Letter to the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

Not too long ago, a terrible injustice took place in Canada. A blind woman was married for 42 years to a man who later deserted her to live with another married woman who left her own husband. When the blind woman's husband died, she applied for his Canada Pension benefits which normally goes to the spouse of the deceased. Unfortunately, the benefits went to the common-law spouse who had only lived with the man for eighteen months before he died. I wrote the Ministry of Resources (see a previous article in my blog) and received an unsatisfactory reply. I have now sent a letter to the leader of the Liberal Party that is one of the opposition parties in the Canadian Parliament. What follows is a copy of that letter.


Dear Sir:

I am enclosing copies of two letters to you which I believe are self-explanatory.

I am deeply concerned that a former wife of a deceased husband who spent many years with her former husband before he deserted her, would receive no benefits from Canada Pension and that the entire Canada Pension would go to the common-law wife (a married woman who deserted her own husband) who had lived with the deceased husband for only eighteen months.

In the letter that was sent to me by the Director General of the Seniors and Pensions Policy Secretariat; she said in part,

"The CPP provides only one survivor pension to a spouse or a common-law partner who is in a relationship with the contributor at the time of death."

She also said, and again I quote;

"Section 15 of the Charter protects spouses, including common-law spouses, from discrimination. Therefore a law that treats those in common-law relationships less favourably than those who are legally married is arguably in violation in the Charter."

It is my belief and I hope that it is yours also, that to treat a legally married wife less favourably than a common-law spouse, is equally less favorable and is equally arguably as a violation of the Charter.

Imagine if you will, a scenario such as the one that follows.

A woman married a man and they lived together for forty-two years. During those years, she had been faithful to her husband and remained at home looking after their three children and after they grew up and had left their home, she still remained at home as a dutiful wife and housekeeper to her husband. As such, she was unable to pay anything into the Canada Pension plan.

By the time she turned fifty-five years of age, she had no outside work skills or experience since she had always been a homemaker. By the time she was fifty-five, she had also become totally blind.

Now the husband during those forty-two years, had been working and had been contributing towards his Canada Pension.

He no longer had an interest in his blind wife so he deserted her and later chose to live common-law with another woman who was also married but had left her husband.

Eighteen months later, the fifty-five-year-old woman’s husband died and his common-law wife he lived with for eighteen months; got all of his Canada Pension benefits and his legally married blind wife whom he lived with for forty-two years; got nothing.

The Charter guarantees all of us that we will be treated fairly. Now whisper it in my ear, Mr. Ignatieff, that you think that this is fair.

Section 15(1) of the Charter says in part;

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has a right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination……

That section also includes the words, ‘other status’. I interpret them to include ‘martial status’ also.

Section 1 of the Charter says that equality rights can be limited by laws that are reasonable in a free and democratic society.

In your opinion, is a law that denies a fair share of Canada Pension benefits to a wife who lived with her deceased husband for forty-two years before he deserted her to live with in a common-law relationship with another woman for eighteen months; reasonable? Is the law that states that only a current common-law spouse who was not married to the deceased and lived with him for only eighteen months is entitled to the Canada Pension benefits when the woman who was married for forty-two years gets nothing; reasonable?

Let me quote from a speech I gave in 1980 before 2,000 delegates at a United Nations Congress when I recommended that there be a bill of rights for young offenders. (a bill of rights that later became the Bejing Rules in 1985) I said in part, “If what is being done to them is done in the name of ‘justice’, then justice is going under an assumed name.”

By paraphrasing that excerpt of my speech, I get; “If what is being done to the woman I spoke of in my letter to the Minister of Human Resources is considered ‘reasonable’, then that too is going under an assumed name.”

Ronald Dworkin in his book, Taking Rights Seriously said in part;

"Governments must treat those whom it governs with concern. That is, as human beings who are capable of suffering and frustration, and with respect, that is, as human beings who are capable of forming and acting on intelligent conceptions of how their lives should be lived. Governments must not only treat people with concern and respect, but with equal concern and respect. It must not distribute goods or opportunities unequally on the ground that some citizens are entitled to more because they are worthy of more concern."

If anyone is entitled to more concern, it would be the married wife who had spent forty-two years caring for her husband than one who lives with a man for just eighteen months as a common-law spouse. However, I am not saying that the common-law spouse should not get something out of the Canada Pension. I am merely saying that she shouldn’t get it all.

The way I see it, The ratio between the two women with respect to the Canada Pension benefits payout should be 42 to 1.5. That would be the fair way to do it. I don’t really believe that such a ratio would conflict with section 15(1) of the Charter.

In your Christmas message to Canadians, you said two statements that in my respectful opinion, are applicable in the situations that I have described about the elderly blind woman. They are;

"As we celebrate the season, we must also be mindful of all those who are less fortunate than we are, across Canada and around the world."

"..let us also commit ourselves to a new year of kindness and compassion towards others."

I remember years ago when an old lady living in a condo for many years had a small cat (she named Fluffy) in her unit. Then one day, it was discovered that she had a cat in her unit despite the fact that it was contrary to the rules of the condo to have pets in her unit. The board of directors ordered her to move if she wouldn’t get rid of her cat. The matter finally ended up in the Ontario Court of Appeal that decided that there was nothing it could do for her because the rules were quite clear when she moved in….No Pets Permitted.

The legislators of Ontario didn’t think that this was fair. They brought in a new law (the Fluffy law) that prohibits apartment and condominium buildings from prohibiting pets in the units.

What are you going to do, as the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, to protect spouses such as I have described in this letter, from the unfairness, unreasonableness and inequality that this particular law with respect to Canada Pensions that is thrust upon women who deserve a share of the pension benefits but are instead, denied them?

Please don’t tell me that you want to wait until the Liberal Party becomes the governing party.

I hope you will raise this matter in the House of Commons and press the Prime Minister and your fellow parliamentary members to rethink about how the law with respect to Canada Pension should be reworded.

I would appreciate it greatly if you would advise me as to what you intend to do to bring about the eradication of this unfair law with respect to the Canada Pension benefits that would deny such benefits to those who deserve it.

I remain, Yours truly

I will keep you informed as to what transpires from this letter.