Thank you, Ms. Peterson. Ms. Lee.

That raises another question then. So this amendment that allows small businesses to hire family, that is an exception to the rule. Is that what we did? So the rule is you are not allowed to hire family, or you are not allowed to discriminate against anybody on the basis of family affiliation. I am just wondering if the committee or everybody has considered that, because I can think of other situations other than...I do not know. This is very confusing.

From what I am hearing, from what Ms. Peterson is saying, is that by this amendment, we give an exception to the family so that they can hire their own people, you know, do whatever they want because that is...you know, they are allowed to do that. But that is not allowed everywhere else, and I am not sure if that is the kind of law we have. I guess I am just not understanding the full implication of why...okay, let's go back to...let me put it this way. What are we trying to accomplish with having protection of family affiliation as a prohibitive grounds? Maybe that is a better question. Thank you.

Ms. Peterson.

Thank you, Ms. Peterson. Mr. Bell.

Thank you. I was just going to try to give Ms. Lee an example and I probably should not do this because I will probably get it wrong, but if I understand this amendment that the government is making, if Ms. Lee owns a business and I respond to an employment ad that she has and she decides to hire a relative instead of me, I could theoretically go to the Human Rights Commission and file a complaint.

However, we now know because of this amendment that I would not be successful because Ms. Lee has, as a private business owner, the right to hire family members. That is what this is trying to achieve.

Thank you, Mr. Bell for that clarification. Clause 7, as amended.

Clause 8.

Clause 9.

Clause 10.

Clause 11. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is an issue that I would like to bring to the attention of this committee. They relate to the motion that extended the ground of family affiliation to apply to all the sections under the act.

The issue is similar to the one I raise under clause 7 on employment and family affiliation. By including family affiliation so that it applies to the areas protected under sub-clause 11(1) it is possible that the ground might be interpreted to prevent a person who owns a business from providing a preference to his or her family members when, for example, providing goods or services.

I think that under this clause the main purpose would be to ensure in general that a person is not denied services because of his or her family connections. This still leaves room for someone who owns a business to decide that he or she will provide a preference to family members.

For this reason, I would make a motion to add a clause so that the ground of family affiliation would not prevent an owner of a business from giving preference to his or her family in providing goods, services, accommodations or facilities.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to make a motion. Mr. Chairman, I MOVE that clause 11 of Bill 1 be amended by adding the following after sub-clause (2):

(3) It is not a contravention of subsection (1) for an owner of a business to give preference in goods, services, accommodations or facilities on the basis of family affiliation to a member of his or her family.

Thank you.

There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Clause 11, as amended.

Clause 12. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This clause also raises the issue of family affiliation. This time it relates to whether the owner of a commercial unit or residential unit can give preference to a family member when renting out those units.

The issue is similar to the one I raised under clause 7 under employment and relates to the ground of family affiliation and under clause 11 on goods and services on family affiliation.

By including family affiliation so that it applies to areas protected under sub-clause 12(1) it is possible that the ground might be interpreted to prevent a person who owns a rental unit from renting to a family member instead of other members of the public. Therefore I will be making a motion to add a clause so the ground of family affiliation will not prevent an owner of a rental unit from granting a preference to a family member. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to move a motion.

I MOVE that clause 12 of Bill 1 be amended by adding the following after sub-clause (2):

(3) It is not a contravention of subsection (1) for an owner of a commercial unit or self-contained dwelling unit to give preference in occupation of a commercial unit or self-contained dwelling unit or with respect to a term or condition of such an occupancy on the basis of family affiliation to a member of his or her family.

There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Clause 12, as amended.