Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on this section of Bill C-41.
Coming to this House has been really quite instructive. One can learn from many members. I have learned from the member for Burnaby-Kingsway that it does one good to express exactly where one is coming from in terms of one's own personal perspective.
In keeping with that, before I speak specifically to section 718.2, I might state to the House very clearly where I am coming from. I stand clearly, unequivocally and in a very straightforward way in favour of and in full support of the traditional family unit as generally understood within society.
To that end, it might be of interest to the House for me to very briefly read something that is in the public domain that I wrote to an editor at the Calgary Sun last March. The editor had stated: Decision targets family values'' andmarriage and family, as we all know, are not only cornerstones of our society, but are the bedrock of our civilization''.
I wrote:
I tend to agree with him.
The preferential treatment given to mom, dad and the kids, I believe is reflective of the value that our society places on the biological reality of propagation.
There are many instances of cohabitation in our society: The single parent and child, siblings living together or good, long time friends of the same or opposite sex. They may choose not to become involved in physical sexual contact. To extend spousal benefits to homosexual partnerships and not to other couples would be a grave act of discrimination.
A redefinition of family unit that would step outside of the obvious biological relationships to include same sex or opposite sex couples must include all relationships. It must not have reference to sexual orientation or activity. Otherwise, we would be extending a financial reward for sexual involvement between people who cohabit.
Max Yalden, Canadian Human Rights Commissioner, has stated the Human Rights Act should be amended "to reflect today's reality" by prohibiting discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals on the basis of sexual orientation. He is wrong. If we extend spousal benefits to people who cohabit on the basis of sexual orientation and not to all couples, we have truly engaged in an act of discrimination.
Fooling around and ignoring the obvious reasons for spousal benefits will cost our society much more than countless millions or billions of dollars. It has the potential of costing society its cornerstone and the bedrock of our civilization.
I give that as a background because it is true that all of us arrive at this House with predisposed attitudes and values that come from our very soul. I want to make it clear what my motivation is in taking a look, hopefully, at the deletion of section 718.2 from this bill.
In reading the notes that were given to the Liberal members I was interested to see that they say: "We will keep our campaign commitments and send a strong message against hate crimes. As an election promise and a matter of fundamental human rights, Bill C-41 will not be subject to a free vote".
The heavy hand of the whip is coming down on all of the Liberal members in this House, and we have seen the devastation that will do to their political careers as long as they toil within the Liberal Party. However, that does not change the fact that there are many people within the Liberal Party who have a serious concern about this issue, I suggest perhaps because of the same reasons that I have stated from my own personal background and belief.
It is also interesting that this document given to the Liberal members includes what I consider to be some terribly erroneous advice. It reads:
It is essential to list the grounds in Bill C-41. The hate crime section is meaningless without the list. In several court rulings, the Supreme Court of Canada has warned that any hate-related legislation must be very precise and must
identify target groups it intends to protect, otherwise it may be subject to constitutional challenge.
I think it passing strange that in exactly the same legislation the government is bringing forward a total patchwork in terms of alternative measures. In other words, it is saying in one section of the act we will not have any national standards and in the other section of the act saying that we must have precise standards. The question must be asked: Which is it?
Last evening I was very interested to listen in the debate to the hon. member from York South-Weston, who is a lawyer. I respect the fact that he would be able to read this bill as it is presently before the House and I concur totally with his perspective. In part, from Hansard , page 13767, he says:
What are those alternative measures? We do not in this legislation describe what those alternative measures are, what crimes will be subject to those alternative measures. In fact it says any crime. We do not know. Does that mean that a rapist, someone who is alleged to have committed a rape, can for example be diverted out of the criminal justice system and into some alternative measures? What can those alternative measures be? We do not know. This bill does not define what alternative measures are. The bill leaves it up to the attorneys general of the provinces.
For sake of time, I will not read further, but he went on to say-again, I concur with him totally-that what we have here is a total patchwork.
I ask the Liberals, I ask the justice department, I ask the parliamentary secretary: How can we have within Bill C-41 on one side of the coin an absolute patchwork and on the other side of the coin something that has to be very specific and very precise? The two things in the same bill do not make any sense.
I suggest to the Liberal members that in fact the advice they have received in their documentation, in their talking notes when they stand to talk on this act, is simply not good advice.
I suggest very strongly that section 718.2 is unnecessary. In the judgment of many Canadians, it is put in specifically so that the undefined term sexual orientation may be put into federal legislation. This is the first step of putting that undefined term into federal legislation. It is not an innocuous thing. It is not an inconsequential thing. It actually is the first step in a logical legal sequence for that undefined term to be included in the charter of rights and freedoms.
Again, I read from the Liberals' documentation. They tell their members:
We've heard a lot lately about the myths of "special rights". C-41 does not confer special rights. No one is "left out". C-41 protects all Canadians. Every Canadian has a nationality, a race, an age, a gender, a sexual orientation.
We've heard that C-41 will result in sweeping changes, including the recognition of same-sex marriages. That is nonsense.
Mr. Speaker, in the strictest sense of the term, that is nonsense. Bill C-41 will not achieve that objective on its own. I submit that the reason Canadians are concerned about Bill C-41 is because they see this very clearly as a very transparent, thin edge of a wedge that is an important stepping stone in order to get the undefined term sexual orientation included.
The Liberals know this. The justice department has received over 70,000 letters opposing this bill. Furthermore, until yesterday there had been 7,250 names in favour of the inclusion of sexual orientation in petitions presented to this House. That is 7,250 for, and 83,471 against. These are people in Canada who take the time to put their names on petitions, to gather these petitions together. Yet this government is prepared to absolutely turn its back on these representations from ordinary Canadians.