Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Motion No. 1, which also pertains to Motion No. 8.
This would change the amendment proposed by Bill C-33 so that the only difference in wording in the purpose section of the Canadian Human Rights Act would be the addition of the words sexual orientation.
These motions would go a long way toward addressing the fear of many Canadians that Bill C-33 as it now stands would lead to court interpretations such that gay couples could claim marriage and family benefits as a matter of right, that the legal privileges the state confers on conjugal couples of the opposite sex would be equally guaranteed by right to couples of the same sex.
The justice minister has explicitly said this is not the intention of Bill C-33. He said it is workplace legislation and nothing more. He has assured us it has nothing to do with the definition of family, of same sex benefits or of same sex couples.
If the vast majority of Canadians can be convinced of that, they will support Bill C-33. If Canadians could be sure it will be limited in effect to the workplace, at least 90 per cent would support it.
By and large we are a tolerant society. Canadians do not like discrimination. They deplore it, whether it is because of sexual orientation, race, language or religion. It does not matter. Discrimination is discrimination.
If Canadians could be certain that the impact of Bill C-33 would be confined in interpretation to protecting gays from harassment and unfair treatment in the workplace, then I suggest the bill would enjoy overwhelming support.
However, many MPs in the House, including myself, in representing our constituents were unable to vote for Bill C-33 during second reading. They felt, as I do, that there is good reason to believe that as it stands it could trigger interpretations by the courts that would enlarge the legal definition of family to include same sex couples.
In my instance, I am concerned that this will open the door in turn to an interpretation of section 1 of the charter of rights and freedoms, such as under provincial law, where discretion to
consider the pros and cons of sexual orientation in child custody cases would cease to exist.
In other words, the sexuality of gay parents could no longer be considered in an application to adopt. I am afraid that this might be an infringement on the rights of a child who, when all other factors are equal, might better be raised by heterosexual parents rather than homosexual parents.
I am not saying that gay couples should never be able to adopt. Only that children should have a right to have the sexual orientation of parents taken into consideration when the authorities are placing them for adoption.
That is my primary concern about Bill C-33 as it now stands. Other MPs have other concerns but most of them stem from the implications of Bill C-33 in terms of the legal definition of marital status and the family.
We have some good reason to be worried. Bill C-33 does more than add the words sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act. It also changes its purpose from being applicable to every individual to being applicable to all individuals. The change to all individuals in Bill C-33 is not trivial. The term every individual is exclusionary in meaning. The term all individuals is inclusive. The former connotes individuals in isolation, the latter individuals in groups.
I have talked to lawyers who are of the opinion that judges could interpret the phrase "all individuals" as including same sex couples for the purposes of the act. This is all the more certain in that Bill C-33 also changes the words "himself" or "herself" and "he" or "she" to "themselves" and "they".
My Motions No. 1 and 8 would restore the original wording of the purpose section of the Canadian Human Rights Act so that the only words added by Bill C-33 are the words sexual orientation and nothing more.
It is my understanding from the drafters of this legislation that the change from "every" to "all individuals" was done for no particular reason. Indeed, I could not get an adequate explanation. I suppose the syntax was tidier.
However, by changing the wording as proposed for the purpose section back to "every individual" from "all individuals" and to "himself" and "herself" from "themselves" we members of the House of Commons can send a strong message to the courts that it is our intent to limit this legislation to individuals in isolation, not to individuals in groups.
By passing this motion we say to the courts that it is absolutely not our intention that the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act is to be interpreted in terms of any form of same sex partnership, implicit or explicit.
By voting for the motion, my colleagues are saying that Bill C-33 exists outside the issue of same sex marriage, outside the issue of same sex parents, outside the issue of same sex benefits. This bill is to do with individuals only, not relationships between individuals.
We cannot make the will of Parliament clearer. Having done so by enacting this amendment into law, the way becomes open, the road smooth, to support Bill C-33. Then it becomes with as much guarantee as we can hope, a law to do exactly that envisaged by the justice minister, a law that will fight harassment and discrimination against individuals in the workplace. It will then become a law of which all Canadians can be proud.