Debates of May 7th, 1996

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite prepared to wait my turn since mine is the last motion in the group and there are four other motions, but I will take the opportunity to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member will be aware that he can only speak once on a group. If the member has misunderstood or if something has not been made clear, perhaps he would seek unanimous consent to speak to his motion.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the clarification. I was under the impression that one could speak to the motions so I would ask for unanimous consent to address my Motion No. 18.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is obviously not unanimous consent over yonder. The member will not be able to speak to his amendment.

Does anyone else who has not already spoken wish to speak to Group No. 1? The hon. member for Ontario.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Ontario, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat tragic that members of Parliament, even within their own party are sometimes not able to express themselves on matters and amendments they bring before this House of Commons which are not only represented by their own conscience but I am sure by the wishes and intentions of constituents. I found it unfortunate that the member for Winnipeg St. James did not permit the member for Scarborough West to do that. However, under the circumstances I fully understand.

I was elected to this House of Commons after some 20 years as a member of the Liberal Party. I have worked very hard to help the likes of the Hon. Paul Cosgrove, as well as my colleague the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, and provincially individuals like Alvin Curling. I believed the Liberal Party represented the most important aspect of Canadian life, the freedom of speech.

Regrettably, this bill does more to divide members and certainly confuse constituents because it was not clearly articulated in the last election. Speaking to the motions by the member for Hamilton-Wentworth, I find it important that members of Parliament have an opportunity to articulate matters which are a fundamental concern to all Canadians. The reason for this is very simple.

In the last election we did not campaign on Bill C-33. Nowhere in the red book will be found any discussion about the desire by the government to move to in some way uphold, protect or remove a certain discrimination which probably exists but exists right across the political spectrum and is not exclusive simply to gays and lesbians. Bill C-33 was not mentioned in the throne speech although there are some who are concerned and seem to make the argument that it was.

As we speak many people in Canada are waking up this morning only to find to their shock and dismay that we have undertaken a bill which if not checked, if not amended, will radically transform the definition of family as we understand it. Those are not my words. Those are the words of Supreme Court Chief Justice Antonio Lamer. I am quoting what he said in the Mossop case, it is not obiter dictum: "If Parliament had decided to include sexual orientation in a list of prohibited grounds of discrimination, my interpretation of the phrase family status might have been entirely different".

It is very clear what the court is prepared to do once this House gives in a very limited way its approval to end discrimination based on sexual orientation, at least in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Unlike what we have seen in the provinces, such as the province of Ontario where I come from and which my riding is named after, in 1986 the government amended its Ontario human rights provision. Nine years later there was a motion before that same legislature to deal with the question of same sex benefits which radically altered the definition of family for the purposes of Ontario's laws.

That step from 1986 to 1994 was not coincidental. Even though the House at the time rejected it on a free vote, it is interesting to

note that certain justices in the court of Ontario had taken great liberties with what took place in 1986.

Last year many Ontarians were somewhat shocked to find out that a justice had decided that in certain instances adoptions are acceptable. Whether or not that constitutes in rem a question of discrimination is one thing. Clearly Parliament has an obligation to raise this in the eyes of the public. If we are not prepared to do that, I think we fail in our responsibility as representatives.

That the bill is going through the House at record speed is of grave concern not simply for this member of Parliament but for the 230,000 constituents I represent.

Although Group No. 1 talks to many substantive and important motions, my concern as a member remains let us not use the bill as a Trojan Horse to implement same sex benefits or to in some way assail, undermine or redefine or socially reinvent the term family.

There are some things which are based on political correctness, but 10,000 years of tradition cannot be defied. I therefore ask that these motions be duly considered for support.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the House today with regard to the issue of adding the term sexual orientation to the list already found in the Canadian Human Rights Act. During the course of my speech I will make an effort to express the concerns of my constituents of Wild Rose.

One evening at a public meeting a constituent stated an old proverb to me, that there is a way that seems right to man, but in the end it leads to trouble. She was addressing her concerns to the addition of sexual orientation to a list which already exists and that this would only extend the list and not answer the problems of discrimination. She believed the best way to fight discrimination was to continually promote equality and forget about a list, as there would surely be a number of individuals omitted.

Everyone present agreed with the statement that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. They felt that was sufficient, as it does promote equality, and therefore should be enforced.

This legislation is a way of expressing distrust in Canadians' value of tolerance. One of the most important values my wife and I picked up on when we arrived in Canada from the United States in the 1960s was that Canadians were a tolerant people, something we found lacking in the United States

During my past 30 years of working in Canada, particularly in the province of Alberta, I found the tolerance of Canadians to remain constant. However, some things that are happening due to government intervention have made some individuals feel more and more as if they are being discriminated against simply because they are not on the list.

Many white young males are suddenly being made aware that they do not fit the criteria to join police departments, fire departments, EMT squads or the military simply because of their physical make-up. Making a list has resulted in affirmative action and as a result the future hopes and dreams of many of these young men are diminished. Merit, which used to be a primary factor, has quickly disappeared.

The constituents of Wild Rose have told me this is wrong. According to a booklet prepared by the Department of Justice this amendment is made to specifically apply to the protection of gays and lesbians as this lifestyle is referred to on page 14 of this 25 page document.

Therefore it is safe to assume the government defines, although not specifically, homosexuality as sexual orientation. Homosexuality is considered by the majority of Wild Rose constituents as an immoral, unacceptable lifestyle in Canadian society. They ask questions regarding their personal values such as whether it will become illegal to preach from a pulpit against homosexuality. They ask other questions:"Will my children be taught in schools that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle in society. As taxpayers will I be required to financially support this lifestyle in any way? As a landlord will I be required to rent my apartment to a homosexual couple? As an employer will I be required to hire a homosexual over a heterosexual applicant, or will merit be allowed? Will this legislation lead to legal marriages of homosexuals? Will this legislation lead to homosexuals being allowed to adopt children?"

All these questions raised are not answered in this piece of legislation. The problem that will arise in the future is that it will be up to the courts to decide answers to these questions. Ultimately the courts will not be accountable to the people.

Many people believe this legislation opens the door to a slippery slope that will lead to the very things people object to.

No one in my riding accepts discrimination of any form. The minister's saying "no longer will you have to sit at the back of the bus", is a statement which clearly says "we do not trust you, we have no faith in you, therefore we will legislate for you".

Canadians are generally a tolerant people. However, intolerance will show its ugly head if the government continues to legislate for the people. Laws such as this clearly indicate our distrust as politicians in the people of Canada. Sometimes people believe governments should butt out of societal values. My constituents can be included in that group.

I support all the motions in Group No. 1, particularly the motion put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, which will protect the definition of family, marriage and spouse.

I find it sad for democracy when members are not allowed the opportunity to speak to their own motions or the legislation as a whole.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the movers of the first group of motions, the hon. members for Edmonton Southwest, Hamilton-Wentworth, Mississauga East, and Scarborough West. I also congratulate other members who have moved amendments in the other groups.

That there are so many amendments demonstrates the dilemma many in the House are having with the bill. I must confess that when the bill was first discussed and introduced I was not only opposed, I was violently opposed. Why? Not because of the protection for Canadians who have a different sexual orientation from mine. That part I support wholeheartedly. The difficulty I have is what will be the consequences of this piece of legislation. Will it destroy the definition of family? Will it destroy what this country was built on, strong family values?

That is what these amendments are trying to portray. Once the family unit starts falling apart, society is weakened. When society is weakened, the country is weakened. We will no longer be identified by the United Nations as the best country in the world if we destroy the basic unit, the family.

Why did I make a flip-flop? Sometimes politicians are afraid to admit when they make a flip-flop. I made a flip-flop after searching my soul, after searching my conscience. I changed my position because of what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice promised. I and other members were after some preamble which would protect the traditional family.

I am pleased the Minister of Justice built into Bill C-33 the preamble:

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;

If future courts would honour and respect that, we have a win-win situation. We have a win situation for gays and lesbians, as they hopefully will not be discriminated against as far as getting a job with agencies and companies regulated by the federal government, and a win situation for protecting the family. I do not think we have seen many pieces of legislation where protecting the traditional family is built right into the legislation.

I have had more faxes, calls, letters, individual representations on this issue than I have had on any other issue in my 12 years as a member of Parliament. The representations are running probably 80 per cent to 90 per cent for me to vote against this legislation.

What do I do? Do I listen to these representations? When it comes to human rights issues, if I listen to the majority representations then no minority group would ever be protected. I am not lobbied by the Prime Minister. I have received no pressure from the Prime Minister on how I should vote. I have had no pressure from the Minister of Justice. I have a lot of pressure from the community. However, I have to stand up in the House and say what is best for the future of the country, short term and long term.

The Prime Minister and the minister have answered many of the concerns I had, the same concerns the member for Wild Rose mentioned in this speech. The first concern was will this amendment not lead to benefits for same sex partners. I am assured this amendment will not extend same sex benefits to partners of gays and lesbians.

Another concern is will this legislation not give special rights or benefits to gays and lesbians. Again I am assured that no one could credibly argue that federal and provincial human rights legislation now confers special rights on Catholics, on husbands or on those with disabilities. Although each of those characteristics is now expressly covered by the existing statute, it is obvious no such special rights are conferred. It would be no different for sexual orientation. The amendment will prohibit discrimination in areas of federal jurisdiction, including employment and access to goods and services.

Many of my friends sitting in the House on all sides were concerned that this will change the definition of marriage, family and spouse. That is why I welcome these amendments. I think that is the protection these people want. Again, I am told that no changes to the definition of marriage, family or spouse are planned or necessary as a result of this amendment.

Another concern I had is will this legislation lead to adoption by same sex couples. My family has been blessed with an adopted daughter, and so this one is very dear to my heart. Again, I am assured that matters such as adoption are primarily under provincial jurisdiction. This amendment deals with discrimination in employment, accommodation and provision of services, and nothing else. I hope future courts will read the debates the House has held on this topic.

Another concern is will this legalize pedophilia. My community has been shattered because a pedophile from B.C. was too dangerous to be housed in British Columbia. So where is he dumped? In Parkdale-High Park in a federal correctional institution that has 50 beds for hard core criminals, including sex offenders and pedophiles.

In the greater Toronto area there are 118 such dangerous offenders who are being rehabilitated back into the community.

That is what we have to do but it is unfair for Parkdale-High Park to have to take 40 per cent of these dangerous offenders. However, that is another issue which I will be pushing in another forum.

Will this legislation mean that the government will have to amend 40 or 50 other federal statutes? I am told this bill does not deal with benefits for same sex partners. No other changes to federal legislation are planned or necessary as a result of this amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act. My concern is that these same sex benefits have already crept in but not through this legislation. They have crept in through collective bargaining agreements. I would recommend to all the churches and individuals who are lobbying members that it is time that they started lobbying the labour unions who are signing these collective agreements. Once it is in the collective agreement even the courts cannot overrule it.

A dangerous precedent has already been made when the public servants signed an agreement with Treasury Board. Anyone working in the foreign service, if a partner of same sex passes away, that partner gets all moving expenses covered to return to Canada. It is not this legislation that brought that in. Same sex benefits are already creeping in and from where? Through the collective agreements.

To all the churches, to all the individuals who have been lobbying me and others, maybe it is time to start lobbying the labour unions.

Will this amendment mean the churches and religious schools will now be forced to hire gays and lesbians as teachers even if that is contrary to their-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member's time has expired. Is there unanimous consent for him to continue?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I have been given assurance that churches, religious schools and other religious organizations are not within federal jurisdiction so this bill does not affect them.

This has been one of the toughest decisions I have had to make in my political career. I want everyone to respect why I made that decision because I respect everyone else's decision here. I was disgusted that as soon as this legislation passed, gays and lesbians lobbied on the Hill because the Prime Minister gave Liberal members a free vote. That was disgusting. They want me to respect their rights, but they will not respect my rights of a free vote. I found that very disgusting.

I am sorry to end on that note but sometimes these minority groups push a little too far and if they do there is going to be a public backlash.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the Group No. 1 motions.

Since the bill was presented, debated and voted on at second reading, all members of Parliament have had an opportunity to reflect on what was in the bill and what has been said. I would like to try to put some focus on the fundamental issue in play here.

Unjust discrimination in all its forms is abhorrent to the House and I know to all Canadians. Unjust discrimination such as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or any other characteristic is not in question here. The courts have ruled time and time again that although those words are not in the Canadian Human Rights Act at this point, they are interpreted to be there.

Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to speak to a senior crown counsel. I asked whether any Canadian, regardless of their working for an organization or crown corporation under federal jurisdiction and falling through the cracks, would be covered by the laws of Canada and the courts. He said absolutely not.

The justice minister clearly pointed out to the House that Canadians are covered. The courts have ruled that sexual orientation already is interpreted to be there. The change, simply to add those two little words, should have absolutely no impact on what is happening today with regard to protection from discrimination.

Already, in the present laws of Canada, there is protection. Theoretically, this is a benign bill. It has no implications whatsoever other than simply to add two words. That is exactly the way it should be. No one in this House would disagree with that. We are equal under the law. There should be no discrimination dealing with labour relations, accommodation, services, membership in groups. For any of those things, all are equal under the law.

In discussing this bill at the human rights committee, the issue came up that if it only addresses the discrimination issue, the fundamental question troubling this House is why is there a preamble to somehow deal with the concept of family. There is something I need to know. Why is it, if the bill is to deal with the issue of discrimination, that the preamble tries to address the problem associated with family?

The little booklet distributed with the legislation referred to the traditional family. The preamble refers to family. It does not say the family. It says family.

There are different definitions. I am not a lawyer. I asked where I could look in the laws of Canada for the definition of family. I was surprised to learn that the definition of family cannot be found in a book anywhere. It is something that moves over time based on court decisions, based on social norms and values. Family is a very loose term at best. Very good arguments can be made on all sides about what constitutes family.

In the committee hearings at the vote on the preamble, the member for Burnaby-Kingsway interrupted the proceedings and asked the chair if the officials could please tell us whether the word family in the preamble excludes homosexuals? It was a very specific question.

The justice officials said the bill does not deal with family, it just deals with discrimination. The preamble is not relevant here. We will not confirm or deny whether homosexuals are included in family. It is not an issue here, yet we continue.

The debate between the justice officials and the questioner carried on. The chair of the committee interrupted to say that it includes heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals. Moments later in fairness and to be absolutely correct, the chair corrected herself and asked whether she could withdraw that remark.

She is a former cabinet minister, someone who travels the world speaking on behalf of Canada on human rights issues. In the discussion on this very fundamental matter, she indicated that her emotional response was that family includes homosexuals, heterosexuals and bisexuals.

It is clear to me that ordinary Canadians and even the courts may, as a result of a fuzzy term, interpret family as something other than the traditional heterosexual family.

My understanding of the preamble is that it is trying to reach out to members of Parliament who are having difficulty with the concept of family. It is trying to reach out to suggest to them subtly that we are referring to the traditional heterosexual family. However, they are not prepared at this point to add that language.

My dilemma is that I agree 100 per cent on the discrimination issue. I know that the vast majority of members would say that discrimination is wrong and unjust. However, there is another aspect. If the bill only deals with discrimination, why is there a preamble? Why is it necessary to explain something that has no relevance to the bill? This is a contradiction.

Suggestions have been made that things like marriage and adoption are provincial issues so they cannot be talked about here. The decision about who can get married is a federal issue. The provinces have the responsibility to issue licences, but they do not determine who gets married. That is a relevant issue here.

It has been stated many times that adoptions are a provincial issue, so they cannot be talked about here. However, there is a separate classification for adoption of foreign children coming into Canada which is under federal jurisdiction. Therefore, adoption is a matter for this place to discuss.

In my work as a member of Parliament I have talked often about the family. I have presented over 100 petitions dealing with discrimination of the family. I have dealt with issues of taxation of the family. I have debated issues of immigration, the family reunification provisions. I have talked about the employment insurance bill which refers to family income credentials. I have referred in some speeches to OAS and the family income criteria. In this place we talk about family all the time. It is throughout all legislation.

When I was at a convention a couple of weekends ago a resolution passed which said: "We want to eliminate discrimination from Canadian legislation". The fundamental point is that all legislation, all policy, is by its very nature discriminatory. Discrimination is not all bad. We all agree that there is unjust discrimination. It is the positive discrimination, or in American terms, affirmative action, where we discriminate in favour of the family because of its special status. We discriminate in favour of disabled people, aboriginal people, seniors just to name a few. Discrimination is not all unjust. It reflects societal norms and values.

If this whole bill had only to do with discrimination the preamble should not be there. But in the wisdom of the drafters of the legislation it is there to try to appease a concern.

It has gone so far, but it has not gone far enough. An attempt has been made in these motions once and for all to answer the question, which I have not heard answered yet, but to which I would like to hear an answer: Does family include homosexual couples? If the answer to that question is yes, it includes heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual families, then the issue is very clear.

The member for Parkdale-High Park addressed the concern about whether other pieces of legislation will be affected. They will be because the definition of family must have been changed. Therefore, all legislation in Canada where there are references or inferences to family they must by definition be subject to court challenge. These are the issues.

No one in this place will support anyone who discriminates against another person on any basis. We must be respectful of each other's positions. However, these other questions have crept in. They are very important issues and important questions.

When I spoke at second reading, I said that I had questions and I still do. I mentioned that I still had concerns and I still do. I also mentioned that I had reasonable doubt about the consequences. I still continue to have reasonable doubt because of those issues.

I hope members will carefully consider the ramifications. How do we separate this bill between unjust discrimination and the other issues that have been raised in this place?

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by stating plainly to everyone in the House and across the country my own personal position on discrimination.

Discrimination on the basis of any personal characteristic is absolutely wrong. My party's position is exactly the same. We believe that every single individual in Canada should be treated equally. Those policies go through our native position, our position on Quebec and our position on the issue before us today, that of sexual orientation.

Anticipating that this question would come up in the House, I was able to poll my constituents on the issue. I polled them in as plain and straightforward a manner as I could. I found that the constituents of Macleod, my region in southern Alberta, were 79 per cent against including the undefined phrase of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Reformers party wide have done polls and have found that whether or not the phrase was dignified by a specific definition, between 91 per cent and 93 per cent of our party members were against that inclusion.

I must say, since this issue has come on the table, I have had a significant outpouring of letters. I will go over the few that came to me this morning on this issue.

Steve from Okotoks is against Bill C-33. Sheila is absolutely against Bill C-33 and asked me to vote against it. Al wants me to know that homosexuals should not have any special status above anyone else and wants me to vote against Bill C-33. Greg is against Bill C-33 and asks me to keep up the good work. That is a little bit of a partisan comment, pardon me. Rod is against the bill and hopes that I am voting against it. Finally there is Lorne whose family is against the bill and hopes that I will vote against it.

I will say publicly in this House that I will follow the wishes of my constituency, the more than 79 per cent who took the time to write to me and those who continue to write to me and ask why. They ask me why an enthusiastic opponent of discrimination, a physician and surgeon, somebody who has operated on, counselled with and has been closely associated with the homosexual community in my area would vote against this bill which is being purported as being nothing more than a bill against discrimination.

I will say publicly that my association is also with family members who are homosexual. I have talked this over specifically with them. These were very personal discussions and they understand my position. My specific problem with this bill is that it will produce and allow a promotion of an unhealthy lifestyle, a behaviour that is unhealthy. I am speaking now as a physician with a physician's specific knowledge and experience.

The specific problems promoting this lifestyle relate to HIV, gay bowel syndrome, increasing parasitic infections, lowered life expectancy and finally, the one I have chosen to highlight today, an increase in hepatitis in Canada.

The U.S. Centres for Disease Control in the first six months of 1991 studied hepatitis in large urban centres in the U.S. They found in Denver 29 per cent of hepatitis A occurred in the gay community. Each figure I am giving to this House will be a specific percentage in the gay community in these large urban centres. In New York, 60 per cent of hepatitis A occurred in the gay community. In San Francisco, 50 per cent. In Toronto, 42 per cent. In Melbourne, Australia, 26 per cent.

This occurs in a segment of the population in those urban communities where it is enhanced. The overall percentage in society is about 3 per cent and those communities can be as high as 15 per cent. It is generally around 10 per cent. Look at the percentages in comparison to the numbers of individuals.

I am very concerned that this bill will start a process whereby the gay lifestyle will be promoted in our schools. I have gone to a specific now. This specific comes from the Toronto board of education sexual orientation manual for teachers. In this document there is a statement to encourage teachers to speak openly and frankly about homosexuality, which is fine. That is excellent. It should be done. However, I am concerned about a specific process here.

Teachers are given an example as to what they should say to the youth of our country. According to the manual this should be done by someone who is lesbian or gay. It should be someone with personal experience. It reads: "I feel fine about being gay. I am in a long term committed relationship with my partner. This is the best thing for me. I think this would be great for anyone". The suggestion that the gay lifestyle would be great for anyone promotes the gay lifestyle. I am quite concerned as a medical doctor that the promotion of an unhealthy lifestyle is not good for Canada.

What about promotion in our educational system in a broader sense? I have a form from the University of Ottawa-

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think this will be a very long day, but would it possible to remind Reform members to stick to the substance of the bill?

Unless there was an interpretation problem, I understand that the hon. member who just spoke portrayed homosexual behaviour as unhealthy. He gave an example from his little book, but he was in fact making a value judgment.

I wish to remind the House that the purpose of this bill is to stop people from discriminating against those with a different sexual orientation. I feel that the comments made by the hon. member amount to a value judgment. I would like him to get back to the bill

under consideration so we can talk about it. But we should not make value judgments.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. member. As Speaker, I must tell the House that members very often digress from the bill under consideration. However, in this case, the comments made by the hon. member for Macleod deal rather directly, in my opinion, with the subject matter of this bill.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have an application form from the University of Ottawa's law school. The application form has a section which states: "I wish to self-identify as: a cultural, racial or linguistic minority person; a person with a physical or learning disability; a lesbian, gay man or bisexual". It then goes on to say that the admission practices of the law school depend upon a quota system for those groups. That is another issue which I believe promotes an unhealthy lifestyle.

There will be those who say I have stood in the House of Commons and have branded the homosexual community. I say simply that I wish to have my medical knowledge plainly displayed in the House of Commons. Doing otherwise is a great disservice to this country.

There will be those who say that by my words I myself am discriminating. I wish only to have those people in Canada know that discrimination is wrong. There should be no discrimination whatever. However, to allow a quota system and to allow something to be promoted in our teaching system which is unhealthy is wrong, just as it is wrong to allow someone into our country who has a serious illness.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Gaspé wants to raise a point of order, but I hope it is not the same, because if it is-

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to talk about "promoting something which is unhealthy", as the member just did, is making a discriminatory statement and it is precisely what the bill seeks to avoid. So we must-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Macleod has the floor.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, might I then finish my discourse today by saying that discrimination in Canada in any way shape or form is wrong. There should be no discrimination in this House of Commons toward those who are of a different lifestyle or different behaviour. To hide behind the term homophobic, to allow a promotion that is unhealthy is far more wrong. In this House of Commons I believe in telling the truth. I believe in saying openly that the opening of this issue with the phrase in the bill is going to take us down a road we should not travel upon.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I deal with the real issue, I wish to draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that expressions such as "unhealthy lifestyle", which are used somewhat lightly by very light-headed Reformers, have no place in a debate like this one.

I can accept that people say they do not understand homosexuality, or that they have not been in contact with homosexuals. However, I believe that Reformers should be a little more polite and certainly more careful in their comments. I do realize that this is asking a lot from people who have been very biased since they set foot here, this according to their own leader.

Let us now turn our attention to the object of this debate. We are discussing a bill which seeks to prohibit any form of discrimination based on sexual orientation. All the amendments before us will only create confusion. They are intended by their authors, who have made a career of exploiting bias, to create an unhealthy, conservative and reactionary confusion. As we know, it is easy for certain parts of the country to exploit bias.

First, the amendments moved in this House create confusion between the notions of couple and family. As an individual and a homosexual, I am certainly aware that two people, whether they are from the same sex or not, do not form a family. No one claimed that two people who do not have children form a family. Why is it that today we are seeing this nonsense, I would even say dishonesty, this attempt to confuse Canadians with two distinctly different concepts? Again, who wins in this House by continuing to exploit this confusion?

For once and for all, let us try to be clear. What does the Minister of Justice say? He says: "We know that there exists, in some work places, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation". Who can forget that the reason the Minister of Justice is in the process of amending the Canadian Human Rights Act is because in 1990 an individual named Mr. Haig was kicked out of the Canadian Armed Forces because he admitted to his superior that he was a homosexual.

This is discrimination and it is unnecessary to know whether Mr. Haig had a family, whether he had children, or from what sort of family he came. What we should be looking at right now is the discrimination that is still rampant in the work place, or any other

form of discrimination to which people receiving services from the federal government could be subjected.

When I see, for example, the Reform member, who shall remain nameless, I believe she represents the riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam, when I see people who take their responsibilities as parliamentarians so lightly and set out to make amendments on marriage, the family, spouses, I repeat, I find that dishonest. I do not believe that serves the cause of human rights.

As parliamentarians, we must be able to make distinctions between types and sexes. We have before us a bill, the purpose of which is to end discrimination. Of course, when they form a couple, and are refused certain benefits, income supplement, paid bereavement leave, and the like, certain courts of common law and certain administrative tribunals throughout the country have required employers to pay those benefits. Not because the people in question formed a family, but because they formed a couple.

When will we in the House have the capacity, the open mindedness, to understand that there is no place for discrimination, whether a couple is homosexual or heterosexual. I trust that the hon. members in this House will grasp that.

I want to ask the Reform members something. As you know, when it comes to human rights, they are way back in the horse and buggy days. What I would like to ask is this: Do they seriously believe that, for a homosexual, being in love is different from what it is for a heterosexual? Do these people believe that, as a citizen who pays taxes and is entitled to benefits, a person deserves to be deprived of those benefits because he is homosexual? Could there be two different tax systems in this country? Is there anyone among them who can stand up and state that an income tax return is different depending on whether it is filed by a homosexual or a heterosexual taxpayer? No one can.

Just look at the insubstantial arguments being used. Those who are opposed, those who are presenting the amendments we are addressing at this time, have nothing more to say than to rehash the old traditionalist line, incapable of making a decision on legal merit, incapable of the slightest legal logic. These people know very well that their legal arguments do not hold up.

When people are unable, like most of the people presenting amendments today, to rise in this House and argue on legal grounds, they haul out their prejudices. I repeat, they haul out prejudices which have only one aim and that is to sow confusion in the minds of Canadians and of Quebecers.

I repeat, and mine I think is a respected voice in this House, no one among us is claiming that a man and a woman, or a woman and woman or a man and a man constitute a family if there are no children.

I do not see the relevance at this point of members of the Reform Party or the "Flintstone" wing of the Liberal Party making amendments that could, once again-you know how good they are at developing prejudices and using their particular talent of saying one thing and thinking another, creating confusion, whenever they have the opportunity. We would have hoped such a talent was on the way out.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Canadian Human Rights Commission is not headed by the Bloc Quebecois. It is an independent commission, comprising people with a public mandate accorded them by this House. They have executive power. How is it these people overlook the fact that, since 1979, the Commissioner of Human Rights has, report after report, year after year, in words that can leave no doubt, recommended an end be put to discrimination.

Discrimination has a very clear legal definition. It means treating someone differently because of a specific characteristic, a distinction that is not justified because, may I remind you, homosexuals also fill out their tax returns and send them to Revenue Canada. There are not two kinds of taxation, two kinds of money, two kinds of tax returns in this country.

There are some concerns that discrimination may prevent us from treating people differently at the fiscal level. These people cannot understand. Both their minds and their hearts are closed. They would rather shut themselves off in their mean, cheap, narrow little worlds and try to make fun of us because we are different.

That time is over. The majority of people throughout Canada and Quebec, whatever their religion, their profession and their vision of family, share our view that, as parliamentarians, we must do all we can to end discrimination. One day, those who continue to discriminate will have to account to Canadians and Quebecers. They will have to explain their actions. And I know that the Canadian people will judge them quite harshly because most of them understand that discrimination is unacceptable.

Again, this is what this bill is all about. The Minister of Justice was very clear in committee; he was very clear when he made a statement at second reading here in this House. The purpose of this bill is to end discriminatory practices. True, ending discriminatory practices means accepting differences.

What will we, as parliamentarians, have to do? What will the Canadian people have to do to make this hard-core group understand they are not doing anyone any favours by continuing to convey a message that is no longer necessary, that borders on hatred, that suggests we must be guilty just because we are different? That is what the amendments moved by the Reformers and some-thankfully not all-members of the government majority are all about. What is it that bothers them about adding in a

statutory provision that no discrimination shall be made on the basis of sexual orientation?

Are there members in this House or among the motions' sponsors who are not comfortable with their sexuality? Are there members who are unable to imagine that someone could be attracted to someone of the same sex? People who are at peace with themselves, happy to be who they are, well adjusted and generous do not mind that others are different.

Let us try to understand why members are unable to accept that others can be different in that way. Why are they feeling threatened to the point of having to band together, forming some kind of a watch guard? They band together, get together, make statements, present petitions, then develop an action plan, a plan whose sole objective is to undermine the right that individuals have in this society to be different.

Let me tell you what one witness told us in committee when we studied Bill C-33 at report stage.

We have been told that, in Canada-not just in Quebec, Prince Edward Island or Western Canada, but across Canada-two million people commit suicide every year. In the 15 to 24 age group, suicide is the second leading cause of death, second only to traffic accidents. Sixty per cent of the young people between the ages of 15 and 24 who commit suicide kill themselves because they are having problems coming to terms with their sexual orientation. This is what we were told by a University of Calgary paediatrician, who is represented in this House by a Reform member, which only adds insult to injury.

Will these people finally realize that this bill before us is designed to ensure that discrimination will stop, thus making people realize that, while being different, they have their place in society-

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton—Peel, ON]

Mr. Speaker, about three days ago my office received a fax from a young man from New Brunswick who said please support Bill C-33. He is a declared heterosexual who spent a summer with a group of people, the majority of whom are homosexual. He said in his fax that he was discriminated against by that group.

The bill talks about sexual orientation, not about homosexual orientation or heterosexual orientation. It simply states sexual orientation. It seems anything we put the word sex into these days perks up everybody's ears for some reason.

There has been a lot of debate about the threat to the family from the bill. Do we think for one minute the family will ever be threatened by anything done in this Parliament or in any legislature around the world? The family is a natural occurrence. It has come together for thousands and thousands of years for obvious reasons, for mutual support, comfort and procreation. The word family simply does not have to be defined; it assumes a heterosexual family.

We can call two people of the same sex living together a family, pretend it is a family for those purposes. Think back to the historic family and why it exists. The family is not in jeopardy from anything that can be legislated or argued in the House. We should make that clear. My family will continue for generations to come, I hope, as it has for generations past. It has survived religious persecution to the Spanish Inquisition and everything in between, including Oliver Cromwell, and it still exists and it is still strong.

I ask those people who feel their families are threatened to look at themselves, at their own values and deal with them personally.

This country was founded by people who came here from Europe, by the Judaeo Christian ethic. The values of that Judaeo Christian ethic, found in most of the great religions of the world, were the foundation. In that ethic is taught tolerance, understanding and forgiveness. While some of the pronouncements of the Bible do not approve of certain things, if we read the whole thing it states very clearly that the judgment of those things belongs not to us at all; we are admonished not to stand in judgment.

My late father grew up in cabbagetown in Toronto and became a member of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews during the years when it was not a very popular thing to do. How ludicrous it seems that there was the same kind of fear at that time as has been expressed by some members of this House today. On Sunnyside Beach in Toronto there were signs which read: No dogs or Jews allowed. He became part of that movement which brought society a little further forward and brought to an end that open discrimination against Jews in Toronto.

This bill, this particular amendment to the human rights act simply adds one more step in the progress of a country that is looked upon as being generous, tolerant and appreciative of the other person. It is right and fitting that we should support this and not succumb to the fear that is being generated sometimes in the name of religion or particularly in the name of religion.

I respect everyone's point of view on this. I happen to have one point of view and my friends, some in my own caucus and some across the way, have another point of view. For me, this is not a moral issue. It is simply an issue of human rights. It is simply an issue of the gradual progress of our society toward something a little better than it was yesterday. There is nothing we can do in this House that is going to be threatening to any one of our families.

If we talk about sexual orientation, and refer to homosexuals which some members have done specifically although the bill works both ways, I would simply like to ask my friends: Who are homosexuals anyway? Who are they? They can be your brother, your sister, your second cousin, a friend, or a relative of the family down the street.

The argument is always made that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. If those who believe that would talk to some homosexuals for a while, they would find that it is not the case. To choose that lifestyle is not necessarily the popular way to go. Homosexuals do not represent a majority of the population. As a matter of fact they represent a very small minority.

Indeed the quality of our civilization will be judged in years and generations to come as to how we treat our minorities. A few hundred years ago the attitude toward someone who had mental problems or who was born with disabilities was very different from what it is today. There were places called insane asylums. I think every one of us would find it offensive today to consider that those were proper things to maintain.

We changed our thinking through the accumulation of knowledge and through understanding to try to-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member's time has expired.