Madam Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member who just spoke on this bill and claimed he looked at it inside and out that on the whole I subscribe to his line of questioning. I think that discrimination, whatever its nature and whatever its basis, is something harmful to our society. Regardless of the ground, be it sexual orientation, colour of skin or political ideas, discrimination is unjustifiable.
There are two kinds of discrimination, however, and I wonder if the bill introduced by the Minister of Justice, contrary to what he claims himself, does not extend any additional right to the gay community; I would like to believe that, and I hope it does not. But I do have problems reconciling the French version and the English version of the bill.
The hon. member who just spoke is an anglophone from Ontario, I believe, whom I respect very much, but I doubt he had the opportunity to compare the French version and the English version.
I can understand that, like myself, he reads and obtains information in his mother tongue.
I am trying to compare both versions to see if there might be a drafting error that could be corrected right away. Let us look at section 3 in the English version.
"For all purposes of this act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination".
The English version says: "prohibited grounds of discrimination."
The French version reads: "Pour l'application de la présente loi", which is the exact translation of the first phrase in the English clause, and the words "motifs de distinction illicite" are used. As if the word "illicite" were the correct translation of "prohibited". I really have to examine this, and members of Parliament who do not are perhaps demonstrating real carelessness.
The word "illicite" has to be seen in its context. Our rules of construction say that statutes are to be administered and interpreted according to their content and their wording. But they can also be interpreted a contrario, which means by reading between the lines.
If I state that illicit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited, can I also suggest a contrario that a form of legal discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is allowed ipso facto? Would I not be opening the door to the setting of quotas, which were so crucial an issue in the last election campaign in Ontario? We have seen the results of these quotas in Ontario. Those who know best about this are the Ontario Liberals; they lost the election because of quotas.
Discrimination is completely immoral. If a federal statute says so, I am in full agreement. But if its wording opens the door to the opposite interpretation, I have to give a warning.
It is acknowledged that homosexuals represent about 10 per cent in our population. Therefore, homosexuals have the right to claim the same proportion of jobs in the public service, in police forces, and so on. They have the right to exist, and that right should be acknowledged. If I were to interpret this clause a contrario, it would be like saying: "There are 4,000 male police officers in the Greater Montreal Area. To properly represent the gay and lesbian community in the Montreal region, we would need 400 officers from the gay and lesbian minority, which would mean that the hiring policy would have to be changed to ensure that the next 400 officers to be hired are gay or lesbian".
The thing is that, in these kinds of jobs, sexual orientation does not really have anything to do with the duties to be carried out. We should be able, for example, to hire 400 police officers without asking them about their sexual orientation.
Would sexual orientation not take precedence over skills? It has happened in other fields. This is not something that has come out of the blue. I met with a cadet, a police recruit, who had attended the Institut de police de Nicolet and had been designated the best cadet of his class. He had earned his diploma and some awards from the lieutenant governor. Despite all his achievements, he could not find a job, although everybody recognized that he was the best in his field. There is a positive discrimination system, as it is called, and I am afraid this poor guy will have to wait a long time before joining a police force. That is my only concern.
As regards discrimination based on sexual orientation, I agree 100 per cent with the minister and with his concerns and those of my Bloc colleagues. However, as a jurist, I have spent a good deal of my life interpreting legal material. I can now see the conflict that could come out of the interpretation or the wording of the French and English versions. I listened to my Liberal and Reform colleagues, who speak English version. But when you compare both clauses, you realize that they do not mean exactly the same thing.
I would like to ask the hon. member if he has thought about the consequences such a discrepancy or an inconsistency in the English and French versions could have.