moved that Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak on second reading of Bill C-33 by which the government of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien achieves a number of important objectives at the same time.
First, we fulfil an outstanding political commitment to the people of Canada. Second, we act to implement a longstanding policy of the Liberal Party of Canada. Third, we move to fill a gap in the federal human rights legislation, identified at various times in the past 20 years by previous Parliaments, by human rights commissioners and by the public at large.
As to fulfilling a political commitment, the Prime Minister in the course of the last election campaign undertook to introduce this amendment. In the first throne speech in this Parliament after the election, that undertaking was repeated. In the months, indeed, in the years since as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the government I have repeated that commitment. And what is more, Canadian governments going back a decade have made the undertaking. It falls to us today at long last to fulfil it.
In the policy of the Liberal Party of Canada which forms the government of the country, it is now almost 20 years since that party in its national convention adopted as a policy, a resolution that the act governing human rights should be amended in the very fashion prescribed by Bill C-33. That resolution has been repeated at various policy conventions in the years since.
Indeed, in 1994 at the biennial convention in Ottawa, just such a resolution was once again adopted. As recently as this past weekend as the Ontario branch of the party met in Windsor, the subject was discussed and decided anew. The resolution once again is that sexual orientation ought to be added as a ground on which discrimination is prohibited in the federal human rights legislation.
In filling a gap in the federal human rights law, the statute as it stands was enacted in 1975. Ten years later, eleven years ago, a resolution was adopted unanimously by an all-party committee of the House endorsing the concept of amending the statute in just the fashion that is proposed in Bill C-33.
The courts have identified the gap. In the case of Haig in the Ontario Court of Appeal some years ago, it was the decision of that most senior appellate court that the federal act must be read as though it includes the words sexual orientation in prescribing discrimination and discriminatory practices in matters governed by the statute. The provinces have identified and have dealt with this gap.
In the years since 1977 when Quebec was the first to amend its human rights legislation to add this ground, eight provinces and territories have moved to do so.
So, this amendment is far from revolutionary. Quebec prohibited all discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in 1977. Ontario did the same in 1986. In all, eight provinces or territories have amended their legislation in this regard. This means that almost 90 per cent of the population is protected by similar provisions.
Against this background, in the midst of all these commitments, these resolutions and all the action elsewhere, what has kept the federal government from following through? Why has it taken all these years before this step has been taken? Quite simply, there is real controversy about what such an amendment is and what it is not.
The proposal stirs powerful feelings, caught up in notions of family and religion, who is and is not entitled to benefits in our society. That controversy, those issues and those feelings must not be allowed to stand in the way of simple human justice and equality. It is in the face of that controversy and notwithstanding
those feelings that we introduce and propose this amendment because it is the right thing to do.
I want to make clear before I go on that as this debate unfolds, at least in my respectful view, no participant has the moral high ground, no one is holier than any other. I know there are strongly held views among those even within my own caucus who oppose this proposal. I respect those who take a different approach. However, at a certain point a government has to make a choice. At a certain point a government has to plot a course.
In introducing this legislation the government has chosen to prohibit discrimination as a fundamental part of the equality of citizens in our country. I acknowledge that any government that introduces such a measure must accept responsibility for explaining what it is and what it is not. That we have undertaken to do. That I will attempt to do today.
Let us look at what this amendment is and what it is not, so that we can agree on the real issues in this debate. It is an issue of human rights. It has to do with equality, with the dignity of individuals, with the principle that someone should not be discriminated against in the federal workplace because of who or what they are.
The federal statute applies to the provision of goods and services and to employment in the federal public service and in undertakings regulated by federal legislation. Close to 11 per cent of the Canadian workforce is directly affected by the act.
The statute sets out its purpose in section 2. It is there provided that the purpose of the act is to give effect to the principle that every individual should have an equal opportunity with other individuals to make for themselves the life they are able and wish to have, consistent with their duties and obligations as a member of society, without being hindered or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.
In the following part of the statute, under the heading "proscribed discrimination", we learn what this statute deals with. I think it is very important throughout this debate to focus on the stuff and the substance of this legislation. We are not here talking about the make-up of the family. We are not here talking about the freedom to hold certain religious beliefs. We are not talking about promoting lifestyles. We are talking about discrimination.
In section 3 it is provided that for all the purposes of this act the enumerated characteristics I have read, age, gender, marital status, et cetera, are prohibited grounds of discrimination.
In section 5 it is provided that it is discrimination in the provisions of goods and services or facilities or accommodation to deny access to any person because of one of the stated grounds.
It is discrimination in section 6 to deny the rental of commercial or residential accommodation because of one of those grounds.
It is discrimination in section 7 to refuse to employ or keep someone in employ simply because of one of those grounds; in section 8 to use or circulate any form of application for employment; in section 9 to refuse someone membership in an employee organization.
In section 13 it is provided that it is unlawful to send hate messages, in citing hatred against persons identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
In section 14 it is provided that it is a discriminatory practice to harass someone on the prohibited grounds of discrimination.
That is what this legislation is about. It is about protecting Canadians on the grounds of their race, their ethnic or national origin, their colour, their religion or their marital status, from discrimination in their employment or their advancement or the availability of services, from discrimination based on messages of hatred based on one of the grounds on which discrimination is prohibited.
All we seek to do is add sexual orientation to that list of grounds so that people will be protected on that basis as well. That is what this is about.
In the absence of those words what recourse does one have if they are fired or not advanced or refused a service on the basis of sexual orientation? At the moment their only recourse is to rely on a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which requires the commission to read those words into the act so that complaints can be brought forward on that basis.
Let me say two things about the insufficiency of that remedy for persons in that position. First it seems to the government that it is up to the Parliament of Canada to articulate and to codify fundamental principles of equality in this country and not leave that job to the courts.
Second, while the Haig decision in Ontario had the effect I have described, there has already been a decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal to the contrary effect. There now exists confusion which will have to be resolved, if the Supreme Court of Canada grants leave, by the highest court in the land. Must the rights of Canadians to be free from dissemination on this ground be left to the outcome of contested litigation? I think not. It is time for Parliament to speak. It is time for us to codify this fundamental right.
That is what this amendment is. It is a measure that would move against discrimination in the federal workplace and assure fundamental dignity and equality to Canadians.
Let us treat for a moment that which this amendment is not. It does not deal with the conferral of benefits on any class or category of persons. It does not confer benefits on same sex couples. It does not confer benefits on homosexual individuals. The bill is silent on this point.
No matter what Parliament does in relation to this bill the contest in tribunals and courts goes on. For many years courts have been asked to extend same sex benefits based on provincial and federal legislation. No matter what Parliament does in relation to this bill that issue will go on in the courts.
It seems there is very powerful response to those who say that adding these words will lead to same sex benefits. The provinces since 1977 have almost all moved to add these words to their human rights legislation. Yet same sex benefits have not automatically followed from that measure. Those matters are still very much an issue throughout the country. Those who suggest adopting this bill will result in same sex benefits being extended should look to the provinces and see for themselves how faulty that logic is when applied in jurisdictions where this amendment was made.
A recent judgment in the Supreme Court of Canada makes this point crystal clear. In the case of Egan and Nesbitt the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to decide based on an argument founded on the charter whether provisions in pensions benefits that were not available to same sex couples were discriminatory. The Supreme Court of Canada in the Egan and Nesbitt case earlier this year decided that sexual orientation must be read in as one of the grounds in section 15 of the charter on which discrimination is prohibited. It was unanimous on that point because it is an obvious principle of law.
When it came to extending the benefits in the pension scheme to same sex couples, the court by majority refused it. The court by majority decided that the mere fact the charter prohibits discrimination does not equate with the proposition that benefits must be extended. That is a vivid demonstration of the principle that simply adding these words does not automatically lead to the extension of benefits.
Let us look at the next category of what this bill is not. It is suggested by some that this bill will either directly or indirectly undermine or diminish the importance of family in Canadian life. The House will observe we have included a preamble in the bill which repeats and emphasizes the cardinal importance the government on behalf of all Canadians places on the role of family in Canadian life. It is fundamental to Canadian society and we are determined to promote, protect and preserve the family as a centre point of society.
What is it about this bill that founds the argument that it somehow diminishes family in Canadian life? Some say it will lead to same sex marriage, to which I respond it cannot do so.
The solemnization of marriage is by the Constitution of the country a provincial and not a federal jurisdiction. While it is true to say that in section 91(26) of the Constitution Act of 1867 marriage and divorce are assigned to the federal government, the included category of the solemnization of marriage is by section 92(12) assigned to the provinces. There is legislation now before the courts by which applicants seek relief requiring Ontario to issue a licence to a same sex couple who apply, recognition that it is provincial regulation of the solemnization of marriage, including the issuance of licences, that governs who can marry. It is not a federal jurisdiction at all.
When the federal Parliament came to legislate on the subject of marriage, it did so in a very narrow category. In Chapter M-2.1, the Marriage Prohibited Degrees Act, Parliament dealt with matters of consanguinity and prohibited marriage between related persons. When it comes to the solemnization of marriage in determining who is eligible for a licence, that is provincial and not federal jurisdiction.
It is next said by some that this bill will undermine family by changing the definition of spouse, to which I say the bill does no such thing. The bill does not deal in any way with marriage, marital status or the definition of spouse. That word remains exactly as it appears in all federal legislation, including the Income Tax Act.
I am very sensitive to the need to support family as an essential component of Canadian life. I have been married for 13 years. I have three children, a daughter who is 11 and twin boys who are 8 and about to be 9. My wife and I work very hard together to create a family home in which to nurture those children, in which to educate and prepare them for life by among other things instilling in them values that they can live by. One of those values is tolerance of others. I believe that tolerance is a family value.
In my respectful view, nothing in this bill, no part of this amendment, diminishes my family. Nothing about this amendment threatens the security of our home or the love we feel for one another. Nothing reduces or impairs the rights that my wife and I enjoy to raise our children and live our lives according to our own values and according to what is in our hearts.
Indeed, I suggest to this House today that the adoption of this bill which extends fundamental rights against discrimination to all
Canadians can only improve the world that my children will grow up in. It can only improve the country and society that willbe theirs.
It is suggested by some that adopting this bill will lead to same sex adoptions to which I say that nothing could be further from the facts. The whole process of adoption is governed by provincial jurisdiction under the property and civil rights rubric in the Constitution.
Again, I invite hon. members to apply logic in analysing this issue. In 1985 the government of the province of Ontario moved to add sexual orientation as a ground on which discrimination was prohibited in the Ontario human rights legislation. That bill was adopted in 1986 and became law in that year.
Some eight years later in 1994, the legislature in Ontario was engaged in the debate on Bill 167 on whether to allow adoption for same sex couples. While that bill was defeated, the fact is that notwithstanding the addition of sexual orientation to the human rights act some eight years earlier, it was necessary to treat as a separate and distinct issue the question of adoption, recognizing that adding sexual orientation does not lead to that result. Those are the facts and that is the logic.
To those who contend that on any basis adopting this amendment will confer special rights on gays and lesbians, let me point out to the House that the modification prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, that we all have a sexual orientation, that it includes heterosexuality as well as homosexuality.
May I also point out that in 1975 when this act was first adopted by this body no one suggested that by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion, race or ethnic origin we were conferring special rights on Catholics, on Caucasians or on those from a certain country. No such argument was tenable and no such argument can be made. I suggest that in the present context no such argument can be made.
Let me continue to deal with what this bill is not so that this debate can be carried out on the facts and the merits of this case. Some suggest that this bill is inconsistent with principles of religion, that it is contrary to precepts or concepts of the worship of God. I am proud to stand in the House today to tell my colleagues this amendment has the support of the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada, B'nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress. This bill is fundamentally consistent with the most basic teachings of religion.
I am by faith a Roman Catholic. My Irish Catholic mother saw to it that I was brought up in the church. I attended regularly, served as an altar boy and was educated from the beginning to the end of my years at school in Catholic institutions. I developed a deep respect for the tenets of the Catholic faith. I suggest this amendment and the action it constitutes is completely consistent with those tenets.
Let me read from the apostolic constitution "Life in Christ" in the new catechism. In paragraph 2358 of the new catechism of my church, the Roman Catholic church, the subject of homosexuality is dealt with. In speaking of homosexuals, in speaking of gays and lesbians, in speaking of those very people against whom we propose to prohibit discrimination by Bill C-33, this is what my church, the Roman Catholic Church has to say: "They"-gays and lesbians-"must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided".
That is from "Life in Christ". That is the fundamental tenet of my church and that is the fundamental proposition of my bill: that every element of unjust discrimination should be prohibited.
I believe that in adopting this bill the House would be acting on an important and basic principle in Canadian life. In the federal workplace, in those shops, stores and offices over which we have jurisdiction in prescribing basic principles of human rights, they shall not be discriminated against merely because they are gays and lesbians. That is the teaching of Christ and that is the principle of this bill.
This amendment is a matter of fundamental justice, of protecting those who are discriminated against in our society, of tolerance, of treating all our fellow citizens with dignity and respect and of looking out for one another.
Canadians have a tradition of tolerance and fairness they are proud of. This amendment will prove definitively that these very Canadian values continue to be part of our identity.
We are discussing amendments to the human rights act. We deal here not with abstractions but with people, with humans. Gays and lesbians are not abstractions. They are very real, with very real entitlements to dignity and respect. They are our brothers and our sisters. They are our sons and our daughters, our neighbours and our friends. They are our colleagues.
I urge the House to assess this bill based on what it is and not on what it is not. I urge the House to assess this measure on what it achieves and not on what some suggest and which cannot be maintained. When this bill is assessed on the facts, when we look at it for what it is, I suggest it deserves the wholehearted endorsement of this House of Commons.