Debates of April 30th, 1996

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a clear and simple question. Are we to understand from the comments made by the hon. member for Huron-Bruce that, should the Prime Minister impose the party line, he will vote against the bill?

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the accepted view of the House is that on government measures one would support the government. I cannot say what the Prime Minister may do but when that decision is made it has to be the decision of the Prime Minister.

I have told the House, as I have told the Prime Minister and others within the party, that I cannot support this bill. Had there been some amendments giving definitions to the term sexual orientation or the family perhaps we could have addressed this issue differently.

There would be no one in the House who would agree there should be discrimination based on whatever reason. For those reasons and because those amendments will not likely be forthcoming I will not be supporting this legislation.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Ontario, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the courage the member for Huron-Bruce has demonstrated. It is ironic that the hon. member happens to speak to such a wide diversity of truth within Canada.

It is being seen that this piece of legislation has the support of almost every Canadian because no Canadian wants discrimination and our laws protect everybody. However, does the hon. member believe the House is not being served properly when we try to ram through a bill via a motion to limit debate?

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not in the House when that measure was brought forward this afternoon. I believe this matter is one that should have been debated at full length. I believe there undue hurriedness in the way we are dealing with this bill. I for one moment would not ever have members believe this issue is not of great concern to many people in the House.

However, there are many people across the country who perhaps feel differently than the majority of my constituents, but I do not recall ever being stopped on the street in my community, whether on the back roads or on the streets, where someone has said to me we need legislation to address the discrimination against these people. Perhaps I do not have many of these people, I do not know, but I am not seeing that in my riding.

I am also hearing this kind of thing from my urban colleagues. For some reason it seems to be coming from a small group of people, which is really the reason why I have not had to deal with this issue in the past. For me it is difficult to believe this is really a pressing issue for Canadians today.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue to Canadians across the country, there is no question about that.

For the last couple of years ever since we have been elected to this place, I and certainly all members around the House have received all kinds of input from their constituents on this issue. People have strong feelings about it.

I echo the comments of the member for Huron-Bruce. He said people have not been stopping him on the street and asking when there will be gay rights legislation in the House. I have not had that. I have had lots of people come to me and say something quite the opposite: "When will we start supporting our families in this country?" I have had lots of people come to me and say: "When will we stop pandering to special interests?"

I have had that over and over again. This is an issue that deserves the close scrutiny of the House over an extended period of time for a couple of reasons. The public square, represented certainly by this place, is the appropriate way to deal with controversial pieces of legislation. This place of all places should be a spot where we can debate these issues so that at the end of the day we can make an informed decision about where we want to go. Canadians have that right as well.

We are speaking today to Canadians across the country. They deserve to have the benefit of the debate that should take place over an extended period of time from all kinds of members representing all kinds of points of view. That is very important, especially in the House of Commons.

I applaud members across the way who are standing up to their government and saying "maybe we do not agree with you, but we deserve the right to speak to this issue". That is very fundamental in Parliament, in the House of Commons. That makes eminent sense. I want to talk about that a little more later.

I want to respond to a couple of challenges the minister laid out this morning when he spoke with great conviction. The minister spoke with conviction because he truly believes this legislation will bring gays and lesbians into the fold, that this will make them equal in the country. In his heart that is exactly what he thinks.

The minister spoke about his upbringing and about the convictions he has tried to pass on to his children such as tolerance. That is admirable. He spoke about the Catholic church's catechism which teaches we must treat gays and lesbians with respect and compassion. Again, that is admirable.

I am willing to bet that when we stand in the House every morning before the House day begins and say our prayers, everyone says their prayers for all Canadians. They do not say "we discriminate against certain groups, we will not pray for them.

We can take the word of each person in the House. Knowing many of them, we can take it they believe in the equality of all Canadians. There is not a person in the House who does not believe in the equality of all Canadians.

The question I wish I could address to the minister is whether he really believes when he said those things that it is the government's role to be compassionate to other people. I do not believe it is.

The government can grant rights. It can grant privileges but it is up to people to be compassionate. The argument for equality is a good one. Equality can only ever come from people. Tolerance can only ever come from people. The only way to broaden the horizons of people is to sit down and have discussions.

One of the best arguments I have ever heard for not having laws against hate literature came from a gay activist from the United States, Jonathan Rauch. He is a gay conservative activist. He said he hates some of the language spewed toward him but he also knows that sometimes the measures taken to correct wrongs in society are actually more damaging than the wrongs themselves. I tend to agree. The way to fix these problems is to have a wide ranging, wide open debate across the country, not jammed into a few days so the government can push through something. That is the wrong way to proceed. People get resentful when they see that. It actually creates division. Let us have a wide ranging debate. Let us listen to the conservative gay activists Jonathan Rauch when he says let us have a wide open, wide ranging debate.

The minister was wrong to imply the government can somehow be compassionate. The real answer is for people to make the decision that they want to treat all people with respect. The only way that can happen is through debate.

The minister's comments remind me of what Jean Jacques Rousseau said in his famous tome "The Social Contract" in 1762 about people being forced to be free. His argument was that the enlightened few would make the decisions and these would be imposed on the French and they would be forced to be free. It is a great irony because one cannot be forced to be free.

These things have to be settled in the minds and the hearts of individual people. They cannot be forced on people. Equality has

to come willingly from people. Respect has to come willingly from people. It cannot be forced.

What should we do about the people who do not go along with this argument? What should we do about the people who are truly hateful people and they say they hate someone because of whatever immutable characteristic? There has to be a way to address that. Ninety per cent or ninety-five per cent of people are respectful. The question becomes what do we do about the other people. There have to be some measures in place so that we can deal with those things.

In the past we have had measures to deal with those things. I do not think it is a stretch at all to say some of the best government we had and probably the government which most reflected the wishes of Canadians were governments that used to use their legislatures as opposed to writing into a constitution the values of the people. I refer to the old bill of rights which was a statute law. It was part of the long tradition of parliaments that we have had in this country and also the mother Parliament in England where we have the right as a legislature to overturn previous decisions so that we can better reflect the wishes of the people we purport to represent.

Why not go back to that way of doing things? It worked well. It allowed us to have the power to reflect the views of Canadians from across the country.

In our haste to fix this problem people have taken what appears to be the easiest route. They say let us write it into law. One of the things that happens when we start writing it into the charter and ultimately into the Canadian Human Rights Act and so on, and we forget this, is that when we grant someone a particular right that means we are taking away a bit of a right from somebody else. Rights are nothing but power. Power is something that is a zero sum. There is only so much power out there. As one famous Supreme Court justice in the United States once said, my right to throw a punch is limited by the proximity of your chin. That is dead on.

One of the things we have to ask is who is the power coming from. When we grant someone a right under the charter and then it finds its way through the human rights act and so on, where is the parallel right coming from? Where is that power coming from?

Many members have mentioned they have a concern about the family. I believe some of the rights we are talking about are being taken from families. I will talk about that for a moment.

The minister challenged us to follow the logic through. That is a good challenge and I will try to meet it. He said we need not be afraid of the implications of this legislation. Follow the logic through. I want to do that right now.

The minister is saying this legislation will protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in the workplace. If that logic applies, what about the arguments that gays and lesbians make about the discrimination that is shown to them with respect to marriage and adoption? If these arguments to put protection for gays and lesbians in the Human Rights Act are valid, then they are also by extension valid with respect to benefits, adoption and marriage.

The same logic applies; this cold, hard logic that has no respect for custom, tradition, which is named rationalism. It is the type of logic that, although we do not necessarily see the outcome in this piece of legislation, at the end of the day Canadians will be very surprised to find that they do not like because it certainly could have implications well beyond what it does today.

I think the minister really challenged us to follow the logic through. If we follow the logic through it goes where most Canadians do not want it to go.

The head of EGALE, the organization for gays and lesbians, pointed out this is a first step. The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway, a gay activist and a member of this place, pointed out that this is a first step. In other words, it is one more brick in the edifice to building a new set of rights and privileges for gays and lesbians across the country. There have been many previous decisions which have moved them toward their ultimate goal.

The minister is naive to suggest his words will not carry some weight in other legislatures, in public debate and in the courts across the land with respect of future decisions. He is the justice minister of Canada. This will undoubtedly become a law of Parliament especially if the government forces through a party vote and brings down the hard whips of discipline.

If the justice minister's words carry some weight, and I suspect they do, undoubtedly they will influence other legislatures around the country and certainly the courts. They will add weight and give confidence and support to those people who want to pursue a more radical agenda. It is important to point that out.

I want talk for a moment now about families overall, how they came to be so important in society. Over several millennia, across many cultures and many nations we have had different cultures, people who decided in many ways through trial and error that the traditional family as we have come to know it in this country is the best possible family for the rearing of children. The family is so important that it has been afforded many prescriptive rights over thousands of years. By prescriptive rights I mean by custom it has been granted special status in law, in custom, across many lands over these many years.

It is important to recognize this because the argument the minister and some hon. members are making are outside the context of custom and tradition. They are assuming the cold, hard logic of the minister is the only thing that is important. They say that reason is all powerful and they have deified reason.

I think reason is important, but we have to make our reasoned discussions within the context of custom and tradition and values and religion, et cetera. I know those things are very important to people across the country. I have talked to hundreds of people in my riding and I know how important they are.

I would go further and say that reason alone can never establish values. We have to refer to custom, religion and tradition in order to establish values. The arguments being made today are outside the context of that long tradition in western civilization. That is extremely dangerous because there is not a single act of any kind that cannot be justified through pure cold hard logic and reason. If my self-gratification is all that is important and the common good does not matter a whit, then I can use reason to justify just about any act.

I say to members across the way, let us have this debate about reason but let us put it in the context of the long tradition of western civilization where certain prescriptive rights have been granted to the family and have put it above everything else because it does so much good in society as a whole. We must recognize that over thousands of years these cultures have granted us all kinds of things that we treasure and hold dear, including culture and art. These are things we would not necessarily get from this rationalistic society that is being built through the use of pure cold hard logic alone.

I point again to the great debate in Europe over 220 years ago during the French revolution. Rousseau asserted prior to the revolution: "You will be forced to be free". That is the direction members across the way, perhaps unwittingly, are going. Many of these things cannot be justified when they are put in the context and long tradition of history and culture in western civilization.

Finally I want to say a few words about the need to have a public debate on this, a real debate, where members are allowed to vote freely and represent their constituents. I know what constituents in my riding think. I have asked them time and time again. People have said that they believe legislation like this will begin to erode the ability to stand up for the family.

People ask: If the government is pursuing measures to strengthen the family, then why is it not changing the tax laws which penalize families? Why is the government not doing things for families such as taking the money it would send to day cares and giving it to people so they can remain at home to raise their children? Those are the kinds of questions I get back home.

We certainly do not get questions as to why we are not writing new legislation to protect gays and lesbians. People are not asking for that. Some groups are asking for it, but people in general are not asking for it. Not at all. We need to hear from all those people who are hearing the same message back home.

The chief government whip is here and the government is going to bring down the whip pretty soon and say that we are not allowed to speak. We know the member from Ontario would love to speak to this motion but he will not be allowed to speak, which is a crime. The hon. member for York South-Weston was thrown out of the party. He was muted because he wanted to speak for his constituents. For crying out loud, if we cannot speak in this place where in this country are we free to have the debate?

I challenge the chief government whip, I challenge members across the way to say it is time to let Canadians have their voices heard on this issue through their members of Parliament. I urge the chief government whip and members across the way to push their Prime Minister to allow a free vote on the issue of the inclusion of sexual orientation in the human rights act.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way has urged me to make an intervention.

I am probably as old fashioned as they get around this place and I will gladly admit that. As old fashioned as I am, today we are discussing, to use words from the preamble of the bill, the dignity and worth of all individuals. On a day when we are discussing that, a member of this House made a statement which affects the dignity of all individuals, of all Canadians and even of this House. At the same time we as legislators are raking over the coals another member of the House before a parliamentary committee for inappropriate behaviour.

Why is it that the hon. member opposite failed to mention what his position was on the comments which were made by another member on this very day? Those remarks were attributed to him by the press. He never once raised the issue in terms of the dignity of the individual.

It is fine for the member opposite to pontificate and ask if the chief government whip will allow his colleagues a free vote. That is fair game. However, there are things in the House which are not fair game. Yes, we do have freedom of speech. However, we have responsibility for our words.

And that responsibility means that we must stand up and say what we have to say. Earlier today, a member made comments that do not befit this place and he has not been seen since. Why did we

not hear anything? Not even one member of his party dissociated himself or herself from these unacceptable comments.

I ask the hon. member if, after making his comments and admonishing the other parliamentarians in this House, he will have the courage to rise and to dissociate himself from the comments attributed to his colleague?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated and expected the hon. member's intervention. It was not a surprise.

The member is saying that another member of my caucus allegedly said something and therefore I am guilty by implication. He is doing exactly what he claims the legislation before the House is protecting against. He is trying to paint me and other members of my party with the same brush because of something a member of our party allegedly said. That is absolutely ridiculous.

Let me say for the record that we believe in the equality of all Canadians. That is not an issue. The issue is: How do we address it? That is the question.

For the member to turn around and say that somehow I am not committed to the equality of all Canadians is utter balderdash and he knows it. He was using trickery in his rhetoric. He was trying to paint all of us with the same brush because of something which a member of my party allegedly said. That is wrong.

I would ask a question of him. How does the hon. member square his own rhetoric on these issues with the employment equity legislation, which he and his government support, which actually grants special rights to certain individuals? Of course it is entirely possible that gays and lesbians will be granted special rights in employment equity legislation down the road. Therefore, people would be required to hire a certain percentage of them to fulfil a quota. How does he square his alleged love of equality with his government's own legislation?

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker talked a lot about the family. Of course in the preamble the bill talks about the family as the foundation of society.

Would the hon. member for Medicine Hat not agree that the definition by the hon. member for Huron-Bruce that a family is only a mother, a father and children leaves out childless couples, single parents and people like myself who consider our grandchildren and children to be our families? We know that not all families are perfect. Regrettably, sexual, physical and emotional abuse does occur within families. Would the member not agree that a better definition might be that loving and caring relationships provide a real foundation for our society?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the hon. member for Yukon.

First, who is going to determine what are loving and caring relationships? Second, I again point to some of the remarks I made in my speech. For over 3,000 years it has been made very clear that society believes and has offered prescriptive rights to an arrangement which includes a man and a woman, their offspring if any, and should somebody die or in the case of divorce, the remnants of that particular arrangement.

What society wants is really what is important, not what the member for Yukon or some other members want. It is that long tradition not only in this country but in western civilization, I would argue the entire world, where we have afforded special attention and special rights in law and in custom to the arrangement I have just mentioned.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, earlier there were some words attributed to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan. I would like to bring them forward. He indicated that if he had a business and a homosexual was working for him and was responsible for losing business that he would indeed think of letting him go just as he would think of letting anyone else go who was losing business for him.

The member was further asked what he would do if he were a shop owner and a black employee was driving away racist customers. He indicated that he did not know but he thought that an employer should have that sort of freedom, that if someone was working for him and was responsible for his business failing he should be able to say: "Hey, I do not need you in my employ. I am going to switch you to the back of the shop".

The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, a 67-year old former senior military officer, was asked a second time if a black employee would be fired at a retail establishment because racist customers did not want to shop there. He said: "That one would be a tough one, it would, but I would have to put a black person in the same category I would put a gay or any other minority".

You indicate that members of this party are attempting to paint all members of your party with the same brush. Do you agree-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. Before I let the hon. parliamentary secretary complete his question, I would urge him and all other members of the House to direct their interventions through the Chair, not directly across the floor.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

Does the hon. member agree or disagree with the statements put forward by his colleague, the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, those are his alleged comments. Let me address this in two ways.

First, I believe people should be hired and fired on their merits, on their ability to do the job. That is the only criteria upon which people should be hired and fired.

There is a black gentleman who works for me. It is entirely inappropriate to suggest that our party would somehow discriminate against somebody because of their skin colour. That is ridiculous. The proof of the pudding is in the eating of it.

That is why I believe the hon. member across the way and the chief government whip are not being genuine in asking these questions. They are simply trying to throw mud because of what was allegedly said. They are trying to smear members who have never ever in their lives done anything to indicate that they are in any way racist or have shown any other kind of bias toward anybody. It is not very genuine of the hon. member to do that. Frankly, the proof of the pudding is in the eating of it.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on the bill to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, which in my opinion will benefit all of Canadian society.

First of all, I would like to congratulate the government on its consistency in delivering on its election promises by introducing its bill to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

It is vital that the consequences of amending the act be presented to this House, and accordingly to Canadians. There are too many lies, myths and half truths that have crept into the debate on this amendment.

Some say that the inclusion of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination will have the effect of sanctioning crimes such as pedophilia. This is absurd. The proposed amendment in no way sanctions such crimes. Furthermore they are formally prohibited under the Criminal Code and carry various sentences.

I would also like to point out that the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as the Federal Court, have already had an opportunity to rule on the scope of the words "sexual orientation", and that at no time was there any question of broadening the scope of these words to sanction behaviour that is already expressly prohibited by law.

One myth having to do with special rights is also unfortunately raging among opponents to the amendment. In fact, quite the opposite is true, for the purpose of this amendment is to introduce sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination, which will protect, of course, gays and lesbians, but also any heterosexual, against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The amendment is in no way intended to confer special rights on a particular category of Canadian citizen. The principal purpose of this amendment is only to protect against any discrimination in the workplace. It is quite simply not a question of this amendment conferring special privileges, such as the adoption of children, which in any event is a provincial matter, or the possibility of granting benefits to same sex partners.

I come from a so-called traditional, Christian family, and I assure you that the present amendment in no way infringes on family values. Furthermore, the recognition and the support of the government are explicitly set forth in the preamble to the bill to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, which reads in part as follow:

-whereas the Government recognizes and affirms the importance of family as the foundation of Canadian society and that nothing in this Act alters its fundamental role in society-

The wording of the amendment is explicit in this regard and confirms that the purpose of the amendment is not to take away from the family as the social unit in Canada.

To those who say that this amendment should not be adopted by this House because it is a question of sanctioning an immoral measure, I reply that, on the contrary, it is a question of human rights. The Parliament of Canada has a responsibility to recognize all human rights, including the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation.

The all-party parliamentary committee on equality rights tabled a report in the House in 1985 unanimously recommending that "the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination to the other grounds".

Although the Tory government at that time pledged to follow through on this recommendation, no action was ever taken. This amendment was promised by the Prime Minister in the last federal election and reiterated by members of the government numerous times since the election.

Many recent court decisions have supported the need to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. In a landmark decision, Haig and Birch v. Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that lesbians and gays have historically been subjected to unjustifiable prejudice and disadvantage, and that the failure of the Canadian Human Rights Act to provide lesbians and gays with any protection against discrimination violates the equality guarantees of the charter of rights.

The Canadian government has spent many millions of dollars defending challenges of laws and regulations that discriminate

against lesbians and gays. During recent years, it has become evident that the courts are forcing changes to end this discrimination.

With every court case the government loses, our justice system is telling it that the equality rights for gays and lesbians are fundamental and that these rights must be respected. The government can either voluntarily amend laws that discriminate against lesbians and gays or be forced to do so by the courts, case by case, paying the associated legal costs.

It should not be left to the courts to make policy or to rewrite statutes. Admittedly, this amendment has its limitations. It is a federal statute and therefore limited to matters of federal jurisdiction. It does not apply to areas of provincial jurisdiction, for example, religion, education or culture.

Churches, religious organizations and schools are not under federal jurisdiction. They will not be affected in the way that they operate. Matters such as adoption fall primarily under provincial jurisdiction and will not be affected by this amendment.

It does not change the definition of marriage, family or spouse. It does not condone or condemn heterosexuality or homosexuality. The amendment deals with discrimination in employment, accommodation and provision of services.

In a 1994 Angus Reid survey, a large majority of Canadians, 81 per cent, believe that homosexuals in this country experience discrimination at their place of work. Only 9 per cent of Canadians felt that there was no discrimination of homosexuals in the workplace.

The Canadian Human Rights Act applies to the federal government as well as to institutions that are under federal jurisdiction such as banks, railway companies and airlines. Approximately 10 per cent of Canadians work for these employers. That 10 per cent has a right to equal protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Some people have asked that I vote according to the Christian point of view. Even if it was appropriate for me as a member of Parliament and for the House of Commons, Canada's legislature, to make laws on the basis of religious conviction, this would prove to be very difficult since there is no consensus among Christian denominations on the gay and lesbian rights issue. Although a number of clergy are speaking out against equal rights for gays and lesbians, many clergy are actively advocating these changes.

For example, more than 125 priests from the Anglican diocese of Toronto signed a letter stating that sexual orientation should no longer be a cause of discrimination in society, especially in the church, that the church should bless relationships between gay and lesbian couples and that the church allow gay and lesbian priests to have the same rights as their heterosexual colleagues to be in a committed, loving relationship, including the sexual expression of that love.

Similarly, Canadian Friends Service Committee, a committee of the religious Society of Friends, Quakers in Canada, wrote to the Minister of Justice requesting legislation to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, inclusion of sexual orientation in hate crime legislation and the entrenchment of the principle of recognition of same sex relationships everywhere in the law.

In addition, during the debate of Bill 167 in the Ontario provincial legislature, more than 400 clergy from 135 communities representing 11 denominations signed a petition calling for the extension of the same benefits and rights to heterosexual couples to persons in same sex relationships.

In conclusion, I repeat that the inclusion of sexual orientation is not some abstract addition for the sole benefit of the gay and lesbian community, some distant and isolated group on the fringe of Canadian society.

Gays and lesbians are members of our families. They are our brothers, our sisters, our mothers, our fathers, our relatives and our neighbours. Would we want to see these people discriminated against on the basis of any sort of ground having to do with their very being? No. I am certain that the answer of any reasonable Canadian to this question will be a resounding no.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Simcoe North for his words, and to comment on how refreshing it is to hear something like this. For the last several hours I have had the impression that we were being treated to speeches from each and every member of the reform wing of the Liberal Party, because we were hearing nothing but the opposite views.

I will ask a question of my hon. colleague, but I wish to start by focussing on a comment he made. I wanted to do so a while ago, but the time allowed for comments was up. When his colleague for Mississauga South was making the connection between pedophilia and homosexuality, I felt this was what would have been called "gay bashing" in any other circumstances.

Why link the two? Is it with the most explicit intention of having the public believe that pedophiles are only found in the homosexual population? The reality is totally the opposite. Looking at the international sex trade, in Asia, or in areas on which there have been reports just recently, Santo Domingo, the Philippines, I would say that, more often than not, those who are involved in pedophilia in those countries, and who come from abroad, are heterosexuals.

People are entitled to be opposed to this bill-in my opinion this is a fundamental right-but I would like to hear them state their case clearly and particularly to explain their reasons for doing so. When reference is made to this bill's conferring particular rights concerning job equity, I think people are mixing up two pieces of legislation with totally different objectives.

In the case of Bill C-33, the intent is to protect the rights of the individual, all Canadian individuals, regardless of colour, race, or any of the eleven grounds for discrimination. As for the employment equity legislation, it is groups that are being promoted. This is completely different, with completely different objectives, and I would like our hon. colleague for Simcoe North to comment on this.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments and his question, even if it is not exactly a question. I thank him nevertheless. I think a lot of people fail to understand the issue with this bill. Many people, perhaps with all goodwill, are concerned and think we are trying to give special rights to people whose way of life they do not share. But, this is not the case at all, as the hon. member pointed out.

We are trying to ensure there is no discrimination against persons whose sexual orientation is not the same as other people's. This bill applies as much to heterosexuals as to gays and lesbians.

This is a point many people often forget. They think the bill exists only to protect the rights of gays and lesbians, and that is not the case.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Ontario, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague for Simcoe North.

I was very interested to hear what the hon. member had to say about the rather unusual turn of events by which this act has suddenly become the most pressing issue in the land today. This is certainly a pressing issue in the hon. member's riding, as it was in 1993, which is one of the reasons that we as a party did not put it in the red book.

There seems to be some confusion in the House and across the country as to the human rights act applying only to the provision of goods and services. Would the hon. member not agree that the CPP, spousal benefits, child tax credits, employment equity and the Divorce Act could be technically ruled on not by the House but by the Supreme Court of Canada or, even better, by Mr. Max Yalden, the commissioner of human rights? Would he agree that at some point down the road these items could well be included under this act?

The hon. member raised a couple of constitutional issues which were brought before the Supreme Court, one of them being the Mossop case. The court held that once Parliament passed a bill dealing with sexual orientation it would affect same sex marriages. Could the hon. member comment on that.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the last part of the question on same sex marriages, my understanding is that marriage is within provincial jurisdiction. I am not familiar with the case cited by my hon. colleague. I am not sure at what level it was, if it had been appealed and so on. I am satisfied and confident that the amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation will not affect marriages.

I am not saying that some day same sex marriages will not be recognized. I am not saying whether they should or should not be. That is not before the House at this time. I am dealing with what we have in front of us.

The hon. member also mentioned the red book. I do not know why things were not included in the red book. I was not an author of the red book. I was a member of the party and attended party policy meetings. This measure has been part of Liberal Party policy since 1978. It was voted in by the grassroots levels of the party. As recently as last weekend the Ontario wing of the Liberal Party of Canada passed a motion with a large majority that this measure should be carried out.

The member has indicated this is an issue in my riding. I have had a few calls from people who in good faith have very real concerns. A lot of those concerns are based on inaccuracies; they are concerns that will not follow from these amendments.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to split my 20 minutes with the member for Ontario.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

By way of information for the House, the reason the member for Fraser Valley East is making this request is that in this case our standing orders do not provide for members to share time without unanimous consent.

The House has heard the terms of the request from the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I guess that is the politics of inclusion. If you do as the big boys say, you will get to speak. If you do not, you take a seat at the back of the bus. That appears to be what is happening here.

In addressing the inclusion of sexual orientation in the human rights act, I want to first assure homosexuals that I bear no ill against them. They are already equal to every Canadian. It has already been established by the courts and I affirm that existing equality. I oppose their political purpose, which I think this bill is really meant to address, to shape political institutions to reflect their values.

I bear no ill will toward the justice minister. I think he honestly believes that he is doing the right thing by introducing this bill. When I listen to him, and I have at length, he speaks with a tender conscience. He really believes this is necessary, but he is sorely misinformed. I will discuss my reasons for believing this.

The inclusion of sexual orientation in any human rights act in Canada is not really about discrimination but about special rights. In 1994 in anticipation of this bill I wrote to every provincial human rights commission. I asked them for their evidence in support of the inclusion of sexual orientation in their legislation. Why did they do it?

Not one provincial government offered an explanation and some said clearly that it was just a political decision following a political appeal. There were a few submissions to provincial parliaments by gay rights groups which inevitably told anecdotal stories about violence against gay men, something which no human rights code in the country has the power to touch. Acts of violence are already covered under the Criminal Code, as they should be.

I encourage all police departments in the country to actively pursue any allegations of violence against or between homosexuals. Absolutely. If people commit those crimes they should be prosecuted, which is what the Criminal Code is for. Violence is really a red herring in this argument. It is not what the human rights act is meant to address.

This bill is about special rights. As an example of the road it is heading down, I quote from debate on a private member's bill brought forward by the member for Burnaby-Kingsway on April 16. This is what he would like us to eventually get to: "It is not a discriminatory practice for a person to adopt or carry out a special program, plan or arrangement designed to prevent, eliminate or reduce disadvantages that are suffered by any group of individuals based on sexual orientation".

In other words, the member's written purpose is that he wants special status given to people based on sexual orientation in hiring and promotion. He wants it added to the employment equity bill.

Last night during a press conference this same member made a very significant statement: "This bill is one step on the road to equality". It is only one step. If this bill passes I believe homosexuals will use it to demand the courts to include them as a designated group in the federal Employment Equity Act. It does not matter that the section about special plans I have just read is not contained in the legislation before us today. It will be demanded from and given by the courts.

Inclusion as a designated group in the Employment Equity Act will give gays access to preferential hiring in the federal public service and crown corporations. Just as the government recently announced set asides on government procurements for aboriginals, so gay-run businesses may one day ask for and possibly receive special procurement handouts from the federal government, all enforced by the courts and backed by this legislation.

This group already enjoys above average education and income in Canada, so the bill is not in essence about discrimination. The courts have already declared that they are protected. This bill is all about special rights, about power, privilege and money. It is about a tiny group in our society manipulating politicians, manipulating public institutions to serve their own interests.

What should we do if we do not want this to happen? We should stop the process right here and now. To vote for the legislation is to entrench the process which makes it inevitable. That is one part of this legislation I think many Canadians have difficulty with, but there is a greater issue.

An understanding of the political process in Canada is vital to the complete understanding of what is happening today with this bill. Canada's political process is above all, if nothing else, incremental. Step by step, bit by bit, little by little victories are won until the political purpose is achieved.

Pick an issue, nearly any issue. Take free trade. It takes a century to get free trade. Take abolition of capital punishment. It took a long time. The abortion rights movement started in the sixties and was not really achieved until the nineties. That is the way it happens. It is political incrementalism which also applies to changing the attitudes of North Americans toward sexuality.

Western culture used to have many sexual taboos, some good, some bad. The struggle has gone on now for some time, accelerated by the mass media and compliant politicians. The struggle is to eliminate the moral taboos of right and wrong as they apply to sex. Some taboos in our society linger but they are falling bit by bit. They can talk about this in the preamble, but even marriage is not immune to the attacks of incrementalism.

The supreme court decided in May of last year that unmarried couples should be regarded as a historically disadvantaged group. In other words, they are disadvantaged and we should have programs to make sure they are looked after properly. In other words, married people do not get treated as well before the government as unmarried people.

In the same way homosexuality used to be a taboo, but along with other sexual activities the discriminating labels of right and wrong have been removed and now only a few taboos remain.

Last night when the member for Burnaby-Kingsway said that this bill is one step on the road to equality, he gave a very concise and accurate summary of what I have been saying. First, the

amendment is just a small step toward the eventual goal. The member said this amendment will not achieve his goal.

Second, his goal on this road is equality. What sort of equality was he talking about? The member was talking about equal access to housing, equal access to employment. However, these two are just steps toward what I think is his eventual goal.

He is really talking about equality in all areas between homosexuals and heterosexuals. This logically requires that homosexuals receive all the recognition, all the the benefits, all the social endorsements which currently belong to marriage relationships.

The few outspoken gay members of Parliament will never rest, I believe, until they have achieved the rest of the marriage package, including adoption, and every other benefit available now to the traditional heterosexual family unit.

Last year we voted down the package on same sex benefits. The cabinet voted against it, but it did not matter because Treasury Board has moved ahead and given those benefits as the next step of this incremental giveaway plan.

The process does not end there, to the more. If I can call them traditional homosexuals, if they can be called traditional, I sincerely believe they think this incrementalism will stop once they get a package. That package includes, marriage, benefits and a few things like that. However, I think they are mistaken, which is where the term sexual orientation is significantly different from the word homosexual.

The minister did not bring forward an amendment that mentioned homosexuals. He brought in sexual orientation, which I believe will open up a can of worms, and we have yet to know where that may lead us.

If we think about it, 20 years ago homosexuals were radicals who would not propose some of the things they are asking for today. However, their political dreams are coming to fruition with this addition of sexual orientation to the human rights act.

Who are today's radicals? Who are the ones who are pushing the envelope today? They are people like lesbians from Buddies in Bad Times Theatre in Toronto. The Globe and Mail , a constant advocate of gay rights, said the company performed what it called an enticing play this last week. Yet Buddies in Bad Times Theatre is a group which advocates sado-masochism and rape play. Its members are bullies who advocate violent sex and physically intimidate anybody who dares to publicly disagree with them.

Today's radicals are people like Gerald Hannon, the prostitute professor from Ryerson University in Toronto, who says he sees sex between men and boys as the equivalent of a hockey game. How is he different from yesterday's radical? He is different only in that he takes that process one step further. In his mind the process of sexual equalization has simply gone one step further than the others on the road to the idea of equality.

The final logical goal which will be carried forward by successive radicals until it is achieved is equality of all sexual forms. Here I quote from the statement of principles of the Vancouver gay and lesbian newspaper called ANGLES . It is a mainstream gay newspaper. Their statement of principles says:

ANGLES' commitment to the goals of bisexual, lesbian and gay liberation includes a commitment to-the right of all people regardless of age, ethnicity, class, physical appearance or ability to full and equal participation in all aspects, including sexual, of the gay, lesbian and bisexual communities without exploitation.

To the radicals of today, every age group should have the right to consensual sex. Sex without age boundaries is another step in the movement of these radicals toward the equalization of all sexual behaviour. This legislation, with undefined sexual orientation, is an open door to that end.

Even after that is accomplished the road does not end. It continues and the landscape becomes pretty bizarre, so much so that I will not mention some of the wilder sex acts which the fringe groups might currently be promoting. As fringe groups, they will be constantly chipping away, asking for the recognition and acceptance of their particular style.

Today many of the speakers are talking about homosexuality. That is not what the bill says. The bill says sexual orientation. Tomorrow we may face a question about sex between adults and children, about incest and about negative forms of sexual expression. It is hard to say what may happen down the road. The undefined term sexual orientation is being placed into the hands of radicals. They could drive a legal truck through it.

Witness after witness who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs confirmed that the definition could easily cover any sexual orientation. The Minister of Justice denies this.

I am not being an alarmist. These are the words of John Conroy of the Canadian Bar Association when he was asked about the definition of sexual orientation: "It could be any kind of sexual orientation, and it could be something that, as you say, is illegal".

Here is what the director of the Ottawa region of the Criminal Lawyers Association said to the justice committee: "Sexual orientation is a crucial factor of pedophilia; a fundamental component of a true pedophile is his or her sexual orientation. Certainly sexual orientation is a key and fundamental component of pedophilia".

I know that many of the speeches have been about homosexuality. Members may not realize that sexual orientation does not deal only with homosexuality, it also deals with a whole area of unknown sexual orientation which we will not see until the courts have made their interpretations.

What do we do if we are travelling the wrong way down a road which has a dead end that we do not want to reach? It is simple. We stop. If we want to stop the concept that all forms of sexual orientation are equal, we must stop the process by voting against this bill now.

There is another problem with the bill. Many people would say it is a question of conscience or a moral problem. I believe the government will be introducing a grave contradiction in the human rights act by including sexual orientation alongside religion. The truth is, as has been noted by previous speakers, that every major religion from ancient times has attached some quality of morality to sexual activity. There may be differences but there has always been some kind of moral quality attached to it.

In the eyes of millions of Canadians, myself among them, who hold to the fixed belief that sexual questions are questions of morality, the government will now grant preferential rights to people specifically because of their sexual activity. The government is attempting to push through the bill with a soft sell approach. It gives warm assurances that inclusion will not lead to family benefits, broad definitions of sexual orientation or affirmative action. It is only talking about access to housing and to jobs. That is untrue.

The government is trying to slide this bill through Parliament on a bed of smooth words. After that we will have to live with the consequences of those words.

Because of this amendment, religion and sexual orientation will come into conflict, as homosexuals and other groups demand that their definition of morality be included in every aspect of life. The rights of religious groups and individuals and the freedom of federal structures to be guided by traditional moral values will be eroded. I am talking about everything from taxation to government programs to our system of marriage and family law.

Whose rights will suffer when these two opposing world views come into conflict? What will happen when a preacher says on the radio that homosexuality is wrong, that it is immoral. Will he be taken before the CRTC and told to stop preaching because it is wrong? Such accusations have already been brought and will be brought again.

What will happen when a Christian television station is denied a licence because of its belief about homosexuality? What if someone just says it is wrong? This is a matter of freedom between the two opposing views. Regardless of which side we take, someone will have to decide. The courts will have to pick a winner out of that situation.

When that happens I wonder to whom the religious groups will appeal when they are denied a right to their own beliefs. Whether one agrees with them or not, what will happen? Will they appeal to the Canadian Human Rights Commission? I do not think so because the Canadian Human Rights Commission will say that there is a contradiction here and that it is going to have to choose between the two.

It has already happened where people are afraid to take action and say things that they would otherwise say because of fear of reprisal, of people using the weapon of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Because of court cases and so on, people are already wondering if it is all right to say what they really believe in their hearts or do they have to couch it through the filter of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Those who push for inclusion use two great weapons in their battle. The first one they use is scorn by saying: "What can it hurt to give me this little freedom? What are you afraid of? What is the matter with you?" This is their first weapon.

The second weapon they use is trying to impugn shame by saying that you are guilty of wrongful discrimination. In other words they are saying: "How can you call my behaviour wrong? You are arbitrarily discriminating against my choices". Implicit in those accusations is that everything is equal under the sun and all people will do whatever is right and have a good day doing it.

However, I will not be scorned in pointing toward the end of the road that I believe this government is taking us. I am not ashamed to say that I do not believe that all sexual behaviours are equal. I think many people on both sides of the House today have already explained their concerns. They do not want persecution of homosexuals, nor do they want some kind of a witch hunt against people. They are saying that they have concerns about the traditional family unit and about the shrinking batch of benefits, the declining amount of money that is available for benefits that will be spread out to a greater number of people.

People have legitimate concerns and for that reason, and this is certainly the place to bring it up, I believe that not all sexual behaviours are equal, certainly when it comes to benefits and so on.

The concept that has built this nation is the traditional family unit. I believe the member for Yukon said that was not true and that what we should say is that loving, human relationships are the founding unit of society. I disagree. I say it is the structure of the family where a monogamous husband and wife have children together and provide a loving and caring place of nurture for those children. That provides the best basis for society to have children who are well-adjusted and can take their proper place in society.

Obviously this system breaks down but it is not wrong to say that is the ideal we should be trying for. In that sense the nuclear family has been tried and tested for years and years.

As I said at the start of my presentation, I believe that the justice minister has a tender heart on this issue. If I truly believed that this amendment was merely about discriminatory hiring practices in the federal government, something for which there is no rampant evidence, I would support it. However, this bill is all about special privileges. It is about taking one more step down a dark, uncharted path toward the acceptance of all behaviour. It is about removing the freedom to publicly promote matters of religious conscience without fear of reprisal.

It was once said that the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation, but there are groups that have worked hard to force this issue on to the political agenda. I would tell them that their bedrooms have no place in the government of this nation.

I urge all hon. members to think twice before supporting this bill. The rights that have been talked about here are not a small, narrow door. They are a broad door that leads us to an unknown path.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened and I am trying to understand because the hon. member who has just spoken is an honourable man. I have had conversations with him many times over the last two and a half years and I know that to be the case.

What troubles me in this debate is that situations will arise for real people. Those real people will be our brothers and sisters, our children, our friends and our co-workers. We know that most people feel that in the workplace there should not be discrimination.

I am aware that one of the other hon. colleagues talked about it being okay to discriminate in the workplace based on somebody's sexual orientation. I ask my hon. friend this question. If it was your child who faced this discrimination, where would you tell them to go? What would you do?

If you cannot look to the law of the land, where would you go-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Please, while I am on my feet, let me take the opportunity-I do not get much exercise-to tell the hon. parliamentary secretary that interventions have to be made through the Speaker. It comes to light particularly when we discuss matters about which members hold very strong convictions. By their nature, they can be very controversial. I encourage members to make their interventions through the Chair.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

I apologize. I will do that. It is as you have stated. I would ask my hon. colleague to tell me what he would do if he did not have this non-discriminatory law as the law of the country.