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?