable a system of implementation of the convention in all parts of the country”.

The coalition approached several departments to secure funding for a separate, independant and impartial report which would represent non-governmental organizations' view point with respect to Canada's cpmpliance with the convention. Both Canada's report and the coalition's report will be submitted to the UN committee in 1999.

The Coalition for the Rights of Children ensures the collective voice of over 50 non-governmental organizations in Canada concerned with the rights of children, such as the Adoption Council of Canada, UNICEF Canada, Save a Family Plan, Street Kids International, CARE Canada, Child Find Canada and Child Welfare League of Canada, is heard. The mandate of this national organization is to monitor the implementation of the convention. In order to accomplish this task, it has developed a framework to measure the status of children's rights in Canada.

This framework will enable the federal and provincial governments to assess which prgrams and policies are effective and identify the work that needs to be done to promote the development and well-being of Canadian children. The coalition has been working on this project since 1995. Several departments have made a contribution to the coalition. The Department of Justice has been co-ordinating the funding since 1997.

(a), (b), (c), and (d): The Coalition for the Rights of Children received funding in fiscal year 1995-96 and 1996-97 to develop a framework to monitor Canada's implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The funders for this initiative were: Canadian Heritage, Human Rights, $24,750 and Health Canada, Childhood and Youth, $24,750.

The purpose of the project was to devise a monitoring process by establishing research indicators and identifying sources of information. The coalition reached out to the broader community to complete this initiative. The final product was only due during the course of fiscal year 1996-97 upon receipt of additional funding to write and produce a publication.

The coalition received funding in fiscal year 1996-97 to write and produce the monitoring project report and to disseminate the findings. The funding partners were: Justice Canada, Public Law, $25,950; Canadian Heritage, Human Rights, $45,950;and Health Canada, Childhood and Youth, $8,500.

The project resulted in the publication of a 45 page document entitled: “Canada and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: Developing a Monitoring Framework”.

The coalition received funding in fiscal year 1997-98 to develop Canada-wide information network, including key provincial-territorial correspondents, through conference participation and meetings. This will ensure that the monitoring of the convention is truly effective and accurate. The coalition is also in the process of conducting a review of convention articles in order to identify the issues and to determine methodology for data collection in order to commence the drafting of the report. The funding partners included: Justice Canada, Grants and Contributions Fund, $30,000; Canadian Heritage, Human Rights, $35,000; Status of Women, $30,000; Health Canada, Childhood and Youth, $40,000; Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, $8,000; Human Resources Development Canada, Office for Disabilities Issues, $20,000; and Human Resources Development Canada, Social Development Partnerships Program, $5,000.

For fiscal year 1998-99, the coalition is expected to receive the following amounts to collect and analyse data for the application of the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children developed framework to convention articles and to evaluate overall findings: Justice Canada, Grants and Contributions Fund, $62,000; Health Canada, Childhood and Youth, $45,000; Canadian Heritage, Human Rights, $40,000; Human Resources Development Canada, Office for Disabilities Issues, $25,000;and Human Resources Development Canada, Social Development Partnerships Program, $25,000.

The report is due in 1999.

(e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j): The Department of Canadian Heritage has funded the following projects related to the UN Convention.

In fiscal year 1994-95, the Society for Children and Youth of B.C. undertook a project entitled “UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—Promotion and Implementation”. Canadian Heritage provided a grant in the amount of $18,850. The purpose of the project was to promote the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to act as a provincial clearinghouse linking individuals and organizations interested in the convention and to explore ways of monitoring compliance to the convention to be carried out in fiscal year 1995-96. An interim report on the project has been filed.

In fiscal year 1995-96, Canadian Heritage provided a grant of $10,000 to the Society for Children and Youth of B.C. for the second part of the project. It was entitled “UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—Rights Awareness Project-Year 2”. In adition to the purpose outlined in the project for fiscal year 1994-95, the year 2 project also focuses on identifying mechanisms for monitoring compliance with the articles of the convention. A final report has been received.

In fiscal year 1997-98, the Society for Children and Youth of B.C. received a grant from Canadian Heritage in the amount of $20,000 for a project entitled “UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: Measuring Compliance of Policy and Practice”. The purpose of the project was to undertake research to develop a monitoring framework to measure the compliance of policies and pratices with respect to the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in British Columbia.

It should be noted that the society's model enables the development of an analytical framework and a four star rating system for assessing the compliance of legislation with the convention. These were applied to all British Columbia statutes.

The Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children's monitoring framework can be compared to a wide angle lens for assessing implementation of the convention in Canada, taking into account all aspects of the convention from legal to a public opinion perspective. The Society for Children and Youth of B.C.'s statutory compliance model and the proposed policy and practice models can perhaps be described as telephoto lenses, which presents the detailed picture in the areas of legislations and regulations, policy and practice. Integrating these two vistas would provide the basis for a comprehensive picture of the level of implementation of the convention in Canada.

A search of the files of the Department of Justice for the last three fiscal years reveals that in fiscal year 1997-98 the Department of Justice provided a grant of $10,000 to the University of Montreal, Faculty of Law, to write and publish a book on the rights of the child in Quebec, viewed through the UN convention on the Rights of the Child. This book will also contain a in-depth analysis of existing legislation, doctrine and case law and proposals for reform in light of the convention. The book will fill a void in the French academic tools presently available. The book is due out in 1999.

Question No. 184—

[Equal Treatment For Persons Cohabiting In A Relationship Similar To A Conjugal Relationship Act, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-309, introduced by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois—for the fourth time, apparently—is, I am certain, a sincere attempt to settle a matter of vital importance for gays and lesbians in Canada, which is that there is currently no recognition of their relationships.

The bill proposed by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois is, I am sure, a sincere attempt to address an issue of significant concern to gay and lesbian Canadians; that is, the lack of recognition for relationships.

One of the values that Canadians consistently identify as important in our society is the protection of individuals, including gays and lesbians, from discrimination.

We heard from Canadians that discrimination is not to be tolerated. Furthermore, polling results clearly indicate the majority of Canadians support providing the same economic treatment for same sex couples as heterosexual couples.

Bill C-309 proposes to create that same treatment by redefining spouse for all federal legislation and purposes. That is the point unfortunately on which I disagree. We have also heard from the ports across Canada that discrimination is not to be tolerated.

In 1995 the Supreme Court of Canada said it was discriminatory to refuse benefits to same sex couples that were available to heterosexual common law couples.

The court felt that this limitation was justified but only for a time. Since that time other courts have seized upon the more recent supreme court case that suggests these justification arguments may no longer be sound.

We have a problem that needs to be addressed, a problem that relates to equality and the elimination of discrimination. We in this government are committed to fairness. The question is how to bring about change responsibly and effectively.

We live in a diverse society and the Government of Canada must respond to the needs of all its citizens. For some time the government has believed the responsible course of action is to seriously examine its programs, policies and laws over which it has jurisdiction and take the appropriate steps to further equality.

The review of this matter has revealed that this issue does not lend itself to simple solutions or necessarily a single solution for all purposes.

We need to talk about more than providing similar benefits. There is clearly more to recognizing same sex couples than merely extending the same benefits available to heterosexual couples in federal laws and policies.

Fairness and equality for all Canadians requires that this matter be explored in relation to both benefits and obligations imposed by laws and policies.

My concern with Bill C-309 is that I am not convinced that we have fully explored the implications of a change to the definition of spouse sufficiently to know what will happen when each federal law has been modified.

Members may be aware of a recent charter challenge in the Ontario courts by a group that alleges the 52 federal statutes that refer to the word spouse or dependent are discriminatory because they do not incorporate same sex couples.

There are likely more than these 52 statutes and many more regulations and policies where the change to the definition of spouse proposed by Bill C-309 will have an impact.

There are also likely many other laws where there will be incidental or spillover effect. I must say also that it is not only the Minister of Justice who has to act but a number of other ministers within their jurisdiction.

Each of these statutes, regulations and policies must be carefully examined to see what is the most effective way of making changes. The one size fits all approach in this bill may not be appropriate in all circumstances, we feel.

There may be a variety of legislative approaches available. Some will make more sense than others in the context of each law and each statute and still provide us with a means of ensuring that same sex relationships are treated with fairness.

We must take the time to do this properly. This is not to say that the government has not already acted on some of these issues. For example, members will recall that the minister of immigration recently spoke of her new direction for immigration and refugee legislation.

She announced that in order to adjust to social realities and to ensure fair treatment under the legislation, the new directions are aimed to expand the class of individuals who may be sponsored in the family class and who may accompany an immigration applicant. This extended class will include common law and same sex couples.

Everyone recognizes the difficulties of this complex issue, that there are a number of ways of responding to questions being raised by Canadians. Whatever approach is chosen to ensure the relationships, we must carefully consider how to appropriately maintain a balance between entitlements and obligations, and between ensuring fairness in recognizing the realities of many Canadians while preserving the importance of the institutions of marriage to other Canadians.

This is not an easy task. As I said, is not only one minister who has to act but a series of ministers in the government.

I look forward to further debate on this issue after more careful consideration on how to balance competing considerations.

[Equal Treatment For Persons Cohabiting In A Relationship Similar To A Conjugal Relationship Act, February 2nd, 1999]

She is Minister of Labour.