human rights for the next millennium
RECOMMENDED BC HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENTS
FOR BRITISH COLUMBIANS BY BRITISH COLUMBIANS
January 19, 1998
Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data
Main entry under title:
Human rights for the next millennium : Recommended BC
Human Rights Code Amendments for British
Columbians by British Columbians
ISBN 0-7726-3448-3
1. Civil rights - British Columbia. 2. Human
rights - British Columbia.
I. British Columbia
Human Rights Commission.
KEB458.H85 1998
KF4749.H85 1998
342.711 085
C98-960009-2
January 19, 1998
The Honourable Ujjal Dosanjh
Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Human Rights
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC V8V 1X4
Dear Minister:
On August 6, 1997 the British Columbia Human Rights Commission embarked on a historical
dialogue with people from across the province. We asked British Columbians to participate in
discussion about the human rights protections we wished to pass on to the next generation and to
guide us through the next decade and into the next millennium.
New amendments to the Code proclaimed January 1, 1997, in section 6(2) of the Human Rights
Code permit the Commission to hold public hearings and consultations regarding matters relevant
to the Code. In our first province-wide consultation process, the Commission held 13 public
meetings, with 355 participants, heard 136 oral submissions and received 365 written
submissions. The report, Human Rights for the Next Millennium-Recommended BC Human
Rights Code Amendments for British Columbians by British Columbians, contains the results of
these consultations. A list of the recommendations is contained in Appendix A. The Commission
is grateful to those British Columbians who invested the time, resources and passion to make their
opinions known during the public consultation process.
As British Columbians prepare to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, the Commission sincerely hopes that you and the government will seize this
opportunity to improve human rights protections in British Columbia as expressed by British
Columbians. Their input has been invaluable to the Commission in refining the recommendations
that we now pass on to you as Minister Responsible for Human Rights.
Sincerely,
Mary-Woo Sims
Chief Commissioner
acknowledgments
The BC Human Rights Commission acknowledges and appreciates the contribution of everyone
who assisted with the public consultations and the preparation of this report, in particular: Tom
Beasley, Jeff Johnston, Karmen Koh, Luke LaRue, Ann Murnaghan, Donna Mottershead and
Deirdre Rice.
table of contents
ii
Acknowledgments
1
Introduction
Continuing the historic milestones in human rights legislation
2
The Consultations
Talking human rights with British Columbians
5
The Recommendations
Improving human rights protections for British Columbians
15
Conclusion
17
Appendix A
List of recommendations
19
Appendix B
Submissions received
introduction
CONTINUING THE HISTORIC MILESTONES IN HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION
Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to
home-so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any map of the
world. Yes, they are the world of the individual: the neighbourhood he (or
she) lives in; the school or college he (or she) attends; the factory, farm or
office where he (or she) works. Such are the places where every man,
woman and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity
without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have
little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them
close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.
-ELEANOR ROOSEVELT
TO THE UNITED NATIONS, 1958
Forty years after Eleanor Roosevelt delivered this speech to representa-tives of the
United Nations, British Columbians have taken her visionary words to heart. Through a
historic public consultation process last fall, British Columbians participated in the design
of recommended amend-ments to our Human Rights Code. British Columbians have been
able to have a direct impact on the proposals concerning the law that protects them from
discrimination.
And the consultations could not have been better timed. The architects of the UN’s
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Roosevelt and Canadian John Peters Humphrey,
established the first crucial footings of human rights legislation 50 years ago. We
celebrate the anniversary of their landmark work by collaborating with British
Columbians in every “neighbourhood, school, factory, farm and office” to improve our
protections.
In this way, we can ensure that British Columbians enjoy the best human rights
protections in Canada.
What follows is a summary of the recent public consultation process and
recommended amendments to the BC Human Rights Code.
the consultations
TALKING HUMAN RIGHTS WITH BRITISH COLUMBIANS
The most recent review of BC’s human rights legislation began in 1994 with
University of British Columbia Professor Bill Black’s assessment of human rights in this
province. He undertook a study, on behalf of the provincial government, of the
administrative processes that support human rights legislation as well as the human rights
legislation itself.
Professor Black’s report contained 163 recommendations for changes. The
government chose to act on the specific changes that would improve the administrative
structure of human rights management before considering any changes to the protections
currently available under the Code. Those changes to the administrative structure were
proclaimed by government on January 1, 1997.
The outstanding recommendations in Black’s report were reviewed by the staff of
the BC Human Rights Commission to determine if any or all of them should be pursued.
On August 6, 1997, the BC Human Rights Commission embarked upon a
consultation process to involve British Columbians in a discussion about human rights
protections. The Commission posed this question:
“What human rights protections do we wish to leave to the next generation and which
ones should accompany us into the next decade and the next millennium?”
By the time the public consultations concluded on October 10, 1997, the
Commission had visited 10 cities: Nanaimo, Victoria, Fort St. John, Prince George,
Terrace, Cranbrook, Kamloops, Kelowna, Surrey and Vancouver. The Chief
Commissioner presided over 13 public sessions, hosted 355 participants, heard 136 oral
submissions and received 365 written submissions. More than 2,000 copies of the
discussion paper, “Human Rights for the Next Millennium,” containing a total of 17
proposed amendments to the Human Rights Code were distributed to the public.
Many views were expressed as the consultations prompted discussion about human
rights and how far, as a society, we should go to protect the rights of British Columbians.
Some comments were directed at the specific recommendations being debated and other
comments took broader perspectives.
By e-mail, for example, the Commission representatives heard from those calling for
a public inquiry into the incidents at Ipperwash in Ontario and Gustafsen Lake in BC.
Some British Columbians expressed the view that the proposed recommendations did not
go far enough to protect against discrimination that they have experienced.
We heard about the inequality experienced by aboriginal people and the elderly. We
heard from British Columbians who felt that the “rights of the unborn” were being
ignored. We heard from those who felt there was no recognition of “father’s rights” when
it came to access to child-ren in the event of marriage or relationship breakdown. We
heard about the proliferation of “poor bashing” and about blame being placed on the most
disadvantaged for their condition. We heard from pet owners who have had to face
eviction from their homes or euthanize or give away their pets because of “no pet”
policies of landlords. We heard from those who experienced discrimination because the
professional accreditation they received in their country of origin is not recognized in BC.
We heard from those who said that human rights were only a part of the broader equality
umbrella, which should include equal pay for work of equal value, pay equity and
employment equity.
We also heard the views of those who felt that current human rights laws were
sufficient and that any increased protections available under the Code would only
increase the workload of the Commission. There were concerns that the Commission’s
resources were insufficient to deal with the current caseload, and that expanded rights
protections would create further delays.
We also heard from a small minority who felt that current rights protections should
be abolished or that the Human Rights Code should be repealed in its entirety.
Not every comment made to the Commission during the consultations appears in the
recommended amendments. Some fall outside the Commission’s jurisdiction. Others
have been tabled for further study.
In all cases, however, feedback from the public has been thoroughly reviewed by the
Commission in order to draft these recommendations for amendments to the BC Human
Rights Code.
the recommendations
IMPROVING HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTIONS FOR BRITISH COLUMBIANS
It is precisely because people are subjected to prejudice and discrimination
that we need to have human rights laws. These laws, in and of themselves,
will not eliminate discrimination but provide recourse to the victims of
discrimination.
-ELIZABETH JAMES, SURREY CONSULTATION
The following recommendations, submitted by the BC Human Rights Commission
to the Minister Responsible for Human Rights, can be best described as having been
designed by British Columbians for British Columbians.
In drafting the recommendations, the Commission considered submissions from the
public, a review of current case law and a comparison of protections against
discrimination existing in other provinces and under the federal human rights legislation.
It is important to note that some of the amendments listed in the original discussion
paper-for example, the proposal to include the phrase “reasonable cause” in the Code-will
not be recommended to government. British Columbians told the Commission that the
language in some of the proposed amendments required clarity, or further study.
1. Amend the definition of age in the BC Human Rights Code to
“19 years or more” to protect people over the age of 65.
If we are to protect our senior citizens from discrimination, we need to
protect them no matter how senior they are. It is no more acceptable to
discriminate against a person once they attain the age of 66 than it is when
they are 65.
-BARBARA LEBLANC, VICTORIA
Right now, people aged 66 and older in BC have no recourse under the Code if they
face discrimination because of their age. In fact, BC and Newfoundland provide the
fewest protections for seniors under human rights legislation in Canada.
In recommending this amendment to the Code, the Commission urges the
government to extend protection to seniors by removing the ceiling age of 65 years in the
areas of accommodation, service, facility, purchase of property and in tenancy premises.
Special seniors’ discounts and programs should continue unaffected by this
recommendation. The amendment should not affect the benefits that have been accorded
to seniors by society.
Through the consultations, British Columbians expressed their concern that
mandatory retirement will still be permitted. Women, especially, expressed their concern
that mandatory retirement has the effect of displacing women into poverty. People do not
want to be forced into retirement if they can still do the work for which they were hired.
The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that mandatory retire-ment is
constitutional. The Commission will, however, conduct the necessary research to
determine if mandatory retirement adversely affects women and to what extent further
changes to the Code may
be necessary.
The Commission also heard from young people who felt they experienced
discrimination because they were not yet 19. It was argued that the Code should be
expanded to provide protection against discrimination to cover all ages and to add
specific exemptions to cover situations in which age distinctions are legitimate.
With respect to lowering the age discrimination protection, the Commis-sion
believes that all Provincial legislation affecting those under 19 should be examined in
light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As a result, the
Commission is not yet prepared to recommend any other changes with respect to the
definition of age.
2. Amend the Code to prohibit discrimination on the basis of age
in accommodation, services and facilities.
This amendment will become increasingly relevant in our society with its
aging population. It also applies to the prohibition of discrimination in the
purchase of property on the grounds of age or family status. The basic
principle here, as elsewhere, is that there should be some rational and
justifiable ground for an act of discrimination.
-CHINMOY BANERJEE, BURNABY
This recommendation should be read in conjunction with the preceding
recommendation about the definition of age in the Code. The current Code does not
protect against age discrimination in accommodation, services and facilities. As a result
of this omission, a person can deny people on the basis of age any accommodation,
service or facility customarily available to the public. BC is one of only three
jurisdictions in all of Canada that does not extend protection against discrimination on the
basis of age.
One possible reason for the omission of age from Section 8 of the ex-isting Code is
the concern that it would undermine legitimate limitations on children regarding matters
such as liquor consumption and driving a car. Another reason is that the omission allows
for bonuses traditionally granted to seniors, such as lower fares on public transportation.
The Commission believes these concerns can be dealt with if the preceding
recommendation about the definition of age is adopted. That is, that the definition of age
be “19 and over” and that current benefits enjoyed by seniors be exempted.
3. Include “age” and “family status” in the Code to prohibit discrimination
on the basis of age and family status in the purchase of property. Allow an
exemption, as is currently the case in rental situations, for seniors’
buildings (55 and over).
The proposed changes can set a climate of legitimacy for those who would
like to change the way child residents and families with children are being
treated, in terms of gaining fair access to accommodation, and being able to
live reasonably in such accommodation.
-DON & CONNIE CHAPMAN, MISSION
The Commission believes this recommendation encompasses the con-cerns
expressed by seniors. We heard that they should be able to live where they want and
choose the environment in which they live and that some of these buildings are built with
seniors in mind. Therefore, the buildings are ill-equipped for children as residents.
The current Code prohibits discrimination in tenancy premises on the basis of age
and family status, but not for the sale of the same property. At present, it is legal to deny
the sale of a property to someone because he or she has children, but it is illegal to deny a
rental property to a tenant because he or she has children (unless the units are reserved for
persons 55 or over). Including “age” and “family status” as prohibited grounds of
discrimination in section 9 will render it consistent with section 10, and eliminate
difficulties recognized in case law.
This inconsistency in law regarding the sale and rental of property also has a
significant impact on manufactured home owners, who typically own their home, but rent
the pad on which it sits. The prohibition of discrimination based on “age” and “family
status” does not apply to the sale of their home, but does apply to the occupancy of the
pad. This often results in unfair situations, especially since the homes are often
immovable and must be sold or rented as attached to their pads.
The Commission heard that the issue of the legislation pertaining to manufactured
homes and parks is in need of a major review and that amendments to the Human Rights
Code alone would not suffice.
The Commission therefore recommends that the Attorney General and Minister
Responsible for Human Rights direct his officials to undertake a comprehensive review
of the concerns of manufactured home owners and manufactured home park owners. This
review should include appropriate officials from other ministries with jurisdiction over
manufactured homes issues, including the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry
of Finance and Corporate Relations.
4. Add a new provision in the Code that would protect people from
discrimination because they are related to or associate with a person or
group protected by the Code.
It is finally time to explicitly extend human rights protection to allies, the
friends who work with, associate with, or are related to “targets.”
-CAPITAL REGION RACE RELATIONS ASSOCIATION
Relatives, friends and co-workers of a person or group protected by the Code may
also face discrimination and harassment. Currently, the Code does not expressly prohibit
discrimination in these cases. Five other jurisdictions across Canada already have such
provisions in their human rights legislation. Legislation in Manitoba, Ontario, Prince
Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Yukon expressly prohibits discrimination against a
person because he or she is related to or associates with persons protected by the Code.
Some British Columbians expressed concerns about the degree of association
necessary to trigger this provision. They argued that this amendment will increase
uncertainties surrounding the Code, become the subject of argument in proceedings
concerning the protected grounds and will be counter-productive to the purposes of the
Code.
The Commission believes that case law in provinces already providing such
protection will assist in determining the parameters of this new protection. For example,
this type of provision would make it possible for a Caucasian woman to file a complaint
because she was fired from her job for being married to a man of African descent.
5. Prohibit any request by employers for information from a job
applicant about a prohibited ground of discrimination, including the
“receipt of Workers’ Compensation benefits.” An exemption would be
available if such information is needed for a purpose permitted by the
Code, such as a special program. This prohibition will not apply in the
event that a decision has been made to hire a person and the information is
needed for legitimate purposes.
[Such] questions will create a justifiable apprehension on the part of the
applicant that he or she will not be treated fairly. Individuals will be
reluctant to omit an answer or challenge the question unless the Code is
clear on this point.
-CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION - BC BRANCH,
HUMAN RIGHTS WORKING GROUP
It is extremely important that potential employees not be com-pelled to
report to employers whether or not they have claimed or received benefits
under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The absence of such a measure
opens many injured or disabled workers up to discrimination on the part of
employers.
-COLLEGE INSTITUTE EDUCATORS’
ASSOCIATION OF BC
At present, a human rights infringement claim cannot be made based on the wording
of an application form. In addition, a person usually has to wait for a job denial before
being able to proceed with a complaint. There is no justification for requiring an
applicant to supply information if it cannot be used for legitimate purposes. Other
information may be needed for administrative purposes, but there is no reason why it
cannot be supplied after the hiring decision has been made.
Every other Canadian human rights statute has a section that explicitly or implicitly
prohibits pre-employment inquiries about characteristics related to a prohibited ground of
discrimination. For example, section 8(1) of the Human Rights, Citizenship and
Multiculturalism Act of Alberta provides “No person shall ... make any written or oral
inquiry of an applicant ... that requires an applicant to furnish any information concerning
race ... or ... source of income.”
British Columbia is the only province that allows for this type of information to be
asked in pre-employment circumstances without bona fide justification.
The Commission heard from many individuals and groups who expressed concern
that the receipt of Workers’ Compensation benefits had been used to deny employment to
those persons who had been in receipt of those benefits. In addition, the Commission met
with Commissioners of the Royal Commission on Workers’ Compensation in British
Columbia who confirmed that this is an issue that has been raised with them during their
review.
6 Amend the Code to prohibit discrimination on the basis of
gender identity.
The adoption of gender identity as a prohibited ground will
not silence the attacks, but it will blunt them in much the same way as has
happened with sexual orientation.
-ZENITH FOUNDATION
There is little doubt that many of our patients experience discrimination and
harassment, whether it be within the context of employment, housing or
other fundamental aspects of their lives .... I am aware that existing grounds
(disability, sex and sexual orientation) may not be applicable in all cases.
Therefore, it follows that adding a new ground for protection such as gender
identity, would better serve the needs of our patients.
-DR R. STEVENSON, CENTRE FOR SEXUALITY, GENDER IDENTITY & REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH,
VANCOUVER HOSPITAL
There is no explicit protection for transgendered people in current human rights
legislation across Canada. Should BC proceed with this amendment, it would be the first
jurisdiction in Canada to do so.
Few pieces of legislation in the world explicitly protect transgendered people from
discrimination. European Convention articles extend some protection to transgendered
people. There are four jurisdictions in Australia that specify “transgender” or
“transsexual” in their anti-discrimination legislation.
In the United States, Minnesota was the first state to enact a nondiscrimination statute that specifically includes transgendered persons within the
definition of “sexual orientation.” Many cities have since modelled their antidiscrimination legislation after Minnesota’s definition, including Evanston, Illinois.
Singapore, in 1996, announced that the government would recognize the new gender
identity of transsexuals for all purposes including marriage laws.
In the few cases where transgendered people have filed human rights complaints in
various provinces, including BC, their claims have been processed on the grounds of
sex/gender, disability or sexual orientation. The Transgendered Law Reform Project,
sponsored by the BC Law Foundation, showed the inadequacies in dealing with this type
of discrimination under the existing categories. Adding “gender identity” as a ground for
protection would ensure that adequate protection is accorded to all those who fall under
the category.
7. Amend sections 12 and 13 of the Code to make successor employers
liable for human rights obligations of their predecessors.
Employers will no longer be able to abandon their obli-gations to affected
employees by selling their business. Successorship provisions are absolutely
critical to protect employees in this event. Our experience clearly shows that
too often employees are left to bear the brunt of emotional and financial
costs when employers abandon their responsibilities.
-PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
There is currently no provision in the Code with regard to successor obligations
when companies and/or businesses change ownership. It is unclear whether a successor
employer can be named as a respondent to a previous complaint and whether a
complainant is able to recover damages from the successor employer. Moreover, there is
the possibility that an employer may “sell” the business to a successor just to avoid
liability under the Code.
The obligations of successor employers are dealt with by the Labour Relations Code
and Employment Standards Act. Section 35 of the Labour Relations Code states that
successor purchasers are bound by any proceedings under that Code. Section 97 of the
Employment Standards Act deems the employment of an employee of the sold business
to be continuous and uninterrupted.
Those who supported the proposed amendment stated that employers should not be
able to escape liability by selling their assets. Those opposed argued that it would be
unfair to impose liability on a successor employer who is not aware of nor involved in
any discriminatory conduct. This may create an unfair burden on someone purchasing
assets. A “due diligence” search would not necessarily uncover the potential liability.
This concern would be lessened if there was a search capability. The Commission
could adopt the practice of the Labour Relations Board and the Employment Standards
Branch of providing prospective buyers of businesses with information concerning the
complaint in order that the buyer can assess potential liability.
8. Amend the Code to prohibit discrimination on the basis of pregnancy in
the provision of life or employee insurance, retirement or pension plans.
[T]his change will bring the Code in line with the Supreme Court of Canada
decision in Brooks v. Canada Safeway. The removal of ambiguity provided
by such specific word[ing] ... allows employers and others to act with more
certainty in the conduct of their affairs.
-BC CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION
Section 8 of the Code, concerning services customarily available to the public,
allows discrimination on the basis of sex or physical or mental disability in determining
premiums or benefits under contracts of life or health insurance. Section 13, concerning
employment, provides a similar exemption based on marital status, physical or mental
disability, sex or age, regarding the operation of any bona fide retirement, superannuation
or pension plan or bona fide group or employee insurance plan.
Exemptions authorizing discrimination based on sex could be interpreted as
allowing health or group insurance plans to discriminate on the basis of pregnancy.
However, the Supreme Court of Canada has stressed the importance of women being
protected against discrimination because of pregnancy. Discrimination on the grounds of
pregnancy falls under sex discrimination. There is a need to clarify that health and
insurance policies/plans cannot discriminate on the basis of pregnancy.
9(a). Amend the Code to include protections from discrimination based on
“social condition.”
There is a real problem for people on social assistance being stigmatized,
and often offered only low paying jobs or minimal wages in the false belief
that that is all they are worth. In our economy all sorts of people have been
driven to receiving legal non-wage incomes. They should not be penalized as
they try to reintegrate into the workforce.
-ANTHONY KENNEDY, QUESNEL
An overwhelming majority of submissions stated that “lawful source of income”
does not adequately protect poor people in general from discrimination in
accommodation, service, facility, purchase of property, employment and by unions and
associations. They suggest that a more appropriate term would be “social condition,”
which has been judicially interpreted to include people in receipt of social assistance, as
well as single women and single mothers. This amendment would also be in keeping with
our obligations as a signatory of the United Nations’ International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
9(b). In the event that the Government decides not to proceed with this
recommendation, the Commission recommends amending the Code to
include protections from discrimination based on “lawful source of
income.”
People who live in poverty are subject to widespread systemic
discrimination. These people are routinely denied housing and access to
services and they are reviled in popular culture as being morally inferior.
People who live in poverty are not even on the political agenda. They are
marginalized to the point of invisibility. This is precisely the kind of societal
disadvantage and exclusion that human rights legislation is meant to
alleviate.
-CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION - BC BRANCH,
HUMAN RIGHTS WORKING GROUP
A majority of the submissions supported this amendment. Those who opposed the
amendment argued that it would not be viable to force businesses to contract with people
who may not be able to live up to the agreement. They questioned whether this would
mean that banks would have to lend money to people on social assistance to pay
mortgages.
The Commission agrees that businesses have the right to take reasonable steps to
determine whether people can fulfill their financial obligations. However, adopting the
proposed amendment would not interfere with that right: the Code clearly entitles
businesses to base decisions on bona fide and reasonable credit concerns. The
Commission believes that it is unfair to treat people receiving income from social
assistance differently from those with comparable income from a different source and
that the Code should protect against such discrimination.
9(c). And in the event that the Government decides not to proceed with
either of the two previous recommendations, the Commission recommends
that section 10 of the Code be amended to prohibit discrimination in
tenancy because of “lawful source of income.”
Currently, protection against discrimination on the basis of “lawful source of
income” in tenancy is provided by section 81 of the Residential Tenancy Act. Section 81
effectively adds protection against discrimination based on source of income to the
Human Rights Code. The provision is part of the Residential Tenancy Act, but
enforcement is carried out under the Human Rights Code. The term “lawful source of
income” refers to, but is not limited to, the receipt of government assistance. This
amendment would make the Code consistent with the Residential Tenancy Act.
10. Extend coverage for British Columbians faced with retaliation because
they refuse, have refused or will refuse to contravene the Code.
This amendment is a significant improvement in that employees would now
have protection under the Code if they refuse to perform a discriminatory
action when directed by their employer. Retaliatory action on the part of
their employer, which often results in discipline or dismissal, would be
prohibited.
-BC FEDERATION
OF LABOUR
This amendment will strengthen the Code by encouraging people to refuse to
contravene the Code. It will also send a clear message to those in subordinate positions,
who have in the past felt that they had no choice but to comply with their superiors’
orders to contravene the Code.
Section 43 protects a person who files or is named in a complaint, gives evidence or
otherwise assists in the prosecution of a complaint. However, it does not cover retaliation
against a person who refuses instructions to violate the Code.
11. Amend Section 41 which relates to exemptions so that the language is
consistent with all grounds listed in the Code.
This amendment ensures consistency in managing the Code. The language used in
Section 41 should remain the same throughout the provision. The same applies to the
grounds listed in this section.
conclusion
The public’s input into these recommendations has been invaluable in refining the
proposed amendments and mobilizing British Columbians to consider their priorities
when it comes to protections. The BC Human Rights Commission is grateful to those
who invested their time, resources and passion to voice their opinions during the public
consultation process.
These recommendations have been delivered to the Honourable Ujjal Dosanjh,
Minister Responsible for Human Rights. The input from British Columbians into the
proposed amendments gives the Commission and Provincial Government confidence that
the recommendations have been well considered and reflect the opinions of participants.
The next step for the recommendations is for the Minister Responsible for Human
Rights to decide, in consultation with his colleagues, which of the recommendations will
be forwarded to the Legislature and ultimately become law.
This report is available on audio tape, in large print, in Braille and on computer diskette. For copies of the
report in an alternate format, please contact:
BC Human Rights Commission
201 - 815 Hornby Street
Vancouver, BC V6Z 2E6
(tel) 604 660 0657
(fax) 604 660 0195
bc.human_rights_commission@ag.gov.bc.ca
appendix a
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Amend the definition of age in the BC Human Rights Code to “19 years or more” to
protect people over the age of 65.
2. Amend the Code to prohibit discrimination on the basis of age in accommodation,
services and facilities.
3. Include “age” and “family status” in the Code to prohibit discrimination on the basis
of age and family status in the purchase of property. Allow an exemption, as is currently
the case in rental situations, for seniors’ buildings (55 and over).
4. Add a new provision in the Code that would protect people from discrimination
because they are related to, or associated with, a person or group protected by the Code.
5. Prohibit any request by employers for information from a job applicant about a
prohibited ground of discrimination, including the “receipt of Workers’ Compensation
benefits.” An exemption would be available if such information is needed for a purpose
permitted by the Code, such as a special program. This prohibition will not apply in the
event that a decision has been made to hire a person and the information is needed for
legitimate purposes.
6. Amend the Code to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
7. Amend sections 12 and 13 of the Code to make successor employers liable for human
rights obligations of their predecessors.
8. Amend the Code to prohibit discrimination on the basis of pregnancy in the provision
of life or employee insurance, retirement or pension plans.
9(a). Amend the Code to include protections from discrimination based on “social
condition.”
9(b). In the event that the Government decides not to proceed with this recommendation,
the Commission recommends amending the Code
to include protections from discrimination based on “lawful source
of income.”
9(c). And in the event that the Government decides not to proceed with either of the two
previous recommendations, the Commission recommends that section 10 of the Code be
amended to prohibit discrimination in tenancy because of “lawful source of income.”
10. Extend coverage for British Columbians faced with retaliation because they refuse,
have refused or will refuse to contravene the Code.
11. Amend Section 41 which relates to exemptions so that the language is consistent
with all grounds listed in the Code.
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
The Commission recommends to the Attorney General that he work with his colleagues
to re-examine all Provincial legislation affecting
those under 19 in light of the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child.
The Commission will conduct the necessary research to determine
if mandatory retirement adversely affects women and to what extent further changes to
the Code may be necessary.
The Commission recommends that the Attorney General direct his officials to undertake
a comprehensive review of the concerns of
manufactured home owners and manufactured home park owners.
This review should include appropriate officials from other ministries with jurisdiction
over manufactured homes issues, including the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the
Ministry of Finance & Corporate Relations.
appendix b
SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED FROM:
Aaods, Grest
Action Committee of People with Disabilities (Joanne Neubauer)
Active Manufactured Home Owners’ Association (Alex Ross)
Advisory Council on Multiculturalism (Janice Switlow)
Affiliation of Multicultural Societies & Service Agencies of BC (Carmela
Canino, President; Sadie Kuehn)
Aia, Agnes
Alexander, Robert
Allen, Clementine
Allen, H.
American Educational Gender Information Service, Inc. (Dallas Denny,
Director)
Anema, G. and T.
Apollony, Heins and Esna
Aragón, Eduardo
Armstrong, T. M. (Mrs.)
Executive
BC Organization to Fight Racism (Charan Gill)
BC Civil Liberties Association (Craig Jones, Director)
BC Federation of Labour; (Kenneth Georgetti, President; Jane Stascuk,
Director of
Community, Social & Political Action; Irma Mohammed, Director of Women’s Rights
Programs)
BC Human Rights Coalition (Peter Beaudin and Susan O’Donnell)
BC Motels, Campgrounds & Resorts Association (Joss Penny, Director)
BC NDP Gay & Lesbian Caucus (John Argue, Co-Chair)
BC Rail, Human Resources & Strategy Planning (Gordon Orlikow, Director)
BCGEU - BC Government and Service Employee’s Union
(John Shields, President)
Bahai Community of Saanich (Don Brown, Representative)
Bailargeon, G. and M.
Baker, J.
Ball, Tracey
Banerjee, Chinmoy
Bannink, John and Theresa
Barrett, B. W. (Mr. and Mrs.)
Bates, Barry
Bates, E.
Battered Women’s Support Services (Kim Nixon and Gail Edinger)
Bauer, Beth and Frank
Bertrand, Adrien and Elva
BiNet BC (Heather Kitching, Joanne Shaw)
Bingham, T. and Gita
Bird, Grace (Mrs.)
Blerbecq, G.
Blumstein, Stephen
Bogdanich, Joseph
Booiman, S. H.
Bonnar, Everett and Gunnol
Bonneville, Terry
Booth, H. D.
Bousquet, Gary
British Columbia Teacher’s Federation (Kit Krieger, President)
Brodhecker, Karl (President, Ferret Information Rescue Shelter &
Trust Society; Animal Welfare Associations of BC)
Brodsky, Gwen
Brookes, Noreen D.
Brooks, Carellin
Brown, Geoffrey
Brown, Peter
Brownlie, Arden
Burkart, Jennifer
Burnaby Multicultural Society; (Susan French, Executive Director)
Burnham, Christine
Business Council of British Columbia (Jerry L. Lampert)
Buttnor, Sherry
CUPE BC (Canadian Union of Public Employees; Barry O’Neill, President)
Cameron, Alison
Cameron, Beverly June (Mrs.)
Cameron, Ross
Canadian Auto Workers (Hassan Yussuff, Human Rights Director)
Canadian Bar Association, BC Branch - Human Rights Working Group
(Caroline Nevin, Director of Communications and Public Affairs)
Canadian Bar Association, BC Branch - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Issues Section (Vincent Connors, Co-Chair)
Canadian Farm Workers Union (Charan Gill)
Canadian Injured Workers Society (Patricia Callaghan)
Canadian Jewish Congress (Michael Elterman, Chair)
Capital Region Race Relations Association
Carrick, Jessie A.
Caseby, G.
CAW Local 2301 Human Rights Committee (Raymond Raj, Chairperson)
Centre for Sexuality, Gender Identity and Reproductive Health, Vancouver
General Hospital (Dr. Ronald Stevenson, Clinical Director)
Chakrabarty, Indra
Chapman, Don and Connie
Chapman, Joseph
Chipperfield, Christine
Cino, Salvatore
City of Surrey (Jeanne Eddington, Counsellor)
City of Vancouver, Office of the City Manager (Ken Dobell, City Manager)
City of Vancouver, Office of the City Manager, Equal Employment
Opportunity Program (Lorna McReath, Director)
Clarke, D. P.
Clarke, E. A. (Mr. and Mrs.)
Coalition of BC Businesses (S. Sanatam, Chair)
College Institute Educators’ Association of BC (Ed Lavalle, President, Penny
Goldsmith)
Committee for Racial Justice (Aziz Khaki, President)
Community Legal Assistance Society (Francis Kelly, Barrister & Solicitor)
Condominium Home Owners’ Association of BC (A. R. MyLre, President)
Conlin, Carole
Cornbury Society
Coutts, Shirley and Howard Engebretson
Coxon, Peter
Crampton, Michael B.
Cranbrook Women’s Centre (Sarah Dalton, Vicky Dalton)
Cresswell, Roy L.
Crossan, E. and June
Dahl findlay Connors & Evans, Barristers & Solicitors
Dalgleish, Neil and Frances
Danylyshyn, David
Daryk, Michel
Davies, L. P. (Mr. and Mrs.)
Davis J. Warr Human Resource Management Inc. (Roger A. Davis)
December 9 Coalition
Denegar, Jeremy
DePasguale, Doreen T.
Deryck, Ginger
Dickerson-Pogue, Deb
Dirk, Trudy
Dirks, Val
District of Tumbler Ridge
Dobson, Les (Mr. and Mrs.)
Doherty, Kerry
Doherty, M.
Downie, R. C. T. (Mr.)
Dreevlo, Ed
Dunsmore, E. and M.
Durant, Ken and Kay
Eddington, Jeanne
EGALE - Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (Lawrence Aronovitch)
Elash, Dan
Elliot, A. M.
End Legislated Poverty (Linda Morrow, Rolf Auer, Gael Marriotte)
Erickson, Doris
Evans, Vaughan
Evanson, Patricia M. A.
Evons, Denise
Faddegon, Katryna
Ferguson, Wilf and Helen
Fillion, Marcel P. and Henriette M.
findlay, barbara
Fingado, Janice
Finley, W.
First United Church (Rev. Robert Smith)
Fisher, V.
Fisheries Council of British Columbia (Michelle James)
Flattery, Wally
Forbes, James and Hilda
Fort St. John Women’s Resource Society (Cheryl Kelly-Zenner)
Fraser, Gloria (Mrs.)
Frey, Arley and Doreen
Front Line Advocacy Workers (Robert Yateman, Facilitator)
Fry, Randy
Funk, John
Future Shop (Jeanette Stuart, Director of Human Resources)
Gaff, Richard J.
GALE - BC (Stephen LeBel, Workshop Chairperson)
Gallacher, Siobhan
Gauthier, Yves
Gay and Lesbian Educators BC (Peter Cook)
Gehon, Jim
Gibson, Bryce and Betty
Gibson, Margaret E.
Gill, Raymond G. and Jennie B.
Glasson, Clarice M.
Gobbi, Barbara
Goldberg, Joshua
Golden Street - Better World Productions Inc. (Alan J. Parker)
Goodman, Kathy
Gotzke, Erika
Greater Vancouver Regional District (Mark Leffler, Mgr. Personnel &
Labour Relations)
Greater Vancouver Regional District, Personnel & Labour Relations
Department (Mayor Jack Loucks, Chair)
Green Party of Canada (Joan E. Russow, National Leader)
Grieve, A.
Griffiths, Melody
Guigueno, F. L. (Mrs.)
Guiriato, David and Shirley
Hadden, Sydney and Pauline
Haight-Smith, Barbara
Halley, Daine
Hamilton, Jamie Lee
Hancock, R. N.
Hansson, Therese
Harrington, Anna
Harris, Jack and Evelyn
Hartshon, G. R.
Hawley, Kenny
Heart and Stroke Foundation of BC & Yukon (Richard Rees, Executive
Hein (Mr. and Mrs.)
Hein, Wally and Patricia
Heinrichs, M.
Henderson, R. and G.
Hendren, Kathy
Heraid, Marg
Director)
Hiebert, Rudy
High Risk Project Society (Sandra Laframboise)
Holdenried, Ernst and Evamaria
Hollander, Georgina C.
Hooge, Menne
Hopkins, Rachel
Horner, S. (Mrs.)
Hospital Employee’s Union; (Chris Allnutt, Secretary-Business Manager,
Raymond Liens, Equity Officer)
Howes, Barbara
Howes, G. (Mr. and Mrs.)
Hudson, Kenneth and Jean
Injured Workers Human Rights Group of BC (Birgit Lund)
International Public Secondary Education Association (Gary Rupert,
Jacques, G. and E.
James, Elizabeth
Jansonius, H. (Mr. and Mrs.)
Jantzen, John H.
Janzen, John and Helga
Janzen, Walter and Elly
Jeannotte, Alphonse W.
Johnson, Glen
Johnson, James
Johnson, Rick
Jordon, Jim (Chair, Strata Council NW 2715)
Chairperson)
K., Kathy Dr.
KIND Counselling Centres Canada (Delicia T. Crump)
Kamloops Active Support Against Poverty Society (Charlene LaCombe,
Dodie Goldney)
Kamloops Immigrant Services
Kamloops Women’s Resource Centre (Sheila Smith)
Karidas, Samantha
Kaye, Barbara
Kelly, Paul and Bev
Kelowna & District Manufactured Homeowners Association; (Ray Manzer, VicePresident)
Kennedy, Anthony B.
Kivisto, Ate-Helmi.
Klassen, John and Mary
Knoeoller, Ilse
Knoz, James
Koss, Arthur
Kozlowski, J. M.
LER
Lamont, Diana
Lang, George and Lillian
Langevin, Andre and Sandra
Laninga, Anton
LaPerrie, Carman
Latta, Wilfred and Ann
Lavigne, R. (Mr. and Mrs.)
LeBlanc, Barbara
Legal Services Society (Kathleen Kendall, Louise Richards, staff lawyers; Coral
McEown, Director and Eduardo Arogon; Nancy Henderson, Director of Tariffs)
Leite, Cheryl
LeVegue, Valery
Lewis, Irene Marie
Lewsey, Alf
Ley, M.
Lindenberg, Donna
Lindsay, R.
Lloyd, A. S. (Mr. and Mrs.)
Lord, Alice
Lund, A. C.
Lurney, Lillian and Patrick
MacGregor, Alan
Mack, E. (Mr. and Mrs.)
MacPherson, W. S.
Madsen, Birk (Chair, Strata NW 493)
Mahoney, Janet Ann
Makaroff, John and Muriel
Makhno, Peter R.
Maki, Walter
Mamela, Susan
Manufactured Home Park Owners’ Association of BC (Doug Hennessy,
President; Doug Hallat, Chair; Aldiene Larsen, Executive Director)
Maracle, Aiyyana
Matheson, Madge
McCracken, Angus
McCrossan, Margaret
McCullough, M. and J.
McDougall, Alan R.
McDougall, Allan
McDougall, Don and June
McFarlane, Sarah
McKenzie, Bessie and A.C.
McLean, C. A. (Mr. and Mrs.)
McLennan, Ken
McLeod, M.
McQuat, Lee (Mrs.)
Mennie, Ross
Menzi, John and Rose
Metcalfe, K. (Mr. and Mrs.)
Michalenko, G. and A.
Milette, Leo and Lise
Mitchell, Frances
Moffat, A. and H.
Molloy, Marie (Sexual Harrassment Coordinator, Okanagan University College)
Morton, Pat
Motiuk, John W.
Muliner, Brenda (Barrister & Solicitor)
Murray, Gladys
Nash, Paul and Myrna
Nemethy, S. T. and R.
Neumann, Willi and Elsa
Ng, Paul
Niror, Kimberly
Nittal, Carmen
Nugter, I. C. (Mrs.)
Nyberg, Dorothy
O’Shaughnessy, Del
Obester, Arnold and Lillian
Okanagan University College Faculty Association (Michael Gro, Chair of
Human Rights Committee)
Olson, Ingrid
Overseas Chinese Association (Ada Lam, Secretary)
Owen, Gail
O’Connor, Clara May Marion
Patchell, Lloyd
Paul, N. J. (Mr. and Mrs.)
Peace River North Teachers’ Association (Margaret Little, President)
Peacock, Charlotte
Pears, John R.
Penner, Peter and Hilda
Perrin, Lynn
Peters, Joyce
Pieronek, Mardi
Plant, Geoff (MLA Richmond Steveston, Official Opposition Critic for the
Attorney
General and Human Rights)
Plett, Irene and Cindy Switzer
Pointon, Barry and Fiona Avakumovie
Popil, D. M. and L. M. Grams
Potschka, Ann and Hans
Powell, Dèrée Chantal Lynn
Pries, W. J.
Pro-Life Society of Prince George
Progressive Independent Cultural Services (Charan Gill)
Public Service Alliance of Canada (Marian Meagher, Regional Executive
Vice-President, BC)
Puder, Gil
Queer FM
RORY Injured Workers Support Group (Karie Hay, Spokesperson)
Rajabally, M. H. (Dr.)
Read, Keith
REAL Women of BC
Reeves, Robin Ariel
Reinprecht, Farina
Rempel, Elizabeth
Renting Housing Council of BC
Riel, Betty
Riel, J. A. W. & BC Rights for Widows Society (Mrs. H. Tidbury, President)
Robertson, Jennifer
Robinson, Scott W.
Robson, Gordon (Glacier Park Lodge Inc.)
Rombough, Irene and R. L.
Rorison, John C.
Rose, Eric
Ruddell, Brian H.
Rueb, George and Anne
Russell DuMoulin, Employer & Labour Department (Kevin O’Neill)
Salmon Arm and District Chamber of Commerce (Dennis Zachernuk,
Acting President)
Samakone, Victor
Sawatzky, Jean
Sawchuk, Gail
Sawchuk, William
Scholten, A. and W.
Scott, Allan and Mabel
Scott, Georgina
Scott, Henry and Muriel
Senechal, Andrea
Senuk, Bernie
Shah, Shanta
Shapka, N. (Mr. and Mrs.)
Shaver, Phyllis
Sheppard, A. and G.
Siedlecks, Bozenna
Siemens, Jacob and Katherine
Simmons, F. G. and Lois
Simms, F. W.
Simpson, Amy
Smith, Daphne and John Gordon
Smith, Gordon
Smith, Reginald and Maureen
Smith, Sheila
Sobkiw, Gladys
Solly, Elaine and E. F.
Sorokin, Pavel
Spurr, Vanessa
Starcher, Duane B.
Starck, Edna
Steenhuisen, Paul
Stewart, J. G. (Mr. and Mrs.)
Stone, Edward and Rosalie
Strachan, Violet
Strayhorn, C.
Summers-Gill, Reg and Bea
Surrey Manufactured Homeowner Association (Stewart Headley,
Vice-President)
Sweeney, Stan and Mary Ellen
Switly, Alice and John
Teed, Jane
The Centre, Youth Services (Matthew Martin, Youth Services Coordinator)
The Party of Citizens (Gordon Watson)
The Wellness Centre, Nicola Valley Institute of Technology
(Jean Anderson, Audrey Ward, Jeanette Matson)
Thompson, Glen
Thorne, Muriel and John
Tiderington, W. and S.
Tod, R. and E.
Together Against Poverty Society (Jacquie Ackerly, President)
TransEqual (Laura Blake)
Trookitscoff, Anne
Trylarcwd, S. B. and J. M.
Turner, David
United Association of Injured and Disabled Workers (Ralph Dotzler, President)
United Injured Workers of Victoria, BC
United Steelworkers of America (Ken Neumann, Director, District 3)
Urbanovitch, Michelle
van Stolk, Peter
Van Schaik, Jack
Vance, Chris
Vance, Kathleen
Vancouver Island Human Rights Coalition (David Turner, Advocate and Social
Professor)
Vancouver Island Human Rights Coalition (Tom Loring, Director)
Vandervoort, Kristina
Waddington, Bill
Wagner, Joerg
Waldron, Beth
Waldvogel, Anton Joseph
Walker, Brenda
Wells, Margaret and Gordon
West, J. P.
Westend Senior Network (Jenny Shaw)
Whitman, Jack and Mary
Whittingham, Glenn “Elina”
Wiebe, Abraham and Doris
Wilander, Lyn
Williams, Cindy
Wisniewska, Lidia
Witt, E. D.
Wolfe, Eileen
Wood, Natalie
Workers’ Compensation Advocacy Group (James Sayre)
Working Group on Poverty (John Argue)
Work
Yuan, Rex
Zall, Janet
Zenger, Leslie
Zenith Foundation (Stephania Castle Heal, President)
Zierke, Walter