The House resumed at 8 p.m.
House in committee of the whole.
HUMAN RIGHTS CODE (CONTINUED)
Resuming consideration of Bill 7, An Act to revise and extend Protection of Human Rights in Ontario.
On section 12:
The Deputy Chairman: We were just in the process of considering the amendment made by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) to section 12(1), which would be amended by inserting before the word "notice" the word "statement." The honourable member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) was about to say a word or two, and it would be very gratifying if she wanted to carry on. Otherwise the discussion is pretty well --
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, you will recall the honourable member for Hamilton Centre indicated that she and her colleagues in the Liberal Party will not support the amendment because she feels it interferes with freedom of the press.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. Is there any further discussion on this amendment?
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I can quite understand why the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk would make that statement, but I do not understand the reasons behind it. I very clearly tried to indicate the minister and I agreed that freedom of expression is not to be interfered with, and freedom of expression includes freedom of the press, freedom of the media to carry out their lawful responsibilities, subject to the law.
I would be very disappointed after the discussions I have had with the minister in committee on the question of hate literature if he were not prepared to accept this amendment. But I may say as we start the evening that I do not expect him to do so, given his rigidity over a period of time about this bill and given the fact that he has been frozen into a stance by the adverse reactions of the press. This seems to have made him totally incapable of accepting even the most reasonable amendments, let alone the most proper amendments.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, I would like to think I am adding a bit of reasonableness to the discussion tonight. I have always looked at myself as what Mr. Justice McRuer called a reasonable man. I like to think the amendments the government proposed are already reasonable and do not need the additions the member is referring to, although I have always valued the discussions we have had.
The issue he has raised in relation to section 12, as both he and I and other members know, has been an area of great contention not only in the press but among members of his party and members of all parties. Indeed, I recall reading some of his very own comments about the original section 12, which dealt with what we saw as some efforts to control statements and literature that were intended to incite others to contravene the code. I know he was disturbed by that, because he was quite vociferous about it.
I understand that. I went through the same process he did in reaching the conclusion I did that if we enter into the area of statements, then we do enter into the area where we infringe upon what is hate literature. I understand the limitations of the Criminal Code provision with regard to hate literature. But I hope he is flexible enough to agree with me: if the issue of hate literature in any specific context is to be dealt with, then it is an issue that should be dealt with, as the Attorney General in British Columbia has done, in a specific way with a specific piece of legislation. Surely that is something, should the occasion arise, that should be dealt with by the Attorney General.
I am not indicating inflexibility. I am indicating a sensitivity to the concerns that were raised about the possibility of impinging upon free expression of opinion. The revised section 12 is a response to the concern that the member and others have expressed. The government therefore feels, in the light of those legitimate criticisms, it must remain in its position that the section as rewritten is the appropriate one.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to read the amendment into the section without all the excess verbiage, for two purposes: to refute the suggestion that any statement of mine in this connection relates to an infringement of the right of a newspaper reporter to report information, and second, if the minister will listen to what I have to say, I think he will understand what I am talking about.
I have asked that this section read: "A right under part I is infringed by a person who publishes a statement that indicates the intention of the person to infringe a right under part I or that is intended by the person to incite the infringement of a right under part I." The only person affected by this section is the person who publishes statements that indicate the intention on his or her part to infringe a right under part I or that is intended by him or her to incite the infringement of a right under part I.
It was because of the obvious care that had gone into the draftsmanship that I cannot conceive for one single moment there is a vicarious responsibility on the reporter who would report a statement by a person of an intention to infringe a right under part I or to incite the infringement of a right under part I. I would consider it the duty and responsibility of the press to report any such statement, factually and accurately.
I would, as a second line, simply refer to section 12(2), which says that subsection (1) shall not interfere with freedom of expression of opinion. I cannot conceive that textually, from the point of view of the problem many of us face, that is not a totally reasonable amendment, a totally appropriate amendment and one in regard to which I will never understand, in the absence of an expression by the minister, where I am at fault in my understanding of what the clause says.
I do appreciate what the minister says. When I said he was being rigid and inflexible, that was not a reflection on his sensitivity. Underneath all that intellectual demeanour, I know the minister is very sensitive about these issues. But unless I am textually wrong, I think the amendment is necessary and appropriate.
8:10 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: I really want to make just one windup comment. I think the honourable member from Riverdale and I understand each other pretty well. Let me just read the original wording of section 12 which he and others had some concern about with regard to the dissemination of discriminatory matter. Let me read selectively, Mr. Chairman: "A right under part I is infringed where any ... statement is disseminated that indicates an intention to infringe ... or incites the infringement of the right."
The honourable member is proposing, again reading selectively, the revised section 12: "A right under part I is infringed by a person who publishes or displays ... any notice ... that indicates the intention of the person to infringe a right ... or that is intended by the person to incite the infringement of a right ... "
They are really very similar. That original writing of section 12 which caused the honourable member and others concern, I think still remains in the rewording the honourable member proposed. I think the original comments I made about hate literature and about the need to address the issue directly or any issue directly, as they have done in British Columbia, would surely be the proper approach. The honourable member knows full well the concern that was expressed about the original section 12.
I have no further comments, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Renwick: I am not asking the minister to make any further comment unless he chooses to do so. The problem with the original section in the bill, which the minister read and which I read before the dinner recess, was the term "disseminate." Defined under part II, section 9(d) in the original bill, the word caused very real concern to me, in the absence of any provision for protection of freedom of expression, but in itself was a very poor definition. Let me read it:
"'Disseminate' means to communicate or participate in the communication with another, whether directly or indirectly or with or through another, by whatever means."
That definition caused the original section 12 of the bill to be totally flawed. I was impressed by the fact that, in committee, the definition of "disseminate" disappeared and the word disappeared from the provision of section 12. We used the normal word "publish" and we limited it to the person who published the statement, indicating the intention by that person to incite an infringement or to indicate an intention to infringe.
These discussions always get somewhat technical. But the minister cannot leave the debate on the proposition that the original section itself was flawed only by its terms; it was flawed by the definition of "disseminate." That is where the problem came. Then one had the situation where a reporter reports a statement by a person of an intention to infringe a right under part 1 or an incitement by that person to incite an infringement of a right under part 1.
The reporter would have been involved, the editor of the newspaper would have been involved, and the publisher would have been involved, because it says, "disseminate' means to communicate or participate in the communication with another, whether directly or indirectly or with or through another, by whatever means." That is where it was wrong. In the correction of it, it is like the pendulum. It swings from one extreme to another.
I am asking the minister to say that if a person publishes a statement of intention to infringe a right under the act or to incite anyone else to infringe a right under the act, that person should be subject to the penalties which are imposed in the bill. It has nothing to do with a reporter reporting the event of the statement being made.
I have laboured it too long. If the minister is not going to pay any attention now he is not going to pay any attention at 10 o'clock tonight.
The Deputy Chairman: Is there any further discussion on this amendment'?
All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment stacked.
On section 10:
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, before we adjourned for the dinner hour, the member for Riverdale asked if, in light of the fact the definition of discrimination had been dispensed with, some consideration should be given to changing some wording in section 10, section 24(3)(a) and section 24(3)(b).
Let me speak first about section 10. Here we are talking about constructive discrimination. We say the requirement, whatever it is, is "not discrimination on a prohibited ground but that would result in the exclusion, qualification or preference of a group."
Frankly I think there is a need to be precise, a need to say what one means. We are saying it is not in itself discrimination and therefore one cannot say, "Even though it is not discrimination we are going to call it discrimination," One has to say exactly and precisely what one is intending the constructive discrimination section to mean. We are intending it to mean the "exclusion, qualification or preference." I do not see that has anything to do with the fact the definition of discrimination has been deleted.
Although the substance of the argument is somewhat different in section 24(3)(a) and section 24(3)(b), I think again there is a need to be precise and to say exactly what one means. What we mean is where there is a reasonable and bona fide distinction, exclusion or preference. That is exactly what is meant. I do not think there is any way the government would deem it reasonable, in precise areas of the bill where it is important to understand what we are all saying, to change that to a word which is no longer defined.
For those reasons, the member has indicated he might introduce amendments if I do not concur with his thoughts on that issue. The government intends to stick to the wording that exists in section 10, section 24(3)(a) and section 24(3)(b).
Mr. Renwick: With the patience of the House, I thought it was a consequential amendment on the elimination of the definition of discrimination. It shows how far the minister and I have drifted apart in our conception of the bill.
The comments he has made again reinforce what I have to say about the way in which he has been frozen on the question of the laudable purpose of assisting handicapped people. I must crave the indulgence of the House and, if not, perhaps one of my colleagues will stand and recite a piece of verse while I write out the amendment.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am prepared to stand section 10 by while the member for Riverdale reads the verse that is being written by the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan). The member for Bellwoods is going to write some verse, is he not?
Mr. McClellan: Don't tease the bears.
The Deputy Chairman: We will proceed and we can come back to the members for Riverdale and Bellwoods to have a written motion which we can then deal with.
Mr. Renwick: Would the minister also be prepared to deal with my same point when we get to section 21? I do not believe I mentioned that before dinner. In section 21, the same problem occurs as in section 24(3)(a) and 24(3)(b).
8:20 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman: I think you did.
Mr. Renwick: But in section 21 the same problem occurs as in section 24(3)(a) and (b).
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, I can say quite succinctly that the same position would stand in section 21. If the member wants some extra verse while he writes a new amendment to that, I would be pleased to wait.
The Deputy Chairman: We will hold over section 21 on the same basis and come back to section 10 once we have the written motion circulated, so that we can then deal with it.
Shall section 13 carry?
Mr. Renwick: Section 13 is a very important section from the point of view of the position of the New Democratic Party on the achievement of equality of condition and equality of opportunity for people. This is the affirmative action section in the bill. It has to be read in the light of section 28(c) of the bill, which deals with the function of the commission "to recommend for consideration a special plan or program designed to meet the requirements of subsection 13(1)" and so on.
I had thought for a little while we would introduce an amendment to give some ultimate backup to the commission to require, in a meritorious situation, the introduction and implementation of an affirmative action program, in regard to persons who for one reason or another are excluded from participating on an equal basis in the vaunted opportunities people have in this province. I wanted to make it clear to the minister we will follow, with a great deal of interest, the extent and degree to which the commission fulfils the function given to it under this without any backup provision of ultimately being able to say, "Look, we have had enough, get on with it."
I know the soft approach people have to it. The minister knows as well as anybody else, and I use the phrase without necessarily understanding its implications, that systemic discrimination in this province is very high. If you look at the most favoured of the people discriminated against, women in this society, then you will understand why it is essential we have the affirmative action provision.
I compliment the minister for not weakening on the need for that, despite all the nonsense that was talked in the committee and by people who came before the committee. I refer to the comments that we were talking about quotas and about reverse discrimination and all the intricate nonsense which has been used to deny equal opportunity to people in a society where opportunity is in many cases unequal, because of the nature of the very prohibitive grounds we are dealing with.
It is a very important section to us. We are prepared to await the event and see whether or not the commission does make use of the power which is going to be given to it by this assembly to perform the function of at least recommending or requiring consideration to be given to affirmative action programs.
That is the only comment I want to make on that section.
The Deputy Chairman: Any further debate on section 13? Shall section 13 stand as part of the bill?
Section 13 agreed to.
On section 14:
The Deputy Chairman: Shall section 14 stand as part of the bill?
Mr. Renwick: I have no comment on section 14.
Section 14 agreed to.
On section 15:
Mr. Renwick: On section 15, I think out of respect for one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, the assembly should understand that section 15 provides some reinforcement to the provision with respect to nondiscrimination because of citizenship. There was some very real concern that in the substantive provisions of the bill we should have deleted the word "citizenship" in order to make certain that in a reverse way a Canadian citizen has preference or privilege regardless of the citizenship of someone else. I have never sorted out in my mind whether or not that is an appropriate objection, but I know it was made with a considerable degree of insight by one person, and others made it before the committee as well.
I still do not know whether or not we should give preference to a person who is lawfully in Canada, whether he is a citizen, a landed immigrant or someone who is not a citizen but is making his domicile here with the intention of becoming a citizen, rather than absolutely prohibiting citizenship as a ground for refusing employment. I make the comment only because the significance of it is not clear in my own mind.
The minister did introduce an amendment to section 15(3). I suppose it could be called the imported executive provision in the bill. If you find some real whiz kid from outside the country who has executive capacities and you want to give him a top-rate job in the country you impose a condition that he must become a Canadian citizen or be domiciled in Canada. I think it is a strange entrepreneurial interjection, and I do not quite understand what it means. I am not certain it is appropriate in a human rights bill to make such a distinction for someone who holds a chief or senior executive position in an organization or enterprise. It sounds as though the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) got to the Minister of Labour on that issue.
Section 15 agreed to.
On section 16:
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that section 16(2) be amended by adding thereto the words "or may nevertheless request the minister to appoint a board of inquiry and refer the subject matter of the complaint to the board," and by adding thereto the following section 16(3):
"When a board of inquiry is appointed pursuant to subsection 2 the board may then proceed to make the inquiry and order provided for in subsection 2 or subsection 3 of section 40 of the bill, as the case may be."
Mr. Renwick: Again I have reservations as to whether or not I understand at this time what the bill is about. I think this is the most serious flaw in the otherwise laudable intention of the minister to assist people who are handicapped.
8:30 p.m.
Mr. Chairman, this is my last desperate attempt to bridge the immense gulf created between sections 16 and 40, or in terms of the language that was used before the committee, the reasonable accommodation problem for handicapped persons. I have done it in such a way as to indicate that it would be a board of inquiry which was called into effect in section 40 in this situation. I have done it, and I emphasize the words with some desperation, because of the way in which the bill has been emasculated in relation to the protections it is supposed to provide for handicapped persons.
If one looks very carefully at section 16(1), one will read that:
"A right of a person under this act is not infringed for the reason only,
"(a) that the person does not have access to premises ... or that the premises ... lack the amenities that are appropriate for the person because of handicap."
Let us eliminate a little more of the gobbledegook in here:
"A right of a person under this act is not infringed for the reason only,
"(a) that the person does not have access to the premises because of handicap."
That is what it says. If you cannot get in, they are not infringing your right. It is just that simple. The second one says that:
"A right of a person under this act is not infringed for the reason only,
"(b) that the person is incapable of performing or fulfilling the essential duties or requirements attending the exercise of the right because of handicap."
Again cutting out the gobbledegook:
"A right of a person under this act is not infringed for the reason only,
"(b) that the person is incapable of performing or fulfilling the essential duties attending the exercise of the right because of handicap."
The importance of it is beyond my capacity to express simply. If the determination is made that the person cannot get into the premises because of the handicap, or if the determination is made that the person cannot perform the essential duties of the job because of the handicap, even though he or she could perform those essential duties with the aid of auxiliary facilities of one kind or another, then the right is not infringed. If the right is not infringed you cannot get to section 40, and section 40 is designed to provide for the reasonable accommodation.
Section 40 says very clearly that, "Where the board of inquiry, after a hearing, finds that a right of the complainant ... has been infringed ... " You never get to the board of inquiry if the right has not been infringed. It is the first step.
Section 40 only comes into play:
"(2) Where the board of inquiry at the conclusion of the hearing finds that a right of a person under Part I has been infringed by discrimination because of handicap, the board may then proceed to inquire whether,
"(a) the person does not have access ... because of handicap" to premises or the appropriate amenities are not there and, " ... the board may, unless the costs occasioned thereby cause undue hardship and subject to the regulations, order that the party take such measures as will make such provision for access or amenities or as are set out in the order."
Then subsection 3 has a similar provision with respect to providing the reasonable accommodation provision with respect to the performance of the essential duties.
Mr. Chairman, I do not often have difficulty overcoming the noise in the chamber, but my friends under the gallery here are conducting their conversation in such a way that I am being interrupted in my comments. I say that with the greatest of respect.
The Deputy Chairman: I ask for order in the House to reduce the buzzing sound.
Mr. Renwick: I hope I am making clear, not only to the minister but also to the members of the assembly, that one cannot get from section 16 to section 40, because there is no reasonable accommodation provision in the bill.
On the first aspect of section 16, I think I need go no further than to say it says if one cannot get into the building one's right is not infringed because of handicap. That is what it says. Therefore, there will never be a board of inquiry because, if a right is not infringed, there can be no request for a board of inquiry. Unless there is a board of inquiry under section 40, we cannot get to the question of reason.
An order from the board of inquiry, if the cost will not impose an undue hardship and all of the qualifying provisions that are in there to protect the so-called contravener -- which is a dreadful term -- is something one cannot get at to get that done.
I do not like to use myself as an example in the case of the essential duties of the job, but assume for the moment that I am a blind person and the job I am applying for is to be a typist. I cannot, as a blind person, type on a regular, ordinary, everyday machine, but I am a fine typist on a Braille typewriter.
That will not alter the fact that I can never get from section 16 to section 40 to get an order of the board saying it would be a reasonable accommodation of that person to perform the essential duties of the job for the employer to provide, in place of a Remington standard model electric machine, a Braille typewriter at an extra cost of $100, $200 or whatever the figure is, assuming it is a reasonable figure.
What I have tried to do desperately is to say in section 16 that if a situation develops where the commission decides the right is not infringed under the strict terms, it can do what section 16 states it can do: "Where, after the investigation of a complaint, the commission determines that the evidence does not warrant the appointment of a board of inquiry because of the application of subsection 1" -- that is, the right is not infringed -- "the commission may nevertheless use its best efforts to effect a settlement as to the provision of access or amenities or as to the duties or requirements." That is a "best efforts" clause. That is fine.
All I wanted to do was to add on to the "best efforts" clause a provision that says, "or the commission may nevertheless, even though there has been no strict infringement of that section, request the minister to appoint a board of inquiry and refer the subject matter of the complaint to the board."
Later on, if there is a request to the minister for a board, the minister is obligated to appoint the board. I agree with that. When the board assembles, when a board of inquiry is appointed pursuant to subsection 2, pursuant to this additional flexibility which I think should be in the bill, the board may then proceed to make the inquiry an order provided for in subsection 2 or section 40(3).
Using myself as an example of a person who is blind and the question of the typewriter, it would then mean that while the commission may well say the right of that person is not infringed on the strict terminology of section 16, nevertheless the commission can use its best efforts if it chooses to do so.
If it does not choose to do so, it can still have a board of inquiry appointed that will bring into play the reasonable accommodation provisions of section 40 -- that is, with the person adequately protected against undue hardship or cost -- to provide the Braille typewriter in the instance I have given.
8:40 p.m.
One can see the extent to which the problem concerns me, the lacuna between section 16 and section 40 and the strained effort I have made -- it makes a lot of sense -- to bridge that gap. Otherwise, I think the laudable intention that originated the conception of reviewing not only the bill but also the whole question of assisting handicapped people in the International Year of Disabled Persons will come to nought.
There is no way this assembly should be involved in kidding anybody about the ultimate gap that will occur on this most important section of the bill. I appreciate the patience about this matter. If I am wrong in my interpretation, which I doubt, I stand to be corrected.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, if there are no other members who wish to speak, I have to say honestly to the member for Riverdale, there has never been any attempt by anybody to try to deceive anyone. I think he will acknowledge that. This government and this minister have said clearly from the beginning that the issue of the handicapped in this human rights code was to be approached from the point of view of whether there was attitudinal discrimination. It did not intend to define the absence of access as discrimination on its own.
Even without the addition of section 16(2), I am certain the member will agree that this legislation would take precedence in terms of equality and what is offered over any other legislation in this country. But the addition of subsection 2, which the member has quite properly referred to, giving the commission the power to use its best efforts to effect a settlement, even in situations where the only issue is access, puts it far above and out in front of any other legislation in this country. Yet it retains a balance that respects the rights of everybody in society.
I cannot support the member's amendment. It is not in line with the point of view the government has expressed from the beginning and all through the standing committee and over which there has been a fair and honest exchange of opinion.
The Deputy Chairman; All those in favour of Mr. Renwick's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment stacked.
Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.
On section 19:
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 19(3) which I distributed to both opposition parties yesterday. I have made one minor change in it that I hope they have received. It does not make any substantive change in the amendment I have proposed.
Let me tell members quite frankly why this amendment is being introduced. It came to the attention of one of my staff the day before yesterday that a number of recreational clubs give preference with respect to membership dues and other fees to encourage family membership, to encourage wives to join and so forth. The code, as it was drafted, might abolish that opportunity, which gives improved participation to members of a family, married couples and so forth.
Therefore, the government's view is that this amendment is very necessary to protect those legitimate rights that people have and are exercising now in the area of recreational clubs. I propose section 19(3) as an amendment to this bill.
The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Elgie moves that section 19 be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(3) The right under section 1 to equal treatment with respect to services and facilities is not infringed where a social organization restricts or qualifies access to its services or facilities, or gives preference with respect to membership dues and other fees because of age, sex, marital status or family status."
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct that; "social organization" should be struck out and "recreational club" substituted therefor.
Mr. McClellan: You are amending your amendment?
Mr. Nixon: It is hard to keep up with
Hon. Mr. Elgie: I agree with that, but the member was not here this afternoon.
Mr. Renwick: I did not quite get the last exchange. My draft of the amendment says "where a recreational club restricts." Is that being changed?
The Deputy Chairman: That is the correction.
Mr. Renwick: I have the correct one. Then I have no problem with the amendment.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on section 19(2), and I only have a comment, not an amendment.
I think it is important that the House understand that this section of the bill deals with the question of eliminating sex with respect to athletic activities.
The minister, in his statement on October 28, dealt with that matter at some length and concluded that "further study is required. Within the next few days I hope to announce the names of the members of a task force which will be set up to inquire into the matter and report to me. Pending receipt of the task force's report, I am of the view that it should be made clear in the bill that the establishment of single-sex sports activities is not a contravention of the code. The relevant section in the reprinted bill is section 19(2)."
Well, whatever that means, I would like to know from the minister, as I asked him in the dying days of the committee, has the task force been appointed, what are its terms of reference, when will it report back and what are the minister's plans with respect to it?
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, I publicly committed myself to the appointment of such a task force. I think the member will agree that when I give that kind of commitment, I tend to live up to it. I hope the exact makeup of the commission and the terms of references will be announced in the very near future, but it is not ready at the moment. I think the member can agree with me that it will be forthcoming.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
On section 20:
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that section 20(4) be deleted.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the amendment simply speaks to the question of ruling out the availability of adult-only buildings in the province. It is so obviously correct that buildings in our society, both in view of the economic conditions of the time and as a matter of principle, should not be restricted to adult-only buildings, or that buildings should not be allowed to be designated as adult-only buildings.
8:50 p.m.
I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not talking about senior citizens' accommodation, which, as I read the bill, is already fully covered under the section the House has passed, section 14, which says: "A right under part I to nondiscrimination because of age is not infringed where an age of 65 years or over is a requirement, qualification or consideration for preferential treatment." So we accept and want to have the need for adult-only buildings with respect to senior citizens' accommodation.
But we had some very important submissions to the committee saying simply that although section 4 of the bill intended to create the impression that adult-only buildings were restricted in some way, it is a wide-open door. We came to the conclusion, and I think the whole committee came to the conclusion, that any of the buildings that we are concerned about, as being restricted to adults, only can continue as such and all of them can be designated.
The status is not in "the right under section 2 to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of residential accommodation without discrimination because of family status" -- that means children, in case anybody wanted to know -- "is not infringed by discrimination on that ground where the residential accommodation is in a building or designated part of the building that contains more than one dwelling unit served by a common entrance" -- I would call that an apartment building -- "and the occupancy of all the residential accommodation in the building or in the designated part of the building is restricted because of family status."
I do not know what the justification for this is. I know that the city of Toronto was concerned about the matter; I know that one of the aldermen from the minister's own borough of East York appeared before us and made a very moving plea concerning the problems in his borough; I know that Justice for Children was fundamentally concerned about it.
I do not think it is necessary to enlighten the members of the assembly who are in their places tonight, with their knowledge of the economic conditions related to housing and in view of the importance of children in society, particularly for a government that prides itself on its concern about the family, and for all of the other reasons that one can draw in aid on such an emotional issue.
I do not think I need to say anything more than to indicate to the members sitting on the government side that even though they are not in the ministry it would be in their interest to support this amendment and delete section 20(4).
I hope we will have a spirited debate on this issue. I think the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) -- ever since Ed Ziemba spoke in the House, I do not know quite which riding he is from -- will enter into the discussion. I think the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) should enter into it. The member for High Park (Mr. Shymko) definitely should enter into the debate; I know he is very busy in another public debate over there. And we would like to hear the view of the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) on adult-only buildings.
The Deputy Chairman: The member for Riverdale is speaking to section 19?
Mr. Renwick: Yes. I was interested to know whether anybody on the government side of the House has any views on adult-only buildings. That was all I wanted to know. If they do not have any views about them, then we can simply delete section 20(4).
If the members opposite want to make their way in the government, I suggest they disengage from the ministry. The surest way to get into the ministry is to disengage oneself by being difficult; then they bring you into the ministry so you will not be difficult again in the future.
Ms. Copps: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak in favour of this amendment. I think we have to be consistent, and since we were the ones who originally proposed the amendment in committee and spoke quite extensively on it at that time, obviously we are in support of the amendment. We feel a policy that excludes children from any accommodation is not a just policy. Our policy in this party is that children are people too and we would like to see them recognized in this legislation.
The Deputy Chairman: Just before the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) begins, has the member for Riverdale prepared his amendment to section 10?
Mr. Renwick: Yes, I have.
The Deputy Chairman: Very well. We will proceed to it after we have completed this one, if you can get it circulated.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak in favour of this motion to get rid of section 20(4). It is unthinkable to me that we would not accept the notion that children and families have rights in terms of housing.
In the city of Toronto at the moment we have a case where boarding homes, small apartments and houses are not being made available to families. In the latest study by a group of referring agencies in Metro Toronto, it was found that between 40 and 50 per cent of the houses or apartments on those lists they hold will not allow children.
We have now a vacancy rate in Toronto that is almost at zip. We have condominium conversion taking place. We are basically having the sense of community, the idea that you can have a full community in the centre of a major city like this, being destroyed because of the move to adult-only buildings.
We are not talking here about taking away the right of senior citizens to have buildings specially designed for them, or to have specially designed buildings for the handicapped, or for the possibility of there being mixed housing, in which the bottom four floors of a high-rise are available to families and the top X floors are available to singles.
What we are talking about here is an absolute freedom for any building in Toronto -- other than a town house, essentially anything that has a common entrance with more than one apartment in it, anything from a duplex with a common entrance to a multi-storey high-rise -- being allowed to shut out families, to shut out kids. It is just ridiculous.
Even if the minister is in favour of the notion that there should be some kind of protection for developers to build cheap accommodation that does not have to take into account the needs of families, which most of the buildings now being built do not, he must surely recognize that this is just bad legislation. It does not have to be as blanketed as this is. Why was there no attempt even to come through with a compromise, at least to allow provision for a certain percentage of high-rise buildings to have units available to families?
What the minister is proposing with this legislation is the destruction of family housing in places like the city of Toronto. Next it will go to places like Hamilton, and then to Ottawa, and the community fabric of our major cities will be destroyed by this one little piece of legislation, this one little clause. If we want the developers to be able to have adult-only buildings, surely there is a better way of doing it than by this blanket clause in here.
It seems to me it is just outrageous. I hope the minister will either come through with some amended format of the clause here or accept the motion by my colleague the member for Riverdale and withdraw this piece of nonsense, which is essentially anti-family. A person like the minister, who has a family, should be aware of that and should not want to see this kind of attack on the centres of communities like Toronto and other major cities.
9 p.m.
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly join with the three previous speakers in the opposition in supporting the deletion of this subsection. It seems to me, and I think my colleague the member for Scarborough West in his final remarks really came to the heart of the matter, that our friends on the opposite side talk so much about the family and yet here in this one subsection they have completely negated the very views that they are supposed to hold and cherish.
If the family has importance, as I believe it has, there ought to be the freedom to live in accommodation in such centres as Metropolitan Toronto or any other centre, even a centre such as mine which has a large vacancy rate, but particularly a centre like Metropolitan Toronto with a vacancy rate that is as close to zero as I think we will ever reach.
The opportunity for families to live in accommodation of their choice ought not to be fettered by this kind of proposal within what is a human rights code. Surely the rights of children should be respected, and that includes the rights of the children and their families to live in such accommodation.
If the minister is not prepared to move, as my friend the member for Scarborough West has suggested, to some sort of reasonable compromise, I think we have no choice but to throw out subsection 4 in its entirety.
I urge the members across the way to join with us, particularly those members from Toronto, who know full well and who I am sure deal on a regular basis with constituents who are having very difficult times finding any kind of accommodation at all.
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I just want to add my support for this amendment. As my colleague the member for Scarborough West said, discrimination against children is discrimination against the family. I do not see how this government can accept discrimination against the family after all the pious words it has poured out about how it supports families.
The Premier (Mr. Davis) and particularly the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) have constantly said this government is family-centred and supports families, and every year the Provincial Secretary for Social Development gets out a booklet telling us how we can strengthen and improve family life.
Mr. Eakins: And how concerned she is.
Ms. Bryden: That's right; how concerned she is. During the International Year of the Child, she got out a series of suggestions of how we could support children. One of them was, "Take a child to lunch." That is about all that is being done by this government for children and for families.
Every week people come into my constituency office who have children and who have been evicted or are about to be evicted from their housing because of renovations, demolitions or conversions of housing to condominiums or to other uses. They shop around and find the doors are closed when they say they have children. They simply cannot find suitable and affordable accommodation. These people who are the victims of the shrinking housing market are in desperate straits, because they know they are going to have to pay a much larger percentage of their income for rent.
The market for affordable housing for families is getting tighter and tighter, and if we do not pass this amendment we will add to that situation and increase the number of families that possibly will be reduced below the poverty line or that will have to put a very large proportion of their income into rent. Therefore, I think we must open up that market rather than contribute to its closing.
As regards the question of noise and disturbance that may come from children, from what I hear there is far more noise and disturbance from adults operating hi-fi's, very loud, powerful radios, record players and so on.
Apartments could be designed for children, and if we have this law in effect where they cannot be discriminated against, apartments will be designed for children. That is something we must promote.
I would hope the members on the opposite side would support this amendment if they really believe in supporting the family.
Mr. Samis: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my voice to that of my colleague for Scarborough West who spoke out strongly against the idea of allowing adult-only buildings. As a member from eastern Ontario, I recall when I was first elected in 1974, my surprise at the prevalence of these adult-only apartment buildings. Since then, there has obviously been a tremendous expansion of them in the downtown core.
I come from a town that has difficulties in terms of income these days. Unfortunately, in a recent survey we rated ninety-ninth out of 100 in terms of Canadian cities as pertaining to income. I think a Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation study done earlier this year said our vacancy rate was 0.3 per cent. This summer, our city council approved plans for a six-storey adult-only apartment building in our community.
I get umpteen cases in my riding office of people on limited incomes, fixed incomes or low incomes looking for some form of suitable housing and here we have a major project moving into the community. This is some sort of big city phenomenon, and I have to explain to them that this will be adult-only. If we discriminate in all sorts of other ways, we say that is illegal, this code will outlaw that, but we can allow discrimination based on whether or not a person has a family. These people have an extremely difficult time finding suitable housing.
In a community like ours, when we get a major new project like this, and I am sure this will set the trend for further projects, I just think we are missing a golden opportunity to stop what is really a reprehensible form of lifestyle in terms of modern society. Our society is becoming sufficiently impersonal, violent, materialistic, and pleasure oriented. The family is breaking up; marriages are breaking up.
We have a government which always lectures us on the importance and the value of the family; how committed they are to the family, individual values, opportunities for young people, and equality of opportunity regardless of class. Here is a golden opportunity to really put their money where their mouths are and ensure that all families have access, at least legally, to housing. If they have not got it economically, at least they will have it legally.
How do you explain this to a young person? They say: "I have read the bill of rights. I have read Mr. Trudeau's new constitution and the charter of rights. I am told that we live in a democracy, but why can't I get into that building? Why can't I live there? Why does my mother say we are discriminated against because we have a family and that nobody is breaking the law when they do that?"
How do you explain that to an 11-year-old child? This is a democracy with a bill of rights, a charter of rights, a human rights code, but they can be discriminated against.
Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, I must add my voice to my colleagues' because I think it is really ironic that while we are amending the human rights code in order to prohibit discrimination, in the same code we not only allow discrimination but we legislate discrimination.
I think by allowing adult-only buildings we are really accepting an idea of our society which is based on intolerance. As my colleague said, by allowing adult-only buildings we are really saying there is something wrong, for some people, with families that have children and that since they are not so burdened then they can avoid living with them. This is an idea that is repulsive to me.
As my friend the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) said, we are passing a bill at a time when in Canada we are establishing the right to mobility. But if you move to Toronto, you cannot get into a building because the Minister of Labour prevents you from doing that with the human rights code in his hands. That is totally unacceptable and unjustifiable.
9:10 p.m.
I want to add my voice, hoping the minister will accept at least this amendment. I know tonight all the platoons on the other side will vote against these amendments without knowing them and without having heard the arguments in favour of the amendments. They will listen to the orders of the chief.
I hope the chief is sensitive at least to this amendment if he does not want this human rights code to be amended two or three years down the line. Otherwise, even the Minister of Labour, who is considered a progressive and open person, will have been instrumental in passing a human rights code which is not adequate for the times.
Mr. Treleaven: Mr. Chairman, I have sat and listened for the last 15 minutes this evening to what I will call garbage. I did not intend to stand on my feet --
Mr. Martel: Troglodyte.
Mr. Treleaven: I saw the light, you are correct. I have heard words such as nonsense, repulsive, reprehensible, and all I can say is that I am surprised at some of these people who seem to have lost their perspective. The member for Riverdale put it with some tact and common sense. From that we have gone to an extreme where all common sense has been lost.
If you look at the section, it does not say you are for me or against me. All it says is that such an item is not deemed to be discrimination under another section. It does not say you are for me or against me.
Mr. Samis: Tell that to the families.
Mr. Treleaven: Fine. Right. Can we then consider the people whose children have left the home, who have matured and grown up? Do they not have any rights at all or is there a straight discrimination against those persons whose children have matured and who do not wish to be subjected to the lifestyle they had when they had children for 20 years? Simply keep it in perspective and do not use that type of adjective. My friend the member for Riverdale did not lead you on that path. It is a false path.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: I want to thank the member for Scarborough West for his comments and I want to welcome my family to the gallery here to share in this great occasion. They have been around during the lives and demises of many older and middle aged people and they have some understanding of the sensitivity of the issues the member was referring to.
What we are really talking about is the balancing of the rights of various people in society. You know that and I know that. You may want to take certain positions and I understand why you are doing it.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: There is no balance. Put some balance in.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: I know the leadership race is on and you are just aching to say something, but hang on. Wait till Bob Rae arrives and the others come, and then you can have an open competition. Don't try to grab it all for yourself.
You know as well as I do that the human rights review commission went through this province and found three or four communities that had housing shortage problems, not because of discrimination but because there were housing shortages. The member for Scarborough West knows full well, because he and I have talked about it, that the city of Toronto in its 1975 legislation has the power to do something about it but has not.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: That does not take you off the hook.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: I will show you the act if you have any doubts, my friend. We have talked about it and you know very well they obviously have the same concerns that thoughtful people on this side of the House have. There is a balance of rights in society and there is a need to respect those rights.
There are people who have never married, people whose children have grown up, people who have never had children, who legitimately want to live in a certain type of surrounding. Members know the government's public housing policy encourages families. Indeed, we often hear criticisms because we try to evict people to get families in. Members have heard of that problem and know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) in his rental assistance program requires that any apartments built under that program be for families. There is no doubt about the public policy.
Members are trying to take a housing shortage issue and convert it into discrimination. I tell my friend that is not the right way to approach it. That is not trying to achieve a balance of legitimate rights in society.
Mr. Di Santo: You are more intelligent than that.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: If the member thinks carefully and thoughtfully about it, he will come to the same conclusion.
For those reasons, the government cannot accept the amendment.
Mr. Renwick: I had a comment. I do not want to read it at length because I know the minister would be concerned, if not embarrassed, but the presentation by Gordon Crann, the alderman for ward three in the borough of East York --
Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am not embarrassed by Gordon Crann. I met him out campaigning against me. There is no problem with that.
Mr. Renwick: He does a first-class job of melding the problem that the minister indicates.
The minister indicates that somehow or other the inability of children with their families to find housing accommodation is a housing problem and not a question of the rights of children to have a place to live. Let us not kid anybody. Getting a place to live with one's family is a very important obligation of this government in this society.
The fact that the government has failed to provide adequate levels of housing accommodation at an affordable level for people in low income categories is not an excuse for failing to protect them under a human rights code. That is the problem that is involved with it.
When property takes precedence over people, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing takes precedence over the Minister of Labour, just the way the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) takes precedence over the Minister of Labour. It is that old question: What is more important, property or people? Or what is more important, not rights as against rights, privilege as against rights. It is the privilege that has to give way because the opposite of privilege is no rights and people who have privileges are denying rights to other people. It is not people giving up rights, it is people giving up privilege.
Let us be rudimentarily clear about the question involved. This is a human rights issue; it is that simple. Once it is in the human rights code, the housing minister and his colleagues will have to realize that people are more important than property. They will have to do something about the question.
Mr. Chairman: Order. I have let the member go on at good length I think.
Mr. Renwick: I know the minister of housing does not live in an adult-only building. I know that. It has a common entrance. I understand that and I understand it is subsidized by the government. Maybe under the MacEachen budget it will be taxable. I do not know. It will be interesting to find out, but I would have assumed the minister of housing would be the one minister who would be saying to the Minister of Labour --
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. As you well know we have completed the section. I think I have allowed ample time.
Mr. Renwick: -- "Please make certain that families have places to live."
Mr. Chairman: I know you are upset with the minister and you are not very happy with --
Mr. Renwick: I am not upset.
Mr. Chairman: You are not upset with him?
Mr. Renwick: I am certainly not upset with you. I want to make one point and I want to make it very clearly --
Mr. Chairman: I just want to point out that I think you are out of order, but I will let you make the point.
Mr. Martel: Why is it out of order?
Mr. Chairman: We have already discussed the section. We had a windup with the minister.
Mr. Martel: The question has not been called.
Mr. Renwick: This is not a second reading debate. I want to make the point that --
Mr. Martel: What kind of new rule is this? You are dead wrong. Sorry, buddy.
Mr. Chairman: I would like to hear the member for Riverdale.
Mr. Stokes: This is not second reading. The minister and the chair had better understand that.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would like to hear the member for Riverdale.
9:20 p.m.
Mr. Renwick: This is not just apartment buildings, but also condominium property. You know as well as I do what is happening in Toronto and outside of Toronto with respect to the destruction of family accommodation by the erection of high-priced, high-cost condominiums for adults only. I want you to understand you cannot escape the responsibility by disguising it as a housing problem. Because you are in total default on the housing issue, do not try to call that in aid of your failure to protect children and families under this amendment. I commend the amendment to the assembly.
Mr. Chairman: I would like to point out to the honourable member and to all members of the House that the member for Riverdale has moved a motion that section 20(4) of Bill 7 be deleted. It is my understanding that under May's Parliamentary Practice the technical way of putting the proposed amendment is that the section shall not stand as part of the bill. However, we will allow the amendment as proposed. I will point that out continually, so that at some future time, when proposed amendments are being made, maybe we will get it straight.
Mr. Chairman: In the fairness of play, that is right. I have accepted it, because we wanted to have this particular issue aired.
All those in favour of the proposed amendment, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment stacked.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: You aren't standing up, Mr. Martel.
Mr. Martel: It only takes five.
Mr. Chairman: I counted five.
On section 21 of Bill 7, I have before me a proposed amendment. The member for Riverdale. I see no other amendments from the opposition.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, were you going to deal with section 10 now, or do you want to deal with that a little later?
Mr. Chairman: I'm sorry. Back to section 10, then.
On section 10:
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that section 10 be amended by deleting the words, "the exclusion, qualification or preference of," and substituting therefor the words, "discrimination against."
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I spoke to this question earlier, and the minister refused to accept the amendment. I, therefore, move the amendment. The reason for moving the amendment is that we eliminated the definition of "discrimination" from the bill, which included the dreadful phrase, "exclusion, qualification or preference." This was a consequential amendment that the minister overlooked, and now takes as a matter of principle and is insisting on maintaining in the bill. I think the words should be deleted and the words "discrimination against" inserted.
Mr. Chairman: Does any member wish to discuss this proposed amendment?
Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have already spoken against it, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the proposed amendment, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment stacked.
On section 21:
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that section 21 be amended by deleting the words "differentiates or makes a distinction, exclusion or preference," and substituting therefor the word "discriminates."
Mr. Stokes: If there is any fault, you had better search your own soul.
Mr. Renwick: I moved this for the same reasons I gave under section 10, and they are equally forceful under this section.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: I oppose this for the same reasons given in the original arguments.
Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Renwick's amendment to section 21 will please say "aye."
Those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment stacked.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that section 21 be amended by deleting all the words after "annuity" and substituting therefor the words, "discriminate on reasonable and bona fide grounds because the age, sex, marital status, family status or handicap substantially increases the risk."
Mr. Renwick: My principal reason applies equally well to the irrelevant distinctions which insurance companies make in numerous policies in altering premiums on the basis of age, sex or marital or family status, but I am principally concerned again about the question of handicap.
What this means is the insurance companies, and I say this very politely, are organizations which have a licence from the government to discriminate. This is what the insurance industry is all about. It is therefore difficult to say their discrimination is the kind of adverse discrimination we are concerned about. This says that on automobile, life, accident, disability or sickness insurance and group insurance of any kind, insurance companies can on reasonable and bona fide grounds discriminate because of handicap.
At least at this time, that discrimination with respect to handicap on reasonable and probable grounds must be only if the insurance company can conclusively show the risk is substantially increased. That is the purpose of the amendment. At this point in history, that might well be acceptable.
It is not good enough and my next amendment will indicate that, but I hope you at least agree a reasonable and bona fide discrimination against handicapped people with respect to the premiums they pay on insurance policies should be only if the insurer can show, and clearly demonstrate actuarially or on sound medical information, that the risk is substantially increased.
The minister has accepted those phrases in other places in the bill related to insurance.
They are extremely appropriate in this situation. I again commend this amendment to the House.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: I would like to point out, as I did at some length in committee, the words "reasonable and bona fide" in themselves require a subjective and an objective assessment of the differentiation that is made. More important than that, as I pointed out in committee, we are talking about more here than matters that increase the risk. We are talking about benefits as well as premiums. Therefore, the addition of those words to this section is inappropriate and the government cannot support it.
Mr. Renwick: I do not play word games often. I am going to ignore that comment by the minister. He knows as well as I do that if a handicapped person applies for insurance he does not get a break on the premium. He gets the opposite and he does not get extended benefits under the policy. Let us not play games about that kind of amendment. I ask for some relaxation by the minister in acceptance of a reasonable amendment.
Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Renwick's amendment to section 21 will please say "aye."
Those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment stacked.
9:30 p.m.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moved an amendment that, in the light of the preceding amendments, section 21 shall not stand as part of the bill.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to go on at any great length, but I want to make two very simple points.
In automobile insurance it is unconscionable for the insurance companies to continue, in collusion with this government, to make distinctions with respect to automobile insurance based on age, sex and marital status. When the government learns that, they will have learned an elementary lesson. Those questions are irrelevant with respect to premium differentials. The select committee on company law dealt with it at great length, and I do not intend to quote it.
The minister of the crown then responsible, the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea), made a great grandstand play that he was going to get the insurance companies into line and they were going to have to show him. Well, they have been showing him for a long time. He has left that ministry, and one of these days the inequity of premium distinctions in automobile insurance on the basis of age, sex and marital status will be seen as a neanderthal remnant of Tory rule in Ontario.
On the question of life insurance I want to be very brief, because I know that time is wasting and my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) is anxious to address the chamber on a matter of great concern to him.
On the question of life insurance, the select committee on company law -- and I wish my colleague the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) were here -- very clearly indicated that what may have been valid in the past is not valid in the present: that premiums for life insurance should now be based solely and entirely on actuarial information, and that if they are going to make a surcharge on the basis of medical information without actuarial statistics to support it they should not be allowed to discriminate.
From the point of view of a handicapped person, at the present time in Ontario, without any actuarial basis whatsoever, certain handicaps are surcharged for life insurance solely on the basis of medical information that is not actuarially supported.
I do not know why it takes the government so long to understand elementary facts of life, but I am saying to the House that the laudable intention of this minister to do something to assist handicapped people is not being assisted by this clause. This clause should therefore be deleted. The whole range of the protection of the human rights code should be accorded to people under sections 1 and 3 of the code. The commission, not the superintendent of insurance in collusion with the industry, should have the responsibility of righting the great wrong that exists in society.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have just a comment, Mr. Chairman. Again, the member and I have had some good and lengthy discussions about this. If he is proposing to change through the human rights code the method by which insurance in its various forms is sold in this province, on the basis of premium differentials and so forth, and I suspect he is, then I suggest to him that this is not the route by which it should be done.
This code is trying to make sure that any distinction, exclusion or preference in policies is based on reasonable and bona fide grounds. That is what it does and that is what a human rights code should do. Therefore, we oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale has proposed an amendment to Bill 7 whereby section 21 should not stand as part of the bill.
Those in favour of the amendment will please say "aye."
Those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment stacked.
On section 22:
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury East, I believe, has comments on subsection 2. Shall subsection I carry? Carried.
Mr. Martel: Thank you. I am glad we got there. I have waited a long time, Mr. Chairman, to speak to this. This is my maiden speech on the matter, although I have on three occasions since the debate on November 18 read this section about this questionnaire that is utilized by certain companies. I have read the minister's statement. I have read my colleague's statement and we happen to agree. I have read Mr. Hess's comments and the comments of Ms. Copps. I am still confused; I am as confused as hell.
Let me go to Mr. Hess's comments first. Mr. Hess on page 22 states, "That has now been replaced by subsection 2 of this proposed amendment." You will notice that what has been done is that we say that: "Equal treatment with respect to employment is infringed where a form of application for employment is used, or a written or oral inquiry is made of an applicant, that directly or indirectly classifies or indicates qualifications by and then he says, "by a prohibited ground of discrimination."
I went to section 4(1) of the bill on discrimination and it says, "Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, age" -- and of course you are relying on the mention of sex, and handicap later on. I looked desperately because I am not sure we are asking the right question.
I don't think we are saying it is a case of some difference of opinion as to whether someone gets a job on sexual grounds, for sexual reasons. I don't think it has anything to do with disability. Is Big Brother with us already? Have we reached 1984 already? Can a company pose questions that deal with strictly personal matters? Can a company put out a questionnaire that talks about things such as contraceptive screening, pelvic organs and so on? I don't know what that has to do with the job and I don't think that has anything to do with discrimination against someone.
It is just is there the right for someone to ask those questions in the first place? Maybe the minister might not want to put this in a bill. My colleague says it might be difficult, but surely the Minister of Labour, in conjunction with the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), should prepare some standardized forms that could be used either industry by industry or just strictly province-wide, where this garbage is eliminated. That is no one's business except the people themselves. They should not have to put this down. I don't find that anywhere, so maybe you can explain it to me carefully because you weren't able to convince my friend.
I have read the Hansard transcript three times and I am still not sure why you say the inclusion of handicap will prevent this, or why you say the definition of discrimination on grounds of sex will prevent this sort of questionnaire.
I am not trying to be funny either. I really don't understand how the section of the act you quote will prevent this from occurring. The minister himself says maybe we have to go to another act. That's a possibility. You might have to go to another act but I don't want to wait around.
This matter has now been before the Legislature since I raised it over a year ago and I would like to know how many companies are still using this type of questionnaire. The only reason we learn of it is when someone comes forward with this type of questionnaire. If the minister can't move it in this legislation, I would like a guarantee that he will move it in another bill -- not that he might, but as the Minister of Labour that he will see that it is done.
9:40 p.m.
Better still, without having to legislate, there is the possibility of he and his colleague the Minister of Health getting together to adopt a standardized form companies would have to use in this province on the type of questions and medical information they might need to assess whether a person is qualified to do the job that is being applied for.
I do not think half the stuff in that questionnaire is relevant for someone to do a job. I do not think anyone has the right to ask anyone those types of questions.
I would ask the minister to give some indication tonight he is either prepared to bring in an amendment; not maybe or some fuzzy promise, but that he is going to bring in legislation or that he is prepared, with his colleague, to introduce standardized forms across this province. Then we can end this once and for all, so that women do not have to answer the types of questions that were sought in this questionnaire by the company, whatever the hell its name is. Its name escapes me now -- they are so offensive.
Mr. Nixon: Not Inco?
Mr Martel: No, not Inco; I would hope the minister could give me some assurance the practice is finished as of today.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: We went into this in great detail in committee with the member for Riverdale. I regret he and I do not seem to have reached any understanding on it.
I never did suggest a bill dealing with prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age, sex, handicap and so forth could eliminate all extraneous matter in society that might be offensive to some people in medical forms. I did say that where a medical application form endeavours to obtain information directly or indirectly which would lead to the opinion that someone had a physical disability or a mental condition which would make him unsuitable for employment, that kind of information, in my view -- I have not got a legal opinion about it -- would be within the scope of this legislation.
For instance, a lot of the questions in that form you and I have seen were in my opinion aimed at finding out whether someone had a high absenteeism rate on the basis of a mental illness or a neurosis. For that reason, it is indirectly trying to obtain information that in my view would contravene the code.
Surely the question is straight and simple, "What is your previous absenteeism record and may I have a medical certificate that you are able to perform the duties required of you without unusual periods of absenteeism?" This may not be responsive to all the extraneous matters in that form that were of concern to the honourable member, as some were to me. It is my opinion this gets at most of them directly or indirectly, in trying to obtain information relating to a perceived or real physical disability or mental problem.
It may be the matter requires further discussion. It is not something I have an aversion to discussing with the Minister of Health, but I am not going to give any commitment tonight about what further steps will be taken.
Mr. Martel: Might I pursue it for a moment? What concerns me is that about a year ago, and I have the Hansard here, we discussed this matter. A year has gone by and nothing has changed.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Yes it has. We have this before us. That is what has changed.
Mr. Martel: We have a piece of legislation which you admit might not cover it all. It seems to me you should be able to --
Hon. Mr. Elgie: You are not prepared to admit what it will cover.
Mr. Martel: It will cover some. I do not dispute that. I said to the minister it is not going to cover some of the material in here. I just want to block off the rest of what it does not cover. Surely the minister can make a commitment that he is prepared to introduce legislation to prevent the rest under the Employment Standards Act or wherever he wants to bring it in. I do not care where it comes in and I said that a year ago.
I am asking that we prevent any of this from occurring from now on. I took the minister at his word a year ago when he said he was going to prevent this. I think he, like I, found this questionnaire quite offensive. I would think we should not have to wait any longer now to ensure that it cannot occur in future -- all of it, not just certain parts of it. I would ask the minister if he can make some commitment as to what he intends to do to prevent this from occurring in the future?
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, I really cannot go beyond what I said. I think if the member will recall the discussions we had in this House and outside, it was my view that the majority of the concerns he expressed would be addressed in this bill. I am prepared to have discussions with the Minister of Health and within my own ministry about exactly for what areas this bill may not convey protection. The member would not expect me to give a commitment tonight to introduce legislation or to do these things. I know it is wonderful to say it, but he does not really mean it. However, I will say that to him.
Mr. Martel: Just one question. Are you the minister? If you are, then you should be able to give that commitment.
Mr. Chairman: Section 22(2) agreed to? Agreed. Any further comment?
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a word on section 22(3) and section 22(4). My comment on subsection 3 is this question I was relating to earlier with respect to handicapped people and the denial of access, or the capacity, because of the handicap, to have questions raised with respect to their ability to perform a job.
Nothing in subsection 3 precludes the asking of questions at a personal employment interview concerning a prohibited ground of discrimination or discrimination on such ground as permitted under this act. That is one of the marvelous phrases. You can ask any question you want about a prohibited ground of discrimination as long as you can find somewhere else in the act which indicates that the prohibited ground of discrimination is not discrimination. That is about as far as you can go with lawyers' gobbledegook when it comes to questions of human rights.
May I move on, sir, to subsection 4 dealing with employment agencies. Subsection 4 deals with the vexed question with respect to the infringement of employment where an employment agency discriminates against a person because of a prohibited ground and so on and so forth.
I want to draw to the attention of the assembly the long period of time which has gone by since the Canadian Civil Liberties Association reported to the minister on the W5 program about the telephone calls they had made. I think I must read a couple of pages of the letter from Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, written on Monday, December 8, 1980, to the minister in which he stated that he welcomed a number of the improvements in the predecessor of this bill, Bill 209.
He goes on to say that he is concerned about a number of other problems. "On Sunday evening, December 7, CTV's W5 show carried an item describing an employment agency survey which was conducted by our organization within the last few months. On the basis of random selection, we telephoned 25 agencies in four cities across the country -- Halifax, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver. We told all of the agencies that we were representing an American firm which was planning to set up operations within their community within the near future. Our telephoner indicated that he was not placing an order at this time, he was simply familiarizing himself with the territory in advance of the move. After exchanging a number of comments about the nature of the business and the available pool of talent our telephoner advised the agency that the American firm he represented wanted white people to fill the sales positions involved.
9:50 p.m.
"He pointedly asked whether the agency would be prepared to screen out nonwhites so that the American company would be spared any embarrassing incidents. Of the 25 agencies we telephoned, only three said flatly that they would not fill such a discriminatory job order. In at least 17 cases the agencies indicated their willingness to screen out nonwhites. This might be called a moderate calculation; while the remaining five were somewhat vague in their responses, it is significant that they did not expressly refuse.
"We believe you will be interested in what the survey uncovered within the jurisdiction of your ministry in the city of Toronto. Of the 10 agencies called in Toronto only one clearly said no. As many as seven expressed a willingness to abide by the whites-only restriction. The remaining two were in the vague but nonrefusal category."
The general counsel for the civil liberties association goes on to indicate quite clearly that this was not the first time they brought the matter to the minister's attention. The news report on December 13, 1980, in the Toronto Star refers to this matter. It says:
"Yesterday Ontario Labour Minister Robert Elgie pledged to tighten up legislation that until now has allowed massive racial discrimination to be practised in the job placement field in this province." It refers to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association survey. It goes on: "Elgie plans to combat the situation by amending the Employment Agencies Act" and so on and so forth. "Elgie's fast reply was hailed yesterday by Borovoy as a good response and very much appreciated."
I raised the matter with the minister in the committee. The ministry wrote to me on November 20, 1981, indicating the concerns they had about this problem and indicating that it was to "evaluate the relative merits of these and other approaches that the task force was created early this fall. An official of the ministry has been seconded to work with the director of employment standards and the executive director of the human rights commission and myself" -- "myself' being Nicholas Ignatieff, assistant deputy minister. "His program of activity includes examination of the acts and regulations of other jurisdictions in North America as well as those in Europe, and the investigation of a sample of agencies. It is planned to complete the investigation and recommend a course of action as soon as possible."
Time goes by. The discrimination continues to exist; the problem is not solved. It disappears from public view, and we try to resurrect it occasionally here. The people in Intercede were equally concerned about this problem, as I understand it. The minister has examples of the kinds of advertisements that appear as classified ads, which are indirectly discriminatory in the way they apply to applications for employment by domestic persons. It urges a number of considerations but is particularly concerned about the role of employment agencies.
I do not know whether the minister wants to comment any further than he did in his reply to me of November 20, 1981, but if there is any way we can resurrect the issue, get some action from the ministry on it and have this problem solved, we would appreciate it.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will in essence be the same as those reported in the letter and discussed in committee. But I think it is important this member and other members of the House understand there is no lack of interest in what we perceive to be a real problem. The chairman of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association would, I am sure, enthusiastically report to him that he would not recommend to the Ministry of Labour -- and I hope the member for Riverdale is listening to the response he wanted -- the method used by that association to obtain the information they did: namely, entrapment. He would not, I am sure, recommend that a public agency set out using methods of entrapment. For that reason we endeavoured to see if there were other avenues we might use to enable us to obtain information about discriminatory activities by employment agencies.
The one avenue that was suggested that initially had some merit was that we require agencies to record a variety of information that would put in the hands of that agency information about age, sex, colour, creed and so forth. We finally came to the conclusion we would be handing them and requiring them to collect the kind of information we really did not want them to have.
We went back to the drawing boards again and, as a result of that, the internal committee that Mr. Ignatieff wrote to you about was established. We have seconded someone to be chairman to try to bring advice from human rights and employment standards to reach a logical and acceptable solution. There is no attempt to avoid a solution to a problem. But let us be honest with each other and acknowledge that some of the solutions may be worse than the problem in terms of civil rights and liberties. That is our problem and we are attempting to deal with it.
Section 22 agreed to.
On section 23:
Mr. Renwick: I want to pay tribute to the effort made by the organization known as Intercede, the International Coalition to End Domestic Exploitation, to deal with this vexed question of section 23(c). It allows that a right under section 4 to equal treatment with respect to employment is not infringed, where an individual person refuses to employ another for reasons of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination in section 4, "where the primary duty of the employment is attending to the medical or personal needs of the person or of an ill child or an aged, infirm or ill spouse or other relative of the person."
What has been of concern to that organization is the definitions that are used relating to domestic aide or personal servant. If you read the definitions of personal servant and domestic aide -- and the only available definitions are with respect to the Department of Employment and Immigration -- you will find, in a funny sense, they are interchangeable.
With respect to the exploitation of domestics, this clause may have a certain laudable, very narrow application related to a companion in the sense that those who come from upper middle class or aristocratic society would talk about a companion -- that is, a person who is there to travel with a woman, to read an Ode to a Nightingale by Keats to her at night before she goes to sleep, to bring her tea in the morning, to read Dickens to her during the morning, assist her with her sewing and crocheting in the afternoon, that kind of companion function that perhaps has a place in this society. That is what is intended to be covered by it.
In the committee, we have been unable to get the minister to narrow the scope of that. I think it is a very justified conclusion that the clause will be used to discriminate against persons on the basis of the prohibited grounds set out in the code, if they apply for domestic employment. I think it is a very real concern. I am not prepared at this time to move the amendment, but I am very much concerned that the minister will give us some kind of assurance that matter will continue to be of concern to him and he will review regularly with that organization its very real concern about the loophole this produces in the act. Could we have that assurance from the minister?
10 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, the member for Riverdale has my assurance that I will monitor, through the human rights commission the activities in relation to that subsection.
We think it was put in with a great deal of thought and sensitivity about people with medical or personal needs. One has to have someone in his family with those needs, some ill or dying parent or some child who is in that kind of condition, to know that he does not want anybody interfering with the kind of decisions he makes over who looks after him, his mother or his child in those situations.
I do not say that in any provocative way; I say it quite honestly. That is the reason the section is there, but I will agree to have the activity within the human rights commission monitored by someone on my staff over the months ahead.
Ms. Copps: On that same section, Mr. Chairman, the minister is well aware our party was prepared to accept the notion of the inclusion of medical needs. But when the definition of personal needs is included, it creates the situation of ambiguity. We certainly pointed out that ambiguity in committee and asked the minister to delete that section. However, he saw fit not to do so. I think there is a very real danger that in some situations there may be discrimination on the basis of some of those prohibited grounds simply in the hiring of someone who would be a cleaning woman, for example, and that is not acceptable.
We also would outline our concerns. I do not want to repeat it because many of these motions and comments have been gone over and over again in committee. I understood that one of the functions of the committee was to hone down so that we would be talking about very specific major points and not bringing up every committee objection into committee of the whole.
Section 23 agreed to.
On section 24:
Mr. Chairman: Any discussion on section 24(1) and (2)?
Mr. Renwick: I think the minister had an amendment, did he not, on this?
Mr. Chairman: I thought it was section 24(3).
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Subsection 3.
Mr. Chairman: I thought we would clear off subsections 1 and 2.
Shall section 24(1) and (2) carry? Carried.
Hon. Mr. Elgie moves that section 24(3)(a) of Bill 7 be amended by adding after the word "disability" in the second line, the words "or life insurance."
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, this was brought to my attention by staff and by counsel. Particularly in the employment context there were matters related to life insurance where the pre-existing handicap could well substantially increase the risk. Since it is not uncommon to have life insurance as part of an employment package it was necessary to add it to that section.
Mr. Chairman: Any discussion on the proposed amendment?
Those in favour of the minister's amendment to section 24(3)(a) will please say "aye."
Those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that the words "distinction, exclusion or preference" in section 24(3) be eliminated in two places and that the word "discriminate" be inserted in lieu thereof.
Would the member for Riverdale like any further discussion?
Mr. Renwick: No. The same comments on the similar amendment to sections 10 and 21 apply to this.
Mr. Chairman: No further discussion by any other member of the proposed amendment?
Hon. Mr. Elgie: The same comments as in sections 10 and 21 apply.
The Deputy Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Renwick's amendment to section 24 will please say "aye."
Those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment stacked.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that section 24(3)(b) be amended by adding at the end the words, "because the pre-existing handicaps substantially increase the risk."
Mr. Renwick: I need not elaborate on the points I made. The same amendment that I moved on section 21 applies to this problem as well. Elsewhere, in section 24(3)(a), the minister has that provision about substantially increasing the risk. It should be included in clause (b), and I would so commend it to the House.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: The arguments are essentially the same as those that we discussed in section 21. Once again, in section 24(3)(b) we are talking about more than just premiums and the risk involved. We are talking about benefits. We already have the benefit of a reasonable and bona fide section, which requires both the subjective and objective evaluation of those distinctions. I would have to oppose the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Renwick's amendment will please say "aye."
Those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment stacked.
Sections 25 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
On section 32:
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Eakins moves that section 32(5) be amended by striking out the words "may request the minister to appoint a board of inquiry or may authorize an employee or a member to," in the fourth, fifth and sixth lines and replacing them by "must."
Mr. Eakins: Refusing entry, I believe, is not reason to call a board of inquiry, and to do so could cast some form of guilt on that person. I believe it would be much better to apply for a warrant.
Ms. Copps: To clarify, I think from a procedural point of view we anticipated that was similar to the amendment that was originally introduced by the member for Riverdale, and if section 32(5) is passed, we would also move that amendment to section 32(6), which basically covers, first, the question of entry, and second, the question of removal of documents. So there are two separate amendments.
The Deputy Chairman: We are dealing only with this amendment right now.
Ms. Copps: I understand that, but the reason we did not introduce the second amendment under the second area was that we anticipate it is possible the government will not pass this amendment. In the interest of expediency, we introduced this amendment. That principle, I believe was endorsed by the chair on the first issues of sexual orientation in sections 1 to 5. It is just in that context that we will be introducing the same amendment to cover not only entry into the premises but also removal of documents.
10:10 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: The amendment I have is in respect to subsection 6. What else are you proposing?
Ms. Copps: The amendment the minister has should be numbered section 32(5).
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Section 32(6), by striking out the words, "may request the minister to appoint."
Ms. Copps: Section 32(5) and section 32(6) cover basically the same territory. Section 32(5) covers entry into the premises and --
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Do you want that to apply to both?
Ms. Copps: Yes, that is basically what I am asking some direction from the chair for.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member for Hamilton Centre has said we have discussed this at length. It is absolutely essential the commission have the option of either obtaining a warrant or, in cases where it does not have sufficient evidence to justify a warrant, it have the option of having a board of inquiry require the production of documents, with all the rules of natural justice applying and with the board having the power as it does in this bill to adjourn so the documents may be reviewed. Those are options we cannot take away from the commission if we expect it to be effective in its role.
Ms. Copps: I wanted to speak in favour of the amendments for the reason outlined by Mr. Eakins, which is we had a number of lawyers who appeared before the committee and who felt, in a situation similar to that described by the minister, it would not be difficult to obtain a warrant.
The compulsion to attend a board of inquiry presumes guilt on the part of the alleged infringer of the right. My understanding of the human rights code to date is such that the only time a board of inquiry is convened is when there has been an alleged infringement of the right.
I also wanted to speak tonight in an effort to alert this House to the fact there have certainly been government members who have been extremely vocal in opposition to the notion of warrantless searches. This legislation does not respond to that complaint. Therefore, I would expect those in the House who have spoken out very vocally against this legislation in their communities to continue to do so here.
I call upon the member for Prince Edward- Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor), who has called this legislation nothing short of Socialist dogma to stand up and be counted tonight in support of this amendment if he is not making the kinds of statements he has made in the past on the basis of political motivation.
There are other members on the government side of the House who have been vocal in opposing warrantless searches. We feel this amendment will cover that objection. It is an amendment which will allow the human rights commission the opportunity to enter premises on the first instance, but where a party feels he does not want to have his rights infringed by either entry or removal of documents, the only alternative now would be to ask the human rights commission to obtain a warrant.
It is a legal procedure that would not impede the system. To convene a board of inquiry would be more bureaucratic and expensive for the taxpayers at large. We call upon those on the government side who have been so vocal in opposition to warrantless searches to stand up tonight. Otherwise, their words will ring very hollow across the community of Ontario.
Mr. Renwick: The amendment which has been proposed by the member for Victoria-Haliburton and spoken to by the member for Hamilton Centre is one which might well have some merit. I am not prepared to support that amendment, either in subsections 5 or 6, at the present time.
The whole of section 32 and the powers with respect to investigation are of real importance to the commission. We have gone over every single word in those clauses from the original proposal. The minister, with his amendments, in response to criticisms by many people has come up with a sound proposal. All of us want the commission to operate in accordance with accepted legal practices. I believe these are quite within that framework.
I understand the reasons for the amendment, and I understand the concerns we have had about it. But there have been substantial improvements in this section since the time it first saw the light of day, I have listened to the government minister responsible for it and I am prepared to let it stand the way it is.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. We are close to the time. Is there any further debate on this motion?
Those in favour of Mr. Eakins's amendment will please say "aye."
Those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment stacked.
The Deputy Chairman: It being 10:15, I understand there is an agreement that there would be a stacked vote and there would be a 10-minute bell.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, there is one further amendment which was stood down until the end. I would like to move that amendment.
The Deputy Chairman: I am afraid the timing is such that it is 10:15, and our --
Mr. Renwick: We could complete the bill, with the consent of the House, if you want to.
The Deputy Chairman: With the consent of the House.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, having seen my honourable friend in operation for the last number of hours, if he has got one more amendment I think we would be looking at probably another 20 minutes. My own feeling is that we should proceed by the agreement, ring the bells and vote now, and return to the bill when we are not rushing.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I am, as always, in the hands of the House. The House would like to complete the bill this evening.
The Deputy Chairman: The agreement stands. Call in the members.
10:25 p.m.
Mr. Chairman: To refresh members' memories, we are dealing with Bill 7, An Act to revise and extend Protection of Human Rights in Ontario. We have a number of amendments. We trust we will get the co-operation of all members during the count and the recording of the count.
The member for Riverdale has proposed that sections 1 to 5, inclusive, be amended by adding after the word "sex" the words "sexual orientation."
The committee divided on Mr. Renwick's amendment, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 23; nays 69.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Huron- Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) has proposed that sections 1 to 5, inclusive, be amended by adding after the words "family status" the words "political belief."
The committee divided on Mr. Riddell's amendment, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 37; nays 55.
10:30 p.m.
Mr. Chairman: I am going to have to ask that the gallery be cleared. I am leaving the chair for five minutes.
The Chairman suspended the proceedings of the committee at 10:31 p.m.
10:37 p.m.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I will allow 30 seconds for members to get back to their seats.
The committee divided on Ms. Copps's amendment to sections 1 to 5, inclusive, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 36; nays 57.
10:40 p.m.
The committee divided on Mr. Di Santo's amendment to sections 1 to 5, inclusive, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 37; nays 56.
The committee divided on Mr. R. F. Johnston's amendment to sections 1 to 5, inclusive, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 37; nays 56.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
The committee divided on Ms. Copps's amendment to section 9(a), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 19; nays 74.
The committee divided on Mr. Renwick's amendment to section 9(a), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 36; nays 57.
The committee divided on Mr. Renwick's amendment to section 9(c), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 37; nays 56.
Mr. Renwick: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Will you read the amendments into the record?
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick has moved that section 9(h) be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"(h) 'record of offences' means a conviction for (i) an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted under the Criminal Records Act (Canada) and has not been revoked, or (ii) an offence punishable on summary conviction and proceedings under part XXIV of the Criminal Code or part III in the sense and respect of any provincial enactment."
The committee divided on Mr. Renwick's amendment to section 9(h), which was negatived on the same vote.
The committee divided on Ms. Copps's amendment to section 9, which was negatived on the same vote.
Section 9 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick has moved that section 10 be amended by deleting the words "the exclusion, qualification or preference of" and the words "discrimination against" be inserted in lieu thereof.
The committee divided on Mr. Renwick's amendment to section 10, which was negatived on the same vote.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick has moved that section 12 be amended by inserting before the word "notice" the word "statement."
The committee divided on Mr. Renwick's amendment to section 12, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 16; nays 77.
Section 12 agreed to.
10:50 p.m.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick has moved that section 16(2) -- shall I dispense with the reading?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Renwick: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I would ask you to please read each of the amendments proposed by this caucus.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick has moved that section 16(2) be amended by adding thereto the words, "or may nevertheless request the minister to appoint a board of inquiry and refer the subject matter of the complaint to the board," and by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(3) When a board of inquiry is appointed pursuant to subsection 2, the board may then proceed to make the inquiry in the order provided for in subsection 2 or subsection 3 of section 40, as the case may be."
The committee divided on Mr. Renwick's amendment to section 16(2), which was negatived on the same vote.
Section 16 agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: There was an amendment to section 19(3) moved by the minister.
Mr. Chairman: It was carried, not stacked.
The committee divided on Mr. Renwick's motion that section 20(4) not stand as part of the bill, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 37; nays 56.
Section 20 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick has moved that in section 21 the words "differentiates or makes a distinction, exclusion or preference" be deleted and the word "discriminates" be inserted in lieu thereof.
The committee divided on Mr. Renwick's amendment to section 21, which was negatived on the same vote.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick has moved that section 21 be amended by deleting all the words after "annuity" and substituting therefor the words "discriminates on reasonable and bona fide grounds because the age, sex, marital status, family status or handicap substantially increases the risk."
The committee divided on Mr. Renwick's amendment to section 21, which was negatived on the same vote.
The committee divided on Mr. Renwick's motion that section 21 not stand as part of the bill, which was negatived on the same vote.
Section 21 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick has moved that section 24 be amended by eliminating the words "distinction, exclusion or preference" in two places in subsection 3 and inserting the word "discriminate" in lieu thereof.
The committee divided on Mr. Renwick's amendment to section 24(3), which was negatived on the same vote.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick has moved that clause (b) of section 24(3) be amended by adding at the end thereof the words "because the pre-existing handicap substantially increases the risk."
The committee divided on Mr. Renwick's amendment to section 24(3)(b), which was negatived on the same vote.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
The committee divided on Mr. Eakins's amendment to section 32(5) and 32(6), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 21; nays 72.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported progress.
The House adjourned at 10:56 p.m.