Debates of May 7th, 1996

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out an obvious contradiction in what the last speaker said.

He began his speech by saying that the family will not change no matter what we do in this House. He went on to conclude that society is changing, that it is making progress and that we should support those changes.

I listened carefully to the remarks he made. If his arguments are valid, it means he would logically support all of the amendments. He would have no problem with the protection of the family and making sure that this does not have an effect on the family.

The events of the last week remind me a lot of a little lizard in the South Pacific when I was there in 1988-89. It was called a gecko. The gecko had a very unusual escape mechanism. When a person went to catch it, if they were not quick enough, the gecko had the amazing capacity to detach its tail. The person would be left with a wildly wriggling tail in their hand and the gecko would escape. The person's attention was diverted from the main stage, just as many Liberals are managing to divert attention from the main issue before Parliament. With their wildly wriggling tongues accusing Reform of being anti-gay and discriminatory, they are diverting attention away from what they are really doing in the House.

Canadians will eventually realize that their attention is being diverted from what is happening here by some of the other issues that have been raised such as name calling and other tactics the Liberals are using. Canadians will eventually see through that. Just as a person realizes after a while when they look at the wildly wriggling tail that the gecko has escaped, Canadians will realize that the Liberals are trying to escape detection on what they are doing here.

The main issue before Parliament is the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the undemocratic nature in which it is being foisted upon an unsuspecting Canadian population. Debate is being stifled by invoking time allocation at every stage. I submit that is probably being done so that Canadians will not become too excited about this and become aware of what is happening. It is hurriedly being shoved through Parliament before people can realize what is happening.

By the way, this is not a Liberal election commitment. It is simply a pledge the Prime Minister made to the gay community in Vancouver. I wonder why it carries more weight than his GST promise.

Let me put this discussion into the context it should be in. Canada may recover in time from the huge financial mess it is in, but the damage that will be caused to Canadian society by changes made this week to the Canadian Human Rights Act will haunt us for many generations to come. Why? The unethical downloading of debt on to our children may be corrected in a generation or two, I hope. However, the irreparable harm caused by creating virtually equal status for gay and lesbian marriages with others will take a lot longer to heal.

We will destroy the very fabric of society by allowing the courts to redefine marriage. Gays and lesbians will be able to adopt children. If we do not believe that to be true, we ought to approve all of the amendments that are being put forward. If we are so sure that is not going to happen, we should approve these amendments.

All the studies I have seen indicate that children develop best when they live with their father and mother. The social crisis we are presently in will be compounded if we approve this legislation. We must encourage parents to make lifelong commitments to the care and raising of children. Society's acceptance of impermanent relationships has caused a great many problems. Many of the problems experienced in education and justice stem from this.

While the public and media look at Sheila Copps and the comments of some Reform MPs, the Liberals are creating changes to society that will cause future generations to ask who was asleep at the wheel when we hit this rock. While the tongues are wildly wriggling, the Liberals will escape the close scrutiny of what has happened in Parliament this month.

Remember that including sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act will cause the value of traditional marriage to

erode even further. It is not just me saying that; I am reflecting the views of very many Canadians.

The main point that needs to be made in this whole debate on including sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act is that it will lead to the redefinition of the family in Canada. Just as in algebra where a leads to b , or as in geometry with the logical progression of arguments, one can make the argument that this will lead to the redefinition of the family. Even the highest court in the land has stated that it will have a very negative effect on the basic structural unit of society.

We as parliamentarians are responsible to look at the big picture, the overall effect legislation will have on society. The Liberal government assures us that it does not intend to have these negative consequences, but good intentions do not ensure good results. The court or judge looking at the law reads the letter of the law. They look at what it actually says. They do not read the Liberals' speaking notes.

One of my colleagues across the way said that he was assured this would not happen. Those assurances are not written into the legislation. These amendments would have to be approved in order for those assurances to be genuine. Therefore, I urge all members to approve these amendments.

The speeches being made by the Liberals are no more credible than the promises they made on the GST and NAFTA. We have no hold on those assurances that this will not affect the family. I have grave concerns about the effect this legislation will have if it remains unamended. The amendments Reform proposes try to limit some of the negative effects the legislation will have. Homosexual couples should not be given marriage-like status.

The Most Reverend Adam Exner of the Archdiocese of Vancouver makes this point which I believe reflects the views of many Canadians: "Canadians that are morally opposed to homosexual behaviour must have their rights protected". We as Reformers have tried to make that point in the big kerfuffle of the past week. We should not divide society into groups. We should not have any groups in the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Most Reverend Adam Exner goes on to say that homosexual couples should not be given marital or marriage-like status.

Now let me quote from Reform's interim party policy which has been approved by our caucus and the democratically elected council of the Reform Party:

The Reform Party affirms the equality of every individual before and under the law and the right of every individual to live freely within the limits of the law and with the full protection of the law. Under the charter of rights and freedoms, homosexuals have the same rights and privileges as all other persons in Canada. The Reform caucus supports the continued protection of these rights based on the position of each human being, not on his or her sexual orientation. For these reasons, the Reform caucus opposes as unnecessary and inadvisable the government's announced intention to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act and in other legislation.

The real question is: What will be the long term effect of including sexual orientation as a prohibited category in the Canadian Human Rights Act?

Many other speakers have already made excellent points, but the one which concerns me most is the one concerning the status or the structure of the basic unit in society. That is the point I would like to make and I hope I have an opportunity at a later time to make it further.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate on amendments to Bill C-33 and Bill C-33 itself.

I want to make it categorically clear that I support amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act which will provide for the inclusion of sexual orientation in the list of those grounds on which discrimination must not take place.

I believe we can all agree in the House that in an ideal world and in an ideal country we would not need a human rights code because everybody would be treated equally. There would be no worry in the courts or elsewhere that minorities would be discriminated against.

In spite of the reality that Canada is the best country in the world by many measures, we still have discrimination. Therefore we must have a code. If some of the comments by some members of the House in the last week are any evidence, it is sadly a fact that we must have a code. I believe it is time we included in that code sexual orientation.

This is an issue of human rights. I respect my colleagues who see this as a moral issue. They have come to that decision and that place for their own very good reasons, and I do not dispute that. We can disagree but that does not change my mind that this is fundamentally a human rights issue.

I will include in my remarks excerpts from an editorial in a community newspaper in my riding of Algoma. I will not read the whole text into the record. I invite any of my colleagues who have not seen this full editorial to contact me and I will be pleased to share it with them.

From the Manitoulin Expositor , Wednesday, March 27, an editorial entitled ``Discrimination Irrational'':

Those who would argue against adding such a right to the human rights act (where it will join bans against discrimination on the basis of age, gender and race) will cite, for example, the contentious issue the Ontario New Democratic Party raised when, as Ontario's governing party, it introduced legislation that would have recognized in law same gender relationships and, in particular, would have opened the doors to same gender family adoptions.

It was this point-adoptions-that divided MPPs in Ontario from both the Liberal and New Democratic Party benches. The Ontario Progressive Conservatives were universally allied against the legislation.

The Prime Minister can look forward to the same thing because those opposed to the new legislation will raise the same sorts of issues-like adoptions-to argue in favour of some a-wink-and-a-nod type of discrimination: it isn't official, but it's there anyway.

It must be pointed out that most of the objections will be red herrings.

We will hear arguments that the official sanctioning of the right of a homosexual person not to be discriminated against (quite a concept, when one thinks about it) will somehow be undermining Canadian society and moral values; that this will, in some fashion and by implication, lead to more homosexual relationships.

It is hard to imagine, in view of the extremely negative feelings mainstream society holds toward homosexuals, that people of this persuasion or orientation would actively choose their lifestyle.

And while it is a sensitive issue to suggest that homosexuality can't possibly be a matter of choice, but innate, it seems to most-that this must be the case; Darwin and biology teach us that, for any species, the most basic instinct is to preserve itself through reproduction.

This is clearly not a priority for those people who choose same sex partners, perhaps through free will but surely most probably through their own particular chemistry, the point is: they're a part of our society.

They are a minority, to be sure. But they're with us and, just as the United Church of Canada bravely determined that being a homosexual person was in and of itself not a good reason to be denied ordination, so discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is simply not a good idea in the Canadian society that we think is special in the world.

Most of us will continue to be put off by the idea of same sex relationships. That, like homosexuality itself, is very probably some sort of instinctive response. That's the way we are probably made.

But we also have the advantage of being sensible beings, capable of rising above our irrational fears and responses.

The Prime Minister's support for changes to the human rights act will not do the heterosexual majority any harm, and will do the homosexual minority much good.

I applaud the editor of the Manitoulin Expositor for what I think are very insightful remarks.

In the few opportunities I have had to travel abroad in my life, like members of the House, I have travelled in other countries with great pride. We know Canadians are tolerant, understanding and caring. We have opened our country to people from around the world. I am much more proud as a Canadian to say we tolerate minorities in our society, including homosexuals, than to say to those outside our country that we are intolerant of homosexuals.

That many of my colleagues and some Canadians will raise issues such as marriage, adoption and same sex benefits as part of this discussion really is simply part of fair debate from that side of the argument. However, I simply do not buy the argument that marriage, adoption and same sex benefits are relevant to the amendment. They are essentially private sector or provincial matters.

What we are doing by this amendment is ensuring that in the federal workplace and in those industries regulated by the federal government discrimination will not be allowed on the basis of sexual orientation in employment and in the provision of goods and services.

Eight of the provinces and territories have already dealt with this issue in their provincial or territorial codes. It is a matter of the federal government's actually catching up with other jurisdictions in the country. I am quite proud that the government is showing leadership and is moving forward on a commitment that has been a commitment of this party for nearly 20 years. It is about time we get on with it.

I fully respect those of my colleagues who see this as a moral issue. I do not. To me this is nothing more or less than a human rights issue. We are not changing the Criminal Code. Illegal behaviour before this amendment will be illegal behaviour after this amendment.

We can speculate ad infinitum or ad nauseam on what the consequences might be. That we can do with any piece of legislation that comes before the House. We can speculate. That is fair. However, it is for those of us in the House to judge whether the speculation is reasonable. In my view that speculation is not reasonable, but I respect those who would use that in fair debate.

I do not feel in any way haunted by what will happen as a result of this amendment. If anything bad were to happen, why did we not see that as a consequence of the changes made in the provincial legislatures when they made changes to their codes? I do not recall hearing any terrible things that happened when those codes were changed over the last 10, 15 and 20 years. I feel strongly that no such consequence will be realized in this case.

I caution my colleagues to measure their words carefully when they argue against this, not to suggest the sky will fall because of this amendment, and to remember this is not about creating a special status for any group of people; this is about protecting the fundamental human rights of a minority in our society.

We have seen evidence of it in the last week already in the message the courts and Canadians get through the human rights code that intolerance of any minority is not acceptable in society. We are a modern society which is the envy of the world.

I encourage my colleagues, even those who think this is the wrong way to go, to reconsider their point of view and do the right thing.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-33 and oppose it.

Countless tens of thousands of petitions in opposition to this have come through my office and through many offices in the country and yet the government still pursues the road of its intent. I compliment those members opposite who are opposing this bill and have the courage to oppose this bill in the face of what seems to be a strong arm of a governing majority party.

I will address a concern of what is wrong with our country, the concerns I have as an individual, the concerns of people I grew up with and the people I live with. Where is Canada heading?

We see employment equity programs brought on by the government, multiculturalism programs, the official languages bill, gay rights bills and other such socially engineered bills. I have difficulty with the fact that if we oppose any aspects of any one of these bills we are immediately identified as a bigot, a racist and homophobic. Not only that, but if one or two or three people among us say something that happens to be a bit untoward in meaning, the whole works of us today are considered to be the same.

I find the problem most concerning. For instance, it can be a boy scout group, a church group or any group. All we need is one or two members to say something wrong and the whole group is identified as such. That is a sad commentary on where Canada is headed.

When I headed the posse in the Reform Party I observed a number of blatantly poor grant payments made to organizations. One was a $30,000 grant to study the Tzu Tzu dynasty, an ancient Chinese dynasty.

A comment was made when we observed this which at the time seemingly was humourous. The Vancouver Province , which is at best a Liberal rag, said that because I issued this news release I am a racist. It has since two or three times said I am a racist because I made these comments.

In this country if something is said, even if it is minor, even if it is not considered by many thousands of people to be in any way slander, it only takes one group, and the media is just as bad as the rest, to say racist and everybody in this country ducks, goes into hiding.

Now we enter into the gay rights debate. If you disagree with gay rights, you are homophobic. You dare not say anything about gay rights in this country, otherwise you are homophobic. I feel sorry for some of the stronger people opposite who stuck up for what they believed and are categorized as such.

Let me just give members an idea of where I come from. I guess I can explain it best by reading from a 1993 Supreme Court ruling which stated that a gay man did not have his charter rights violated when he was denied bereavement leave in the wake of his partner's death. Okay, decision made by the judge.

The chief justice at the time wrote that the refusal of the benefit could not be condemned on the basis of family status without introducing into the Canadian Human Rights Act the prohibition which Parliament specifically decided not to include in the act, namely the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Indeed, the judge goes on to say that if Parliament had decided to include sexual orientation in the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination, his interpretation of the phrase family status might have been entirely different. Here a judge is saying that when the Liberal government puts in sexual orientation as a form of discrimination, he will judge otherwise.

The justice minister knows that. The Prime Minister knows that. The government knows that. In fact, so do a number of members opposite who caught the government up on these statements. The government stays mute on the issue, hoping to get the bill through as fast as it can with as little damage as possible. In that way perhaps it can get more votes from the gay community than any other party, stay in power and we will still have social engineering at its worst.

It is a vicious circle. It is a sad commentary about what is happening in the country. Do not dare oppose it because you will be called homophobic. Do not stand up for what you believe in, you could be a racist.

I do not know how many times I have been called a racist because I had two individuals deported from this country. I fought hard over a year and a half to do that. One was from El Salvador and the other one was from Laos. Never mind the fact that one helped murder a kid in my neighbourhood. Never mind the fact that the other had 12 criminal convictions and had raped twice. Never mind those facts. By fighting for the rights of my community to help the police to help victims I was called a racist. My family takes great exception to that. So do my friends. So do I and I guess since my mother is watching so does she.

If we do not agree with the governing party, everybody else is something different. They are racists, bigots and homophobics. I hope Canada goes in a better direction because we deserve better than that.

Finally, it was no mistake that the turn of events which hit the Reform Party last week happened. When you are the mosquito of politics stinging the political elephant, then everything comes against you when you take on the system, including the media engineers and their politicians. The House can be guaranteed that everybody who supports us and those who are considering us will

understand we are here to fight, we are here to stay and we are not going to be budged off of that mark.

[Barry Campbell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I am extremely proud to rise today to speak in support of this measure.

Bill C-33 will add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Introducing and passing this bill, which I look forward to with so many of my colleagues, will fulfil a longstanding commitment of the Liberal Party that goes back many years. It is consistent with countless resolutions of this great Liberal Party and it has overwhelming support within this Parliament and across this great land.

The Liberal Party that I joined 20 years ago was a party noted for its defence of human rights and its advocacy on behalf of minorities. I am proud that the day has arrived where we are debating this measure which is long overdue.

The bill does not take anything away from anyone else. It does not create special status but it responds to a reality. Gays and lesbians are discriminated against in our society because of what they are.

I guess as a Jew I have a special sensitivity to other minorities because of my people's history. The Jewish people have known discrimination, persecution and worse in this century and throughout the centuries, too often simply because of who they are or what they are perceived to be. I attach great significance to what we are doing here today. I think Jews have a special responsibility to stand up in support of a human rights measure such as this.

I am very pleased that the two principal organizations which speak for the Jewish community, namely B'nai Brith Canada with its fine record in defence of human rights with the fine work of the League of Human Rights and the Canadian Jewish Congress with its fine work as well in this field. They both stand strongly behind the government's efforts in amending the human rights act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

There are other parallels perhaps to the experience of the Jewish people that may be missed by some of my colleagues.

Perhaps some of us have a special sensitivity, but I get concerned when I hear people in this great country-our brothers, our sisters, our friends, our acquaintances-referred to in ways that make them seem as outsiders. Those kinds of words have a dehumanizing effect.

Eli Weisel said it so eloquently and it is a lesson for all of us. "The holocaust began with words". I would rather be part of a party, part of a government that uses words to enrich, to enlighten, to inform and to defend than to use words to tear down, to attack, to isolate, to denigrate.

Some people have said that this provision threatens the family. It does no such thing. Some say that gays and lesbians or their lifestyles attack and undermine the family. I want to pause to speak about a couple that came to see me in my office recently, a mother and father roughly the age of my parents. They spoke about a child of theirs who is gay. The pain I saw in the father's eyes when I first met him was not pain over this child and his situation but rather the pain in knowing there were other Canadians who would want to treat his son differently because of it.

When we speak about what might happen to the family as a result what is being suggested this bill gives rise to, we are overlooking the hurt that is causing in families. Let us remember who we are talking about. We are talking about people. We are talking about individuals. We are talking about human beings. We are not talking about some mysterious person out there who we do not know. We are talking about friends, colleagues, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. They have families too.

There is not much more to say. This is a very important matter. I look forward to hearing the interventions of other colleagues, although some may disagree.

Gays and lesbians have not asked us to recognize them, as some have suggested in this House. Recognition is not something that we bestow or take away. Gays and lesbians have their own dignity. All they ask from the government and what it will provide is recognition of their right to equality under the laws of this country.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak at report stage of Bill C-33, a bill that was introduced in this House scant hours ago and is being railroaded through because of some concern by the Liberal government that Canadians may find out the facts about this bill. It is afraid that the dissent within its own party may grow as Canadians realize there is absolutely no need for Bill C-33, that the opposition to it is significant and growing.

Members opposite have spoken in support of the bill but they have omitted a very significant factor in their speeches by saying that all good Canadians should support this bill and that all members in the House should support it. They have ignored the public that is speaking out in opposition to Bill C-33.

I want to let the House know what is happening in the real world that is Canada. My office has received hundreds of communications in the past few days since Bill C-33 was introduced in the House. The ratio is about 200:1 in opposition. Of course that does not matter to the Liberals. They have to railroad it through. They had better do it quick. If there is that kind of opposition building,

we certainly do not want the opposition to gain momentum. We want to squelch this opposition, nip it in the bud. We will railroad the piece of legislation through.

On my answering machine over the weekend the calls were unanimous in their request that I as their member of Parliament oppose Bill C-33. There was not one call received suggesting I support Bill C-33.

People have said to me please vote against Bill C-33. Prior to that, they asked me to vote against Bill C-41. They opposed that because of the undefined phrase sexual orientation included in the bill.

I was chatting with another member of Parliament who said his office was receiving 15 phone calls every 10 minutes. His staff members did not have time to eat yesterday. They were being deluged with calls, 90 per cent of which were asking their member to oppose Bill C-33.

To the members opposite it does not matter. They are on a mission that they want to succeed. They have made some statements, some claims that this legislation is necessary.

Even if Canadians are strongly opposing it and the opposition is increasing, it does not matter. That is all the more requirement that they move with haste and make sure the bill is passed before the opposition can increase.

Members opposite say they have no agenda other than the prevention of discrimination against the gay and lesbian element of society. They say "that's it, we do not want to see anything happen beyond the primary principle. This does not mean there will be spousal benefits for gays and lesbians. It does not mean that we will give them adoption rights. We are not expanding the term sexual orientation to include currently illegal activities. We would never do that. Why don't you get your head on straight? Why would you even suggest such a thing?"

We are debating Group No. 1 of the amendments to the bill. These amendments clarify those issues. They would reinforce what the members opposite are saying. We would think members opposite would be clamouring, saying "that is a good idea, we want to support those amendments, that reinforces what we on our side of the House have been saying".

They do not do that. By not agreeing with the amendments put forward to this bill they are increasing the suspicion of Canadians. I will get more calls in my office. I will see more opposition to this piece of legislation and other pieces of legislation like it that will follow.

People are saying they cannot trust the Liberals. We could not trust them on the GST. Their word did not mean anything. Why should we trust them on this bill? Why should we trust them when they say this is not a stepping stone to spousal benefits for same sex couples? Why should we believe them when they say this will not provide same sex couples with the right to adopt children? They do not tell us the truth. They just play it by ear. They kind of go along and make it up as they go. Whatever seems convenient to the lobby group that last talked to them is what they will try to put forward in legislation

I was on a talk show with a Liberal MP, the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn. Several callers were concerned about the infringement this legislation might create on religious freedom. The member for Saskatoon-Dundurn said: "I am a good Catholic. This does not have any impact whatsoever on religious freedom. That is a red herring".

If that is true, why do the Liberal members not support the amendments that would protect religious freedom? One would think they would be clamouring for it. One would think they would be jumping up in their seats and saying they support these amendments, these are good amendments, but they do not.

We are left to ask why they will not support the amendments. What is their agenda? What are their plans? They have not told us in the past. They certainly did not tell us the truth about the GST. They mislead Canadians about the GST.

Canadians are wondering what they will do with this piece of legislation. What is their agenda? What is their mission? What are they trying to accomplish in the long run?

If the claims they are making are true, why do they not say so by supporting the amendments put forward on Bill C-33? Why do they not put their actions where their mouths are? Why do they not stand up and vote for some of these amendment? Where is their courage?

I am tired of these members saying it does not mean all these things and yet they will not support the amendments. That is fundamentally wrong and it brings dishonour to the House. I am very disappointed in members opposite who will not support amendments that clarify the very points they have been trying to make. That is intellectually dishonest and wrong. It brings disrepute on the House of Commons.

The Liberals say the purpose of Bill C-33 is to prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians. Reform opposes discrimination against all Canadians. I do not see that discrimination is epidemic

in Canada. Maybe I have been missing something. Maybe the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn knows something I do not and that is why he is not listening to the hundreds of calls he is receiving in his office and opposing this bill.

I have not not been reading in the papers that discrimination is epidemic among the gay and lesbian community. However, even if it were we have laws in place that can be enforced. Even if someone discriminates against a gay or lesbian we have something called the charter of rights. Section 15(1) of the charter applies to all Canadians except gays and lesbians? No, that is not what it states. The charter applies to all Canadians. Everyone who is a Canadian is covered under the charter: "Every individual is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination".

Angus Reid did a poll of Canadians which said right now the charter of rights reads that every individual is equal before the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. The question was "do you believe additional legislation is required to protect the gay and lesbian group in society?"

If Canadians knew this was present in the charter of rights and freedoms 90 per cent of Canadians would oppose Bill C-33. They would categorically say it was not required.

I close by reading a letter I have written to those who have inquired about my position on this bill. This will also clarify the record for the House.

I am opposed to the bill for the following reasons:

I support the equality of all Canadians regardless of race, language, culture, religion, gender or sexual orientation, not because of these defining characteristics.

This is also Reform's position.

I believe all Canadians have ample protection against discrimination with the laws that are already in place.

The term sexual orientation is currently undefined which opens the door for practitioners of deviant sexual practices (such as pedophiles) to claim legal protection for these acts.

Many legal experts suggest this measure will-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on this very important bill, particularly after the speech of the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.

Some members have suggested there is no need for the law being proposed in this bill. I submit that if they have any doubt as to the evidence required in support of such a law they need only look at the legions of cases that have been brought before the Human Rights Commission of Canada, many of which have been subsequently appealed to the courts of the country, dealing with acts of discrimination perpetrated against members of minority communities; not only ones based on sexual orientation but others.

Discrimination is rife and rampant in Canada. I acknowledge that we have made significant gains in the last 10 years, but there is a continuing problem with discrimination. This bill, in amending the Canadian Human Rights Act, seeks to bring to an end that discrimination.

We have seen evidence of that discrimination in the statements made recently by some members of the Reform Party outside the House. I will not go into those in detail. However, those statements have forced the leader of the Reform Party into issuing a manifesto, although a little late perhaps. I will quote from it because I think his reasons for opposing this bill and those he has put forward for his party are not reasonable or accurate. I quote from this morning's edition of the Ottawa Citizen:

Reformers are opposing the government's gay rights bill, not because they favour discrimination, but because they favour a better approach to prevention of discrimination. The party supports affirming the equality of all Canadians before the law rather than protecting that equality through the creation of special categories of Canadians with group rights. But the inability-or unwillingness-of some Reform MPs to support this principled reason for opposing Bill C-33 is at the root of the party's immediate problems.

I am sure even the member for Halifax finds the last statement a little hard to swallow. Some of us find difficulty with the first part as well, and I will deal with that.

What is the leader of the Reform Party proposing in terms of affirmation of equality for all Canadians? What is this chimera being put before us as a basis for changing this law?

[An hon. member]

It is hard to understand, isn't it?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

The hon. member says I do not understand it. I am about to explain it to him because it is clear this is an excuse to cover the bigotry that has been displayed by his colleagues in the House. It is a sick excuse.

What we have to look at in this case is that their notion of equality is to repeal the Canadian Human Rights Act and make a declaration that everyone is equal. I point out, as I have on numerous occasions in the House, the human rights code does not grant special rights to special groups. What the human rights code declares and what this bill will declare is that there may not be discrimination on certain bases.

The bases include things like sex, age and colour. Those words are in there and they are neutral. They are neutral in the human rights code. In other words, they give rights to both men and women when sex is talked about. When sexual orientation is mentioned it gives rights to bisexuals, to lesbians, to gays and to heterosexuals. These rights are across the board. They apply to everyone. The section on colour does not give rights only to blacks; it gives rights to all Canadians regardless of their skin colour.

Hon. members opposite forget that. They think that because it says sex and colour and sexual orientation it means women, blacks, gays and lesbians. That is what they think it means. Why do they think so? The Reform Party is made up of older white men. They do not realize discrimination exists because it has not been a particular problem for men who are elderly, who are white and who already have jobs and are doing very well in society.

That is primarily what the Reform Party is made up of. If we go to any Reform meeting the preponderance of men is overwhelming. They are almost all white. They are almost all Anglo-Saxon. They are not part of the other minority groups which form the country, and of the majority group of women who have been under represented in many of the institutions and professions in the country for generations.

What we have here is an attempt by the Reform Party to cover up that its members do not agree with the principles of the human rights act in its effort to grant equal rights to all Canadians.

[An hon. member]

Special status.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

There the member goes again, special status. Because it says sex he concludes it means special status because women receive rights they would not otherwise have under this act. Men receive the same rights, but the hon. member cannot accept that the rights have to be the same. In his view it is special status. His leader is doing his best to cover up the difficulties within that party by arguing that somehow we can just make a declaration which says everyone is equal.

Let us go to the ramifications of that. What are the prohibited grounds of discrimination under this new Reform law? There will not be any prohibited grounds of discrimination. Everyone is declared to be equal and therefore everyone who is discriminated against in any way will have a claim.

One of the members of the Reform Party is a retired professor. I wonder what he would say if a student applied to Simon Fraser University where he taught and was told that his or her marks were insufficient to get in and then the student laid a claim of discrimination saying: "I am a Canadian citizen and the new Reform human rights code says discrimination is not allowed in Canada. My marks are lower than John Doe's. John Doe got in and I did not. I want in". What would the hon. member say to that?

I would like to hear from the hon. member for Calgary Southwest on that point. I bet he does not have the faintest idea of what he would say because he could not possibly come up with a law that will do what he says he is going to do and make it stick. This whole notion is a chimera.

There is no sense of how you divide people into groups, how you discriminate against people if you do not have the bases of discrimination spelled out in the human rights act. This act spells out the bases of discrimination. Almost all Canadians agree that the bases set out in this act are fair and reasonable.

The government by this amendment is providing justice for a group of Canadians who have complained loud and long that they have been unfairly treated. They have already been included in the human rights codes of seven of the provinces. They have been determined to be part of this code by the courts in their exercise of judicial interpretation of this statute.

This law is doing virtually nothing new. What it is doing is bringing Parliament up to date with what has been going on in the rest of society. It is something that should have been done a long time ago and obviously has gone right over the heads of hon. members opposite.

The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster and other members have suggested that this bill is being rushed through with undue haste.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Do you agree?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I do not agree.

It is important for hon. members to realize the reason they are seeking to delay this is so they can spread false stories about what the legislation will do in order to generate opposition to the bill. This bill is clear cut and straightforward and it ought to be approved by the House without delay.

Who are the groups the hon. member for Calgary Southwest refers to in his statement? I do not know. He says these groups are mentioned in the human rights act. They are not mentioned. I have indicated the words that are used. The words that are used include all Canadians. No group is singled out for special protection in the sections of the act we are dealing with in this amendment today.

I have received a lot of letters on this issue, not so much from my own constituents but groups in British Columbia and Alberta in particular have written to me quoting chapter and verse from the book of Leviticus and various writings of the apostle Paul believe in his letter to the Romans I believe and a couple of others. I am concerned that these people would quote this kind of biblical

reference to me and suggest that because of those particular verses in the Bible I ought to vote against this bill.

I have a message for them and for hon. members opposite which I ask them to consider. I know they regard the importance of biblical teaching very highly. I will read from the gospel of St. Matthew:

Do not judge and you will not be judged. For as you judge others, so you will yourselves be judged, and whatever measure you deal out to others will be dealt to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye, with never a thought for the plank in your own. How can you say to your brother: "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when all the time there is a plank in your own? You hypocrite! First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's.

Another is: "Always treat others as you would like them to treat you: that is the law and the prophets".

I can only urge those words on all hon. members in this House as we approach a vote on this very important bill. In my view those words from the Sermon on the Mount summarize what the government is attempting to do by this bill to bring fairness and justice to our society.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are two issues I would like to touch on. Obviously we could take a lot of time to talk about the details of the bill itself and the history behind it, or some of the drivel we have been hearing from the other side. Rather than doing that, I will talk about two things: one, democracy denied; and two, the equality issue and what Bill C-33 will really do in that regard.

Concerning democracy, I made a promise to my constituents that never again will they have to hear that Ottawa knows best. Instead of telling them what is good for them, we will discuss the issues and vote the way our constituents tell us. I will talk later about some of the results of consultations with my constituents in the last four days.

The key issue is that time is short. Last Monday the bill was introduced, Tuesday it was debated, Wednesday closure was invoked. The bill was sent to committee and today it is back. Closure will be used again. At the latest on Thursday we will be voting at third reading. Somebody tell me how members are to consult with their constituents with that sort of time line.

My constituents want town hall meetings. They want to review both sides of the issue. I had an excellent meeting with a group from the gay community in my riding. I told them I would have liked to have had the opportunity to talk about the issue of gay rights and all the other issues in public and to intelligently and scientifically discuss Bill C-33 in its entirety. Instead it is being rammed down our throats with the use of closure, closure, closure, just like the Progressive Conservatives did. There is no opportunity to really get involved. I certainly have had no opportunity to communicate with my constituents, as I promised. We have tried our best.

One argument we have heard from across the floor is that the voters are really not that bright to understand these things. That is what the PCs thought and what the people orchestrating the Charlottetown accord thought. They did not think anyone would be informed enough to understand and vote on it. In 1993 the people took control and threw out the PCs for that same reason.

I am saying that democracy has been denied in this place. Because of closure and the ramming through of this piece of legislation the people of Canada have not had the opportunity to communicate with their members of Parliament as they should. This sort of legislation has been around for 30 years. Why all the rush now? We only have one week in which to ram it through. I apologize to the people of Canada for being part of this. It is disgusting that we have to do business this way. Everybody should hang their heads.

With regard to Bill C-33 and the whole concept of special status and referring to Charlottetown, any group that has ever tried to put forward this special status concept has found that it just does not work. If anything, it further divides Canadians. It divides families and neighbours who have known each other for years.

When we say everyone is equal or that we are opposed to any kind of discrimination, everybody understands that. It is clear: I oppose discrimination because of sexual orientation, colour, religion or anything else. That is clear. Everyone is equal and everyone should protect that equality, not set out special status and categories within the law. That is another disgrace which has been brought on us by the government.

Let us talk about what sorts of things we should be considering. We are saying let us talk to the people and get their views. In my riding I asked the question: How do you want your MP to vote on Bill C-33 which if approved will amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination? I tried to take that right from the bill, to make it as fair as I could. I said that there are two sides to all issues and they must look at both sides.

To members across the way, the results to this point have been: opposed to the bill, in phone calls, petition signatures and letters, 1,152 as of last night; in favour, we have received 18 names. A couple of weeks ago in response to the Senate bill, I mentioned I had met with the homosexual community in my area. They have collected 402 names in favour of a much broader petition which I will be presenting in the House as soon as it is approved. Even if we add those names to the list, if it was on the same bill, it would still be 1,152 to 420.

The calls are coming in. Yesterday there were 80 calls to my office. Those 80 calls all said that I should vote against this

legislation. Many of the people in my riding, about 68 per cent, are in urban areas. Because we have a large petrochemical industry, because many of them are university graduates, I suppose they are better off than a lot of Canadians, but they are thinking intellectually about these issues. The fact that in less than a week we have received 1,500 responses concerning a piece of legislation tells me that those people are on top of the issue. It tells me that not like my colleagues across the way who think the voters are stupid, the voters are right on top of it. They know what is happening and they are watching very carefully.

I remind all members that Canadians are watching. They are watching the taking away of democracy. They are watching the jamming of this material down their throats without an opportunity to get involved. They are saying enough is enough.

Discussing the issue of homosexuality is not what this bill is about. This bill is about giving special status to a group. Every single Canadian should be treated equally, equally, equally. What does the government not understand about the word equality?

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am speaking on Motions Nos. 1, 9 to 15 and 18.

I am not certain that I understand the purpose of Motion No. 1. Motion No. 1 is a suggestion that we replace the words "all individuals" with "every individual" as they occur in the preamble to the legislation.

The purpose of the changes in Bill C-33 were proposed by the drafters in the legislation section at the Department of Justice. They do not have anything to do with the sexual orientation amendments. The drafters were simply trying to follow the usual practice that when a section in a statute is changed they will also try to modernize the language.

The modernization of the language has no legal effect, that is, it has no effect to alter the statute as it appeared. It is also necessary to make the English version of the statute equivalent to the French version which has contained the modern language for a period of time. What is being proposed by this amendment simply goes against modernization of the language. Modernization of the language is important when considering legislation, in essence to tidy it up.

Motion No. 9 states in part that nothing in sections 2 or 3 shall be construed so as to render any provision of the Criminal Code inoperative or of no force or effect. I have read this clause very carefully. However, I do not understand its purpose.

Any lawyer will say that Bill C-33 and the Canadian Human Rights Act have nothing to do with the Criminal Code. They do not affect the Criminal Code. They have no jurisdiction over the Criminal Code. I can only conclude this motion stems from a lack of understanding of the legislation in question. I would have hoped that by now a parliamentarian would have a better appreciation of federal legislation and the way it operates.

The Canadian Human Rights Act and Bill C-33 only apply to, only affect, only regulate two main things: employment and the provision of goods and services. The Criminal Code has absolutely nothing to do with this subject matter.

Perhaps hon. members have confused the Canadian Human Rights Act with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter is a part of the Constitution. As the supreme law of the land, the Constitution has primacy over all other laws, federal, provincial or municipal, and this includes the Criminal Code. However, we are not dealing here with the charter. We are simply talking about the Canadian Human Rights Act which has no application to the Criminal Code.

Finally, the preamble makes it clear that Bill C-33 protects lawful conduct only. Any behaviour that was illegal before remains illegal now. It is not protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act.

While I have tried to understand the purpose of Motion No. 10, I I do not know why an amendment like this is necessary. The Canadian Human Rights Act applies to a relatively small percentage of employers and service providers coming within federal jurisdiction, that is the federal government and federally regulated businesses such as banks, airlines, railways and telecommunications companies.

The Canadian Human Rights Act and the amendment in Bill C-33 do not apply to churches or religious organizations. These come under provincial human rights acts and are not affected by the amendments being brought forward. The change proposed in this amendment is not necessary. If I could put it bluntly, it would be of no force or effect, it would be a useless amendment.

Churches and religious organizations are regulated by provincial human rights laws. The federal act is the wrong place for these amendments. This is something for the provinces to address in their legislation. They are completely unaffected by Bill C-33 which can only change human rights legislation within federal jurisdiction, namely the Canadian Human Rights Act.

If the Canadian Human Rights Act were applicable to churches and religious organizations, which it is not, an employer may still refuse to hire on reasonable and justifiable grounds in the circumstances. For example, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that it is reasonable and justifiable for a Catholic school to require that the religious views of its instructors conform with the views of the

church. Churches and religious organizations may rely on this to justify conformity with the tenets of their religions.

With respect to Motion No. 11, no changes to the definitions of marriage, family and spouse are planned or necessary as a result of this amendment. Bill C-33 does not change the law. Sexual orientation is already in the law. The charter and the Canadian Human Rights Act by court order have already done this. This amendment would only make express in the Canadian Human Rights Act what is already there.

The issue of same sex benefits and other issues are already before the courts and tribunals. Whether or not this amendment is made, those cases will be decided and the relevant statutes considered as the courts and tribunals see fit.

Motion No. 12 proposes an amendment that states in part that sexual orientation "shall not be construed so as to affect the freedom of religion, expression or association as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms". This amendment is also unnecessary. Freedom of religion, expression and association are in the charter.

The charter is part of the Constitution of Canada. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It overrides all other laws, whether federal or provincial. It has supremacy over the Canadian Human Rights Act. Therefore, nothing that could be done in the Canadian Human Rights Act could take primacy over the charter or affect the freedoms of religion, expression or association as guaranteed by the charter. This motion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the law of the country. Freedom of religion, expression and association are guaranteed by the charter and cannot be taken away by Bill C-33 or any other law. The amendment proposed would add nothing to the law and is therefore not necessary.

It is important to remember also that the Canadian Human Rights Act applies to the employment and the provision of goods and services at the federal level. Therefore, the scope of this amendment is very narrow. It does not apply to churches or religious institutions. There is no way in which Bill C-33 is going to affect freedom of religion or expression.

Motion No. 15 would add a clause stating that nothing in sections 2 or 3 shall be construed so as to authorize the marriage of persons of the same sex. The Canadian Human Rights Act and consequently Bill C-33 have absolutely no application to marriage. The act applies to employment and the provision of goods and services only. The primacy of the act is over statutes on employment or which provide goods and services. While the federal government can make laws concerning the capacity to marry, such laws do not fall into the areas of employment or goods and services.

As Maxwell Yalden, Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, said last month before the Senate committee studying Bill S-2: "We are not talking about who is married and who is not married. That is none of the business of our commission". That is correct. The Canadian Human Rights Act simply does not apply to marriage.

The common law has always provided that a marriage is a union of a man and a woman. The common law has equal force with the statute law. The common law on marriage could only be changed by specific federal legislation on marriage. As noted earlier, the Canadian Human Rights Act applies to employment and the provision of goods and services and cannot affect laws on marriage.

In 1993, in the Layland and Beaulne v. Ontario case, the plaintiff challenged the common law requirement that marriage is a union between a man and a women under section 15 of the charter against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The charter, as part of the Constitution, does have primacy over all other laws. This is what the majority of the court stated: "The common law limitation of marriage to persons of the opposite sex does not constitute discrimination against the applicants, contrary to section 15 of the charter". This is the law and it is the law right across Canada.

There is only one answer to Motion No. 18. Bill C-33 does not add and cannot have the effect of adding sexual orientation to the existing affirmative action provision, section 16, of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The argument that it is included by implication is wrong. Section 16 stands by itself with its own list of grounds. If the intent were to provide for affirmative action on the basis of sexual orientation, section 16 would have to be amended.

Bill C-33 adds sexual orientation to sections 2 and 3 of the act, not section 16. The list of grounds in section 16 remains unchanged.

The government will be voting against all the amendments contained in Group No. 1.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Madam Speaker, the justice minister would have us believe that his proposed legislation is merely a fuzzy, feel good statement with no potential economic or social cost.

He blithely assures us that the proposed amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act will not open the door to same sex marriage, same sex spousal benefits, or the application of laws governing taxation and joint property.

Perhaps the hon. minister does not recognize the opinions of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, which is a little out of character when one considers that it is his party which has already essentially transferred governance of the country from the

elected Parliament to the appointed Supreme Court. However, that is a subject for another debate.

Today, let us merely accept the reality that, to a very large extent, the court now calls the tune. In the Mossop case in 1993, Mr. Mossop was denied bereavement leave on the death of his homosexual partner's father because the partner did not fit the definition of common law spouse. Fair enough. However, the Chief Justice stated that if Parliament had included sexual orientation in the human rights act, the interpretation of family status might have been entirely different.

The minister is so defensive about the long term implications of this legislation that yesterday he circulated a lengthy paper in which he attempted through generalities and half-truths to discredit the detailed research done by the hon. member for Scarborough West and the research branch of the Library of Parliament. Methinks the minister doth protest too much.

This is hardly surprising when one considers that in March 1994 he stated categorically that the logical next step to amending the Canadian Human Rights Act would be to extend spousal benefits rights to same sex couples. If this bill is harmless window dressing, why is it being promoted through deviousness and deceit?

The minister makes much of the fact that although the capacity to marry is within federal jurisdiction, solemnization and registration of marriages is a provincial responsibility. He knows full well that the law is the sum total of statutes and precedents. To suggest that federal legislation will have no effect on provincial policies is absurd. To say that it would not accelerate the avalanche of regulatory board and lower court decisions in favour of same sex spousal benefits stretches the bounds of rationality.

Some of the oh so sophisticated and with-it members opposite might ask what difference does it make if a few hundred co-habiting homosexuals get spousal dental benefits? For one thing, it makes a lot of difference to me because it makes a lot of difference to my constituents.

Bill C-33 was tabled only nine days ago, but it has already ignited a firestorm of anger. The minister's strategy of pushing legislation through the House before real public opposition can develop has already failed.

Second, the payment of same sex benefits will add credibility to demands for state recognition of same sex marriage. These terribly sophisticated Liberals may then ask, what difference does it make if homosexual liaisons are classed as marriages? What does the collective wisdom of the ages mean to people who profess to know everything? What does it matter to them that the basic building block of almost every civilization of record has been the traditional family?

With minor variations, the definitions of those families would have conformed to the Reform Party definition of those individuals related by blood, marriage or adoption. Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman as recognized by the state, including common law relationships.

This is the definition that we would endorse with respect to the provision of spousal benefits for many federally funded or regulated programs. If the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, surely the corollary is that the homosexuals of the nation have no business in the wallets of taxpayers of this country.

Where does one rationally draw the line with respect to benefits? What of the common practice of same sex heterosexuals living together for long periods of time for convenience and household economy? Should they be less entitled to consideration than their homosexual peers? Will the government have a squad of bedroom police to ensure that applicants really are engaging in the requisite practices?

The institutions of marriage and family developed over millennia and they have served civilization well. They have served the essential purpose of procreation and the nurturing of children. Strong family units are the foundation blocks of society. When they are weakened by hedonism society as a whole suffers. Anyone capable of learning from history should look at ancient Athens or ancient Rome.

It is impossible to extend special rights to any group without detracting from the rights of others. In this case the potential losers are children. The minister maintains this bill does not endanger children because pedophilia, even though technically a sexual orientation, is now a criminal act. I remind the minister that less than 30 years ago homosexual acts were illegal, and please observe where we are now.

However, assuming there is no danger of misapplication of the law, it should be obvious the proposed legislation will extend opportunities to potential molesters of whatever gender.

Would any member opposite really want to put his or her children at risk by forcing communities to accept, for example, male homosexuals as scout masters or homosexuals of any stripe as guidance counsellors? How many Mount Cashel types of disasters would it take to impress on these people that the defensive instincts of previous generations of parents were based on valid concerns?

Liberals like to prattle about their deep concern for children but they do not hesitate to expose them to potential trauma in order to bolster their ideological fantasies.

Make no mistake, I do not much care what adult homosexuals do in private. I do care a very great deal about children. I am a parent-

[An hon. member]

Ringma around the collar.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

If the hon. member for Halifax really feels this is such excellent legislation we are running up to, I am gender neutral on this. I would not want to see a male heterosexual in charge of a girl guide troop either. This is the sort of thing which in the politically correct world of the folks opposite we would like to encourage; child molesters of the world unite.

It is clear to all where I stand. This bill is a travesty. It is wrong. We will oppose it at every possible turn. We are standing up for our constituents who oppose this mightily.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been here since 10 a.m. and the hon. member for Central Nova has been here since approximately 10.10 a.m. and has attempted to seek the eye of the Chair since that time. She has been in her seat all this time, certainly before the hon. member for Halifax came. I would ask as a matter of courtesy that you recognize her.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Halifax.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to take part in this debate today. I am particularly delighted that my hon. friend, the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, brought up history. Some of my remarks have to do with history. I want to make particular note of his comments that certain things were criminal acts in the past and are no longer.

There are other things that were enshrined in our laws in the past and are so no longer. For example, women were considered to be chattel. That is no longer the case, at least in law, although it is sometimes still the case unfortunately in practice. Married women prior to 1870 anywhere in the British Commonwealth could not actually own property. Any property they brought to the marriage became the property of their husbands. We changed that. There are thousands of examples.

However, murder has been murder since Cain killed Abel, and murder is murder today. Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation; pedophilia is a crime. It will continue to be a crime while good people sit in the House of Commons. I believe good people will sit in the House of Commons for a long time to come.

I believe most passionately in the separation of church and state. I believe most passionately in the separation of moral issues and legal issues. I believe most passionately that amendments to the human rights act are legal issues and are long overdue.

In 1604 England and Scotland became the United Kingdom of Great Britain under the monarch James I of England, also styled James VI of Scotland. He effectively completed the Elizabethan age. Under his reign we saw the completion of the Shakespearian plays. We saw the beginnings of the metaphysical poets, great poets and church men like John Donne and George Herbert, to name only two.

We heard and saw the wonderful songs and poetry of Sir Walter Raleigh and Sir Philip Sydney. There were not too many women writing in those days because they were chattels then, but that has changed.

Perhaps the jewel in the crown of the reign of King James was the justly famous and magnificent work known as the King James Bible.

Not only is the King James Bible in the minds and hearts of adherents of Christianity the inspired word of God, but it is considered a masterpiece of world literature. I studied it in a course on the masterpieces of western literature at Mount Saint Vincent University some 25 years ago.

The King James Bible is something which people of all faiths read with delight and pleasure, with its glories of the English language. I wonder if all my colleagues know that James I, James Stuart of England, James VI of Scotland, the son of Mary Queen of Scots and Lord Darnley was, in the minds of most historians, homosexual.

Another great figure in British history is Richard I. We go back to time immemorial, the reign of Richard I, at the end of the twelfth century, the dark ages. A great king arose who left England to sail to the holy land to free the holy places from the Saracens. Who was that man? His name was Richard Coeur de Lion, Richard the Lionhearted. Guess what? In the minds of most scholars of that period, he too was a homosexual.

There are those who suggest Julius Caesar was bisexual.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. This is not third reading debate, as you are well aware. This is debate on specific amendments contained in Group No. 1 with respect to amendments to Bill C-33. None of them pertains to any sort of history of the crusades or anything like that. I ask that you call the member to order and have her address the motions listed in Group No. 1.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Halifax.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member for Scarborough West is so threatened by the fact that history is

relevant to the debate today. He can heckle me privately or publicly whenever he wishes, if he dares.

Richard the Lionhearted was also a homosexual. Julius Caesar was, in the minds of most historians of the period, thought to be bisexual. There are hundreds and thousands of other examples.

I listened to my hon. friend for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia talk about children, scout masters, pedophilia and all of that. What frightens me more than anything else in the House is bigotry, intolerance and fear of the unknown.

What frightens me is a Salem like response, a witch hunt like attitude to people who have a different lifestyle or a different sexual orientation; not a criminal orientation, a different orientation.

As we stand in the House later this week and see the passage of the justice minister's amendment to the Human Rights Act and see the defeat of the group of amendments we are debating here now, I will be proud that members on both sides of the House understand that freedom from discrimination, freedom from fear, the ability to live as full participants in society are things all Canadians deserve, things all Canadians should expect from their government.

The rights enshrined in the charter of rights and freedoms are beyond the enforcement of many Canadians because of financial exigency. However, the rights spelled out in federal and provincial human rights act can and will be enforced by ordinary Canadians, and should be.

I am proud that I am hear in the House this week supporting this amendment brought by the Minister of Justice and voting against the amendments that are fearmongering, intolerant and un-Canadian.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, if I had the unanimous consent of the House I would give up my time to allow the member for Scarborough West to present his views on this subject. I ask for unanimous consent of the House.