Debates of April 30th, 1996

Government Policies

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member of the fifth party will read the red book on page 22 in English and page 20 in French where we said that the answer was harmonization and simplification and we ran on that.

We have no regret in scrapping the helicopter program. In terms of job creation, if the member was aware of what has been going on since the election, 600,000 new jobs have been created in Canada, more than have been created in the same period in Germany, France and Italy together.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in our gallery of a delegation of members of the French national assembly, headed by Didier Bariani.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it was not possible to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the proceedings at second reading of Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Therefore, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the House, pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), I will be moving a time allocation motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, be read a second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, when we broke before question period there were three minutes remaining in the period for comments and questions. I believe I have a question from the hon. member for Halifax West.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the speech by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt who made a very good presentation.

First of all I want to bring to the attention of the House what this bill is really about. It says in the preamble that it is about Canadians having the right to be free from discrimination in employment and in the provision of goods and services. That is what this bill is about, nothing more and nothing less. This bill also says that the government recognizes and affirms the importance of the family as the foundation of Canadian society, that nothing in the act alters its fundamental role as a society.

Those are very important points to many Canadians. It is important that they be in the bill and it is good that they are there. But it seems to me it is not enough to simply not discriminate ourselves. We must oppose discrimination. We must protect against it. That is what this bill is supposed to do and will do. I ask the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt to comment.

[Georgette Sheridan, Liberal, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I underline what my colleague has just said. Bill C-33 is about human rights protection from discrimination. It is not about destroying the Canadian family.

My family values, like those of many Canadians, include the values of tolerance, equity, justice and decency. Bill C-33 is not about conferring special rights on special groups. Bill C-33 is not about promoting lifestyles. It ought to be pointed out that the term sexual orientation which is being added to the bill is a neutral term that includes both homosexuality and heterosexuality.

It is my belief that we are judged as a society not by how we enhance the lives of the powerful but rather, how we look out for the vulnerable among us. For this reason, I am proud to be judged by the protection put in place by Bill C-33, legislation that for many Canadians will replace the raised fist with a sheltering arm.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Nunatsiaq, NT]

Mr. Speaker, considering what we saw during question period and what happened yesterday with the comments by the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, I feel it is important to concentrate on the issue of discrimination.

Let me quote what has already been quoted by others in this House. The member for Nanaimo-Cowichan said that "everyone should be treated fairly and with justice, and we should be just to everyone, not just to specific little groups". That is precisely why we are putting the issue of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation into the act. People who are of a different colour, who are of a different lifestyle, who are disabled are being discriminated against based on those characteristics.

In talking about discrimination against various people, I have not encountered any in this House. However, being of a colour which is different from most people down here, at times there has been some discrimination against me based on the fact that I look different. People have looked at me and said: "Oh, a native". I have an example of this.

I was driving to the airport one day. I was in a rush because as usual, I was late. Two of my kids were with me. Because I was going over the speed limit, I was stopped by an RCMP officer. I was at the airport and was told to get out of my car. I said I would get out but I asked if I could start to unload my stuff. The officer said: "No, just get out". This was in front of my kids. I said that I was not going to run away, but asked if I could start unloading my stuff while the officer checked out whether I was driving legally. He said no. I hope this does not happen to other people from my area.

I gave him my driver's licence. I did not happen to have the proof of ownership because I was driving the car my wife usually drives and she had the proof of ownership. The officer threatened to take away my car. He went back to his car and ran a check through the computer. Meanwhile, he told me to stay in the car, not to unload it. Maybe he thought I was going to run away. About a minute later he came back and his demeanour had completely changed. I thought: What if I had been an ordinary Inuit from the north? I felt sorry then and there for anyone who did not happen to have my position as a member of Parliament. His demeanour had completely changed.

My problem is what I would I have gone through if I had not been a member of Parliament since my wife had the ownership and proof of insurance. That is the kind of thing I am talking about on this issue of the introduction of the words sexual orientation into the Canadian Human Rights Act.

One has to feel those things in order to realize how much discrimination there is in Canada and elsewhere. Sometimes we have to experience these things. If one has not experienced discrimination, they cannot know what people go through, whether they are a different colour, religion or sexual orientation than others.

When I was growing up, I went to a mission school in Chesterfield Inlet, N.W.T. Every morning we woke up around 6.30 or 7 a.m., went to church and had catechism after school. We were taught all the things we should be doing as good Christians: to be tolerant, to be loving, to be understanding, able to forgive and able to treat other people as we would treat ourselves. We grew up knowing that we had to treat our fellow human beings in a very caring manner and that we should be tolerant.

At the same time we were taught these lessons, we were taught songs while being unaware of their meanings. One song we used to recite to each other was "eeny, meeny, miny, mo". If anybody knows that song they will know it has some very discriminatory words toward black people.

At that time there was some conflict between the Inuit, the Chippewan and the Cree to the south of us. The teachings were that the Indians to the south of us were savages. We believed our teachers because they were good Christian missionaries.

I should not and cannot brand all Christians the same way, but some of the most hypocritical and intolerant people were good Christians, or supposedly good Christians. That hurts. We were taught all those things by the same people who said that our fellow human beings to the south were savages or they taught us a song which at the time we did not know was discriminatory. We realized this, fortunately, and most of us did not take those teachings along with us when we grew up.

The member for Nanaimo-Cowichan said we should all be treated equally. How does he reconcile that statement with his comment that if a person were of a different sexual orientation than everybody else, if he were a homosexual, the hon. member would put him at the back of the store? How would he reconcile those two views? It is impossible.

It seems we have to convince, at least teach the people-

[The Speaker]

My colleague, I always regret to have to intervene on any member of Parliament. There are five minutes for questions and comments.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, this is a debate that has waited many years to take place in the Parliament of Canada. The input of the speakers in debate will leave a clear impression with Canadians about how basic rights have been supported by each party. I am sure that during the course of debate some members may feel uncomfortable with the positions that have been put forward.

The member from the eastern Arctic who just spoke is a testament to the fact that in our Canadian political system, in particular in our party, we have evolved to understand the important role that must be played by people who do belong to minority groups.

The member from the eastern Arctic epitomizes the fact that Parliament is a better place when we are more tolerant. Parliament is a better place when we actively pursue and take down barriers to participation by individuals who are different from us. By "us" I mean on average those people of European descent, French and English.

It is crystal clear that the contributions to debate by this member in the seven years I have been in the Chamber have added to the sense of understanding that diversity brings to the greatness of this country.

There may not be a member here who would understand more than the hon. member for Nunatsiaq, as he comes from the far north, what it must feel like to be viewed as different. It is imperative to understand that an individual is judged not by the colour of their skin, not by their ethnic heritage, not by their sexual orientation but by their worth as an individual.

I commend my colleague and my very dear friend for bringing to the House that sense of diversity and greatness which must be preserved and which in many cases is present in the amendments brought forward today.

I thank him for his contribution to this debate and encourage him to continue to stand up for Canadian rights, minority, majority or whatever else they may be.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Nunatsiaq, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear other members speak about the kind of work we are trying to do. I feel it is a privilege and honour to be here. However, just because we are here, just because we have been elected, we should not stop trying to make the world go right, even if it is a real struggle to do it.

At least we are doing our bit by dealing with the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act on the issue of sexual orientation. I will go all out on behalf of those people who are discriminated against because of their sexual orientation and will do what I can do for them.

[The Speaker]

Could I ask the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata if she is going to share her time with someone else? You will be talking for 20 minutes, that is fine.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. This bill adds a fundamental right to the existing list.

When the legislation will take effect, it will no longer be possible to discriminate against a person on the ground of sexual orientation. Should a person be victim of such discrimination, he or she could bring a suit under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which is amended by the bill.

Such action by the government was long overdue. It was time for the government to take its responsibilities, given the commitments made during the 1993 election campaign. In the famous red book, to which the government constantly refers these days, the Liberals promised greater recognition and protection of gays and lesbians. The leader of the Liberal Party formally pledged, in a letter, to recognize sexual orientation as the eleventh prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The government was, of course, helped by the work done in the other place, which passed Bill S-2. One has to wonder whether the government would have taken action, had it not been for the initiative of the Senate, the other place. The government was probably ashamed to see a Conservative senator, and the Senate as a whole, go ahead with a bill amending the Canadian Human Rights Act. Of course, the legislation passed by the Senate will be dropped when the House of Commons passes its own legislation. In any case, it was more than urgent to act.

Recognizing that a person has a right does not take anything away from others. It is about time we recognized that, while we are all born equal, some people suffer from discrimination because they do not have the same sexual orientation as others.

Some believe, and others would want us to believe, that to recognize this fundamental right is to promote homosexuality as a way of life. It is high time for Canadian society to stop burying its head in the sand and to recognize a fact of everyday life in our society. Whether we like it or not, there are, in our society, people who are homosexuals and people who are heterosexuals. It is something we have to live with, and recognizing this right is not the end of the world as a number of societies already do so.

According to a survey, 70 per cent of Canadians are ready to accept, even to support, legislation prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those opposed go against a vast majority in our society, as 70 per cent of Canadians want this legislation.

The time had come to act as, on March 18, 1994, the Minister of Justice said this in response to a question from the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, and I quote: "Speaker, in its campaign for office, in its throne speech and in statements made subsequently in the House, the government has committed itself to amendments to the Human Rights Act which will add sexual orientation as a ground on which discrimination is prohibited. We intend to follow through on that commitment".

Although I welcome the introduction of this bill today, I will remain apprehensive until we know its effective date, because this is not the first time the government has tried to ensure passage of legislation in this area. Until the bill receives royal assent and is given an effective date, we in the official opposition at least will continue to follow its progress very closely so that it is implemented as soon as possible.

It is, however, unfortunate that, perhaps to arrive at this kind of solution, the government announced a few minutes ago its intention to move a motion tomorrow to limit the time allocated to this debate. In other words, there are among us people of ill will who intend to drag out the debate in order to try to stop the government from going ahead with this legislation.

We are in a situation where we must not only denounce the bad faith of some of our colleagues, members of this House, but also an all too frequent habit the government has adopted. Three times in the last four days the government has passed motions limiting the time allowed for debate of fundamental issues such as unemployment insurance, the GST and basic rights that we want our citizens to have. It is a bit of a disgrace.

There is something else, which is also worrisome. In the federal act as it stands, which was passed in 1978, I believe-no, it was 1975-the government did not see fit to mention that it recognized the family as the foundation of Canadian society. It is as though this was a novel idea.

This time, the government thinks it wise to amend the legislation by adding a paragraph:

And 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;

In itself, this second paragraph adds nothing. I think that in all the countries of the world, at least, in all those sharing our form of civilization, the family is obviously the basis of society.

I do not know what meaning could be attributed to the word "family" by judges if we were to ask a court for an interpretation of its meaning today, because the concept itself has evolved considerably over the past 20 years. When I think, for example, of the family into which I personally was born, that of my great nieces and great nephews, in many cases it is not at all the same concept of family.

So, then, what sort of family do we recognize? Do we recognize the single parent family? Do we, in this bill, recognize the reconstituted family? Exactly what is this family that we recognize, and that now, with the addition of this paragraph, will be the victim of discrimination? Who, with the addition of this paragraph, will be denied rights? The bill talks about its fundamental role in society.

When things are added, I wonder whether the government has given sufficient thought to the whole issue and why it has added this paragraph, which was not in the original bill 20 years ago.

Does the government want to limit the scope of the bill? One could well ask. Did the government also want to reassure the radical right members of its caucus?

It is entirely possible. We know that a number of people are not shy about expressing their disagreement with this bill. The Prime Minister made it party line. That is fine. We will do the same thing on our side, but we wonder really why the government added this paragraph. Personally, I do not see what it adds, but I am concerned about the possible scope for interpretation before the courts.

Now they say it is high time this was done. Quite extraordinarily, in 1976, I was a member of a bargaining committee at the Université du Québec in Rimouski, and we negotiated the following: "Neither the university nor the union shall directly or indirectly threaten, constrain, discriminate against or make unfair distinction with respect to a professor for reasons of nationality; ethnic, linguistic or racial origin; beliefs; age; sexual practices or orientation; sex; physical state; pregnancy; marital status; political or other actions or opinions; the exercise of a right provided by the agreement".

This was in 1976. So, when I say the government was in a hurry to act, it was high time it acted and stopped promising things every year and with every campaign in order to get elected, once again under false pretences. For once, if the government goes all the way, and this bill is given royal assent, we will be able to say that at least one promise was kept.

It was also high time because each province is responsible for the rights and liberties it accords its citizens. The Quebec charter of rights included sexual orientation in 1977. Since then, eight provinces, with the exception of Alberta and Prince Edward Island have changed their own legislation to prohibit sexual orientation as a ground for discrimination.

In 1978, that is, 18 years ago, the Liberal Party made-perhaps there was no red book at the time, perhaps that is why it got lost in the meanderings of the government-non discrimination against homosexuals an integral part of the Liberal Party program.

In 1985, there were unanimous recommendations on this by a House subcommittee. In 1993, Mr. Chrétien had made his promise, and on October 18, 1994, the Minister of Justice had indicated he might present amendments to the Canadian act in the fall of 1994, but it came about in spring of 1996. Perhaps when the snow melted they found the red book page that referred to the promise to introduce this bill.

[An hon. member]

Definitely, it was lost in a snow bank.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

There was a bill in 1992, Bill C-108, that died on the Order Paper. But at that time the Ontario Court of Appeal declared, in the Haig case, that the Canadian Human Rights Act was to henceforth be interpreted and enforced as if sexual orientation were one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination set out in the act.

In 1993 there was Bill S-15. This time the Senate was not very effective, perhaps because of the elections, I do not know, but the bill died on the Order Paper. We all know about the Egan and Nesbit case, in which the nine Supreme Court judges agreed that discrimination based on sexual orientation contravenes the clause on equality rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

More recently, we heard about commissioner Yalden's recommendation that the government take action in this area. He had been repeating the same recommendations for the last nine years and the government had still not taken any action in this area. He even pointed out that all seven justice ministers he had known had backed down when time had come to act.

Given your experience, Mr. Speaker, you know even better than I do that several justice ministers went on to become prime ministers. They could have had this legislation passed when they were prime ministers, but did not do so. They made that promise as justice ministers because they had to do something in that capacity. However, once they became prime ministers, probably under the weight of responsibilities, they forgot their promises.

In his annual report tabled on March 19, 1996, not so long ago, the commissioner had no choice but to recognize the federal government's inaction. Unlike the Commissioner of Official Languages who describes the kind of hypothetical reality he would like to see in Canada, this commissioner is not afraid of reality. The human rights commissioner is not afraid to look reality in the face and to acknowledge the federal government's inaction. Well, the government has finally made a move. This commissioner deserves our thanks for his good work.

He even accuses the Liberal government of not having the courage of its convictions. I have to admit that it finally summoned up the courage to take action, with the reservation I made a little earlier about the second paragraph he added to the act. The commissioner feels that, in the present situation, Canada has no lessons to give to other countries.

We will not repeat everything the commissioner said. Among the many interesting points he made, I would like to quote something he said in an interview he gave on March 19, 1996: "All I am saying is that it must be done. The courts have said so. In some countries to which we like to compare ourselves, this has already been done. This government and its predecessors have promised to do so. What we are saying is that the time has come to act". I hope we will have enough time to see this through, and that is what concerns me.

For example, if the Prime Minister felt like calling an election, this bill would die on the Order Paper. It might get lost on the way from this House to the other House. Although the other House has passed its own bill in this area, it might take some time before it takes action in that regard. The summer break is getting closer and leaving a bill pending is always cause for concern.

As it did for another bill, the government could also decide to refer it to the Supreme Court to see if it is constitutional. One never knows; the government has a lot of tricks in its bag when the time comes to take definitive action. We still have to see how this will go over in the Liberal caucus, how right-wing members of the government party will behave.

I think this bill is a matter of human dignity, justice, equity and tolerance. These are the key values of society in Canada and Quebec, and I think we will all be better off when Canadian legislation includes provisions to protect all members of our society, because we all have equal rights.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the human rights amendment under Bill C-33 is a very divisive issue among all members of Parliament. It has been described as two little words to include sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground for discrimination.

If it is just two little words, why is there so much acrimony in this place? Why is the public reacting so strongly? Why are people in this place who were my friends and colleagues no longer speaking to me? It is because I have a different position.

Why have so many people come to me and accused me of discriminating against some group because I have a position? Why have so many people demonstrated intolerance toward my position when they are trying to promote tolerance?

A lot of misinformation has gone into this debate so far today. People have said things, using carefully worded statements and clichés, that tend to evoke emotion and applause. If it was just two little words, if it was simply to incorporate into the Canadian Human Rights Act what the courts have already said it interprets as being there even though it is not, it is not just two little words. It is much more.

Policy by its very nature is discriminatory. In Canada, all are equal under the law. Over time, policy changes have created a complex network of exceptions that extend special status to certain groups or individuals. The extension of any significant special status has been a reflection of society's need to ensure its survival and positive development.

To give an example, the laws of Canada discriminate in favour of aboriginal people. They discriminate in favour of seniors. They discriminate in favour of children and families. They discriminate in favour of those who do not make as much money as others by our rules.

Policy, by its very nature, is discriminatory. This is positive discrimination, reflecting certain circumstances. It is not negative discrimination. That is the crux of the issue.

The traditional family being father, mother and children has been the beneficiary of many policy developments over the years. We discriminate against all others by policies that declare special status for the family, which indeed is part of the preamble of this bill. We further extend to family extra benefits not available to single Canadians or those living in other than a traditional family relationship.

Examples of those benefits extended to the family include such things as survivor pension benefits. Immigration rules allow special treatment for family reunification and sponsoring couples. There is a tax credit for a stay at home spouse. There are child tax benefits and a child care expense deduction. There are many examples of how federal laws discriminate in favour of the family or, as others would say, how we discriminate against others on the basis of some characteristic.

The question of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation continues to be debated. However, in the light of the foregoing, the question may be very fundamental. Do we want to continue to discriminate in favour of the family? That is the question. Once answered, the actions to be taken will come into focus.

If society continues to hold the family in high esteem and reaffirms its special status, we will choose to continue to discriminate in favour of the family. That also means that we cannot amend the human rights act to make sexual orientation a prohibited ground for discrimination. To do so would deny the family its special status by providing a legal basis for others to seek and obtain the same special status and benefits extended to the traditional family.

If, on the other hand, society no longer supports the special status for the family and no longer wishes to discriminate in favour of the family, there are two options to address the change in our societal value. One option would be to eliminate all discriminatory benefits extended to the family. This approach effectively would seek to put all Canadians on the same footing, regardless of what type of relationship, if any, one might have chosen.

We simply would be treated under all the laws of Canada as individuals without dependents. Various laws would have to be changed and nothing would be relevant beyond the individual and their individual rights. The definition of the family would cease to have relevance and many Canadians would cease to receive discriminatory benefits. The impact on people and the finances of the country are obvious.

The second option would be to amend the human rights act to make sexual orientation a prohibited ground for discrimination. This would provide, I believe, the legal basis for challenges to all the laws of Canada, particularly as they relate to the special status of the family and the special benefits extended to them and denied to others. The Supreme Court decision in the Egan case referred to the concept as "permitted discrimination" but the human rights amendment would solve that interpretation.

It is also likely that other Canadians who do not share the special status of the family will also make challenges to our laws to seek the same level and value of benefits. Ultimately, all Canadians will be eligible for all benefits now enjoyed by the family and anyone else. We would, in fact, be equal under the law and all would receive equivalent benefits extended by any and all government policies. To do otherwise would discriminate against someone. Again, the impact on people and finances would be clear.

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is most often discussed in a negative context of denying or violating rights. Common examples of this discrimination are related to accommodation, services, employment or membership in an organization. These cases generally refer to matters between an individual and a group or other individual. As members know, these are all under provincial jurisdiction and are specifically covered by the provincial human rights laws.

The Canadian Human Rights Act relates to everything under federal jurisdiction, including criminal law, pensions, divorce, health, immigration and income taxation as well as those companies, about 10 per cent, who are covered under the federal labour legislation. In the main, discrimination in these areas refers to a matter between the individual and the government rather than with another individual.

We are all equal under the law according to the charter and crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate already warrant stiffer penalties pursuant to Bill C-41. An amendment to the federal act which would add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination would likely require fundamental rethinking of our societal values. If we positively discriminate in favour of the family, we must by definition be negatively discriminating against all others on the basis of some status or choice of marital status. The question ultimately becomes, is it possible to control or limit the consequences of making the proposed amendment to the human rights act?

I would like to refer to a letter received by all members of Parliament from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. In it the archbishop indicates the principles and concerns of the Conference of Catholic Bishops while supporting the fundamental human rights and recognizing that everyone is to be treated with dignity and respect. He registers a concern that the proposed amendments will facilitate claims for same sex benefits. The bishops have asked, can we deal with the same sex benefits issue?

The chairman of the Human Rights Commission, Max Yalden, said in his March 1996 report that if we give a benefit to a heterosexual couple and deny it to a same sex couple, that is discrimination. The amendment refers to discrimination. The issue of same sex benefits refers to discrimination. There is clearly a linkage here which causes me some question, causes me some doubt, causes me reasonable doubt.

I want to conclude my remarks by speaking directly to the Prime Minister. Mr. Prime Minister, can we assure Canadians that those people who are presently exposed by not having sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds for discrimination that they will be covered but it will not extend same sex benefits? Can we tell them that the linkages that there appears to be between same sex benefits and otherwise will not cause a problem? Can we assure Canadians that the family will in fact remain where it is?

Mr. Prime Minister, I have questions, I have doubts, I have reasonable doubts and in the legal principle of Canada I cannot support this legislation, with due respect.

[The Speaker]

I am always reluctant to intervene in any debate or statement, but with respect I would remind all members that we are not allowed to say who is here and who is not and speeches should always be directed to your Speaker.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I appreciated many of them.

I would like the hon. member to answer a question. I believe he has in his presentation, but does he believe that this legislation would move our society more toward equality or in fact away from equality.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has asked a question that I have been asking myself. I am not a lawyer. I do not know how to interpret it.

I do know, however, that in my opinion the courts have not taken a decision on this and refuse to. They want the politicians to do it. The politicians also have not made that decision. This has been bouncing back and forth for some time. Even in the literature it asks: "Will this amendment lead to same sex benefits" and the answer in the speaking notes is "no".

Yet the Egan case clearly says, and implies to me in any event, that since it was part of the equality provisions, section 15, that same sex benefits were not granted to the Egan-Nesbitt relationship because this provision was not in the Canadian Human Rights Act. To me, therefore, it must mean if this provision is put in, the Egan case would have been successful in the Supreme Court and same sex benefits would have been extended to that couple and possibly opened up all Canadian legislation to the same challenge.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Ontario, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear my hon. colleague and friend who also represents a very heavy urban riding in the Toronto region.

I want to find out if the member could substantiate for this House some of the rather erroneous information that has been given or may very well be given in the short time obviously that has been allotted to an issue which the Minister of Justice believes is 100 per cent supported by most Canadians, in that some members are propagating the myth that the Catholic Conference of Canadian Bishops somehow supports this legislation.

I would also like, if possible, for the member to comment on Max Yalden's remarks when he said that any time this House passes sexual orientation in a bill, he will immediately find grounds to change all the laws in Canada to reflect same sex benefits.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the position of the head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in regard to this. He did say in his opinion, as the chief spokesman, that this would be the consequence.

This is the consequence that people have this question about, possibly a reasonable doubt. I have heard people say in this place that pedophilia is not a sexual inclination or a sexual orientation. Yet, if it is not, what is it?

We could have a situation where someone who has served their time for being a pedophile, which is a crime, is out in the community. Could it be that a community would be upset that a pedophile was living there? I think we only have to read the newspapers to recognize there are communities afraid of pedophiles being in their community. I think this causes some question.

I have questions, I have doubt, I have reasonable doubt.

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I have the distinct pleasure to stand before you and to

speak on a subject which has been troublesome for me, as it has been for many members in the House.

My colleague who just spoke represents an urban riding. I represent a rural riding. When we look at the demographics of those two communities we find that in part there is not a whole lot difference other than the population perhaps.

Our role as a member of Parliament is one that expects us to be accountable, responsible and to be representative for the majority view of our constituents.

It has always been my contention that in coming to this place I have never engaged in the kind of rhetorical debate we occasionally have in the House, something we must almost be ashamed of. I do not engage in that kind of debate.

I respect my hon. colleagues across the way as I respect all of those on this side of the House who at times seem to differ with and oppose me in some of the things I have supported in the past.

On this issue I felt it important to give support and perhaps even give some credence to the notion that some of us in the House, while not always supportive of the government view, hold some very strong opinions about issues. This is not because they are only my views or a particular member's views, but they are views shared by a majority of the constituents one represents.

The sexual orientation issue has been a very deeply moral issue for me and for the majority of my constituents. As a member of Parliament it is my moral obligation and my responsibility to defend and maintain certain traditional principles, values and the dignity of sacred institutions.

One of those sacred institutions which I strongly believe in has been the foundation and basis on which the country was founded and which has brought us to this point in history, the family. This is personified in the most basic form, the traditional family unit. In Parliament all of us in one way or another represent family.

For some of us that has been a very pleasant experience and for others there are memories that we would rather forget. There are experiences in each one of our families that we sometimes find very difficult to deal with.

The issue we are talking about today of homosexuality is something that is not benign to any one of us. Each one of us here probably has someone in our family who falls into that category. I am not one who believes in discrimination. I do not believe we ought to separate ourselves from people because they happen to be different from us.

I have an example in my own family. I am proud of my family. A number of years ago we adopted a little girl. She was Jamaican. She did not have the same colour skin as I have, but she was our daughter for a short time until she was tragically killed in an accident. I can appreciate those among us who represent a different culture and background, and we have among us on all sides of the House various people who represent those kinds of people.

I am bothered by the preamble of Bill C-33. It raises some questions. If this were properly addressed it could allay some of the fears some of us have on this bill. It simply speaks of family and the interpretation of that. Perhaps your view of family is different from mine and mine might be different from someone else's, but I believe it is important that there is an interpretation given of that. I believe the best way for us to interpret family is to say that the family is represented by a mother and a father, with children in the home. That is important.

The question has been brought to the forefront by Mr. Justice Lamer who, in speaking for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada, stated that if the Canadian Human Rights Act included sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination he might well conclude that family status includes homosexual couples. The preamble is very vague in its definition of family. That is a concern of mine.

The traditional Canadian family is steeped in principles and values which are universal. They are at the root of every legally recognized traditional nuclear family unit. These families are the true pioneers of Canada and what is distinctly Canadian.

Canadians are concerned about what this amendment will mean to the traditional family unit and the definition of marriage and spouse. Another extremely sensitive area is the adoption of children by homosexual couples.

I am a Canadian. I am also a Liberal. I am proud to have raised a daughter and two sons who have rewarded their mother and father with three beautiful grandchildren. I hold family in high regard.

I believe the courts in interpreting legislation have demonstrated a willingness to read sexual orientation into it. That interpretation concerns Canadians.

All Canadians enjoy the same legal protection and basic human rights under existing laws. All Canadians, regardless of their background or preference, are concerned this amendment will alter existing laws to ensure full spousal rights for homosexual couples, including same sex marriage, pensions, health insurance, inheritance rights, tax privileges and immigration sponsorship. These concerns must be addressed specifically.

Each member has an obligation to listen to Canadians, to read the correspondence we receive in our offices, to communicate with our constituents, to address their concerns, to speak for them and to allow them to be heard in the House. Each member of Parliament is ultimately responsible and accountable to his or her constituents

and is a product of the constituents' evaluation of their performance, based on the position each of us takes on very sensitive issues.

The diversity of representation in the House of Commons through geography, culture, philosophy and tradition is truly characteristic of the Canadian demographic. We must provide leadership, even though we sometimes differ on issues, and rise above prejudice and the special interests to defend the integrity of Parliament.

An issue of emotional and/or controversial nature can be curtailed by allowing each member the privilege of articulating their voice within the scope of Parliament, the ultimate sound board of national representation.

The government has shown leadership in tackling difficult issues. While some may say I have on occasion voted against my government on sensitive issues which I felt were issues of principle, issues about which my constituents felt very strongly, I have also supported my government in almost every initiative it has put forward. The government has shown initiative in bringing our deficit into a relative state of stability. It has shown initiative in dealing with agricultural exports and the depletion of fish stocks. All of those issues I have supported, including many of the social initiatives which have been put forward through HRD. I supported those measures.

I am here as a proud Canadian this afternoon. I am not here to argue with my colleagues or to debate sensitive issues. I believe we can find consensus. I am here this afternoon to help my government show leadership in tackling these issues.

I am asking that the Prime Minister give consideration to allowing those of us in the House who feel inclined not to support this legislation, for whatever reason, to vote freely. For me it is a very personal moral issue. It is not just an issue of sexual orientation or of sexual discrimination. I believe it is in the best interests of the party and certainly of Parliament to allow for a free vote where members can exercise their democratic rights. I ask the House be given that privilege in the vote to come.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel for the member very much in what he must be going through in having to rely on someone else to let him know whether he can vote freely. I truly feel for him. I hope he is given permission to vote freely.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind sentiments. The Prime Minister has sincerely attempted to find a way to allow the House to address this issue. I also believe that when the vote is called it is my hope yet at this time that we will have a free vote. I am putting out my comments this afternoon so that he may yet hear it one more time before we come to that time.