Debates of May 7th, 1996

Canadian Human Rights Act

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

How do you spell Halifax? B-I-G-O-T.

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

Usually we go to a speaker from the government side and then to a speaker from the opposition side, et cetera. Do we have unanimous consent for the request?

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I believe you will find the member has already spoken and therefore his request is out of order.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, on a point of privilege. As I sat down the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia said, to my hearing and I believe to the hearing of some colleagues: "How do you spell Halifax? B-I-G-O-T".

That is unacceptable and unparliamentary. I would ask you to rule.

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

I will review the transcript to see if we can identify the source of your complaint.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad to speak to these amendments but what is going on here today is a pitiful spectacle. It is nothing to be proud of on the Liberal side that they do not want to have a debate on subjects that many Canadians consider important. Whether or not we come to agreement on these subjects is one thing but surely we can have a debate.

What is going on here? What is it saying, that we cannot talk about this. If we talk about it, what will happen? Will democracy occur? Will we have an overdose of democracy? Will we have people being allowed to speak conscientiously on both sides of the subject? What is it that they are afraid of?

It reminds me a little of-

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The comments just made by the hon. member reflect on the motives of members of this House.

Perhaps, question of privilege is not accurate. Perhaps it is a point of order. To reflect on the motives of members of the House is contrary to the normal procedures and rules of this House.

Madam Speaker, I would ask you to take that under consideration, especially because it is an unjustified reflection on motives, given that people on this side of the House have spoken on both sides of the issue. The Reform Party has not allowed that to happen in its caucus.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

The hon. deputy whip has made a point. I hope all members in the House will take that into consideration in their comments and statements on the motions we are addressing right now.

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

Madam Speaker, I will take it into consideration but it will not change my opinion much about what is going on. What is going on is not right.

All we ask for is a debate on the topic in its entirety. We want all members of Parliament to speak their minds on important issues. What happens when debate is squelched on the Liberal side, or on any side?

What happens is that contradictions are raised that cannot be answered. Good points are raised that people cannot answer.

Canadians say that there must be something wrong, that there must be something insidious, that there is something behind the door, a backroom deal going on because they will not allow discussion to take place.

Listen to this contradiction if you will. When the Minister of Justice introduced this bill he said: "This bill does not confer benefits on same sex couples". That is the issue we are dealing with in this amendment.

On March 12, 1994, in a talk to Xtra West , the gay magazine in Vancouver, he said: ``If the government takes the position that you cannot discriminate, it follows as a matter of logic that you have spousal entitlement to benefits''. In the House on Wednesday he said that this bill had nothing to do with spousal benefits.

Two years ago to Xtra West , the gay magazine, he said: ``Absolutely, this will lead to spousal benefits''. We could debate the subject of whether homosexuals should have spousal benefits or not. Is it an issue we want to get into, such as sponsorship in the immigration department?

Are these the things we want to do? The minister also said that changes may not need to be extensive statutory amendments. They might just include regulations, such as immigration policy. Is that where we want to go as a country? Let us have a debate on it.

We cannot have a debate because the government will not let a debate happen. That is what is wrong. On this side on one day to one audience, the minister says: "Don't worry. There is nothing to it. It is just a simple amendment to make sure that we do not have discriminatory hiring practices". To that I say hear, hear.

Is that all it is about? Two years ago he said that this will lead to spousal benefits. We have a complete, absolute inconsistency from a minister, talking to two different audiences and sending two different messages.

When he does that it raises the concerns of many Canadians who ask what is the government actually doing? What message is it sending and who is it sending it to? Is it the same wherever the minister goes? I am not sure. That is the trouble with clamping down on legitimate debate. We could have a good airing of this. We could have a good discussion but the government will not let it happen.

It reminds me of what happened on the distinct society motion. When the distinct society was brought forward, some asked what does it mean? The government said do not talk about it and cut off debate. Members were not allowed to discuss it. I said that I had some concerns. When I have concerns I want them debated. I may not win my point. I may not always carry the day, obviously not, but I should have the right, as should all members of the House, to discuss important issues.

Is it not interesting that again we have two tiny words. First it was distinct society, now it is sexual orientation. What does it mean? We are not allowed to say that we have some concerns.

What has happened in this first group of amendments is that people have said they are not allowed to discuss it, they are not allowed to bring their concerns forward, the government will not allow them to talk about it. They are bringing forward some amendments to address the concerns of people that have been calling their offices, that have been bringing forward these questions. How else can it be done if members are not allowed to talk?

Members have brought forward amendments. Some of the amendments are strictly for that purpose, to give some of the members a chance to speak. If they say they are concerned about the redefinition of the family, they will throw an amendment in.

The minister says it is not about redefining the family, so members are moving amendments that state the family will remain defined as it is now in Canadian policy. That should put the issue to rest. If the minister is sincere that this bill does not involve spousal benefits, that it does not involve the redefinition of marriage, that it does not make any difference to the other areas these amendments address, then he will vote for them. He will say to the member for Scarborough West: "Right on, you've clarified this for the Canadian people. You've shown how this is not a backroom deal, there are no sweetheart deals, there is no backroom game plan, we were up front. This is what it does not mean". Just lay it right out.

If he is sincere in this then he will support these amendments. He will say that he does not want to scare anybody, open a can of worms or lead us down a path of unknown destination. He will say: "I'm going to show you my sincerity by voting for these amendments because I don't want to redefine marriage, I don't want to use this bill to extend spousal benefits".

Perhaps the people on the other side could listen for a second. It is interesting that the Canadian AIDS society asks how one knows when somebody is homophobic. Do members want to know? Some of these are very good ideas. When one laughs at gay jokes, at people who tell jokes about gays that put gays down and so on, that could be a sign that one is homophobic.

The second sign of homophobia is if one is against spousal benefits. It is interesting that during the debate on the private member's bill for spousal benefits last year, the whole flippin' cabinet voted against spousal benefits, pretty well the whole works. Why? Because they are flaming homophobics. Is that true? Of course it is not true.

What has happened in this House and what has happened over the last week is that we are not allowed to talk about the issue without being homophobic. Is it not something that the Canadian AIDS society would say that most of the Liberal Party are homophobics? They voted against spousal benefits. Shame, shame. I voted against it too. Does that make me homophobic? No more than it made the cabinet homophobic, than it made people over

there homophobic and many people over here. We are not homophobic. What does that have to do with it?

It is a stifling of debate. We are not allowed to discuss the issue. If you raise the issue at all, if you speak of it in public, you are homophobic. What a crockamole. It is an intrusion on the freedom of speech where people are not allowed to come into the House of Commons, of all places, and speak their minds, and certainly not outside of the House of Commons, certainly not in public, maybe not in private. Perhaps we need the thought police to come in and make sure our thoughts are right.

It is a disgusting display of strong arm tactics by people in the party across the way and also by certain societies that say: "Only my complete and full agenda is satisfactory". They are not satisfied to talk about it and educate one another, to talk about the issues of what should be a family. That is not the issue. We cannot talk about it.

I see people over there who have been here since ten o'clock this morning who have not been allowed to speak. What a shame. I have offered to split my time with members opposite. I have said that I will give up my time because I am allowed to speak over here. I would give up my whole time to the member for Ontario. But he is not allowed to speak. Members rush in from the back saying: "No, I will not let you speak".

Do the people of Canada think this is a democratic and free House? Do they think about changing the definition of spouse, not by debating it, because maybe there could be some consensus if they did? The Liberals say it is their way or the highway. Free debate is not allowed. They will do whatever it takes. They will use scorn, strong arm tactics, try to send us on trips around the world, whatever they can do to keep it quiet, because they do not want a discussion.

That is what is wrong with the debate, as much as anything else. That is why I am going to-

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

Madam Speaker, Reform members have, on several occasions, indicated that the Canadian AIDS Society, which you know, made a connection between being opposed to benefits for same sex couples and homophobia. Reference was made to the campaign conducted last year by the Canadian AIDS Society. I am asking the member to table the document he referred to.

I am asking the Chair to ask the member to table that document.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent for the member to table the document in question?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Madam Speaker, a point of order.

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

We are dealing with one point of order right now and then we will deal with the next one.

Does the House give its unanimous consent to have the document tabled?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

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

Since we have the unanimous consent of the House, I am asking the hon. member for Fraser Valley East to table the document to which he referred.

The hon. member for Fraser Valley East on his point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not have the document in my hands. I will be happy to table it shortly.

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Madam Speaker, it will be necessary for me to deal in general terms with many of the motions that have been presented to amend Bill C-33.

For effective learning and for a better analysis of what Bill C-33 really implies, it would be necessary for me to repeat quite a few of the facts and some of the concepts.

It is with inner strength and conviction that I speak about Bill C-33, the government's commitment to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. The act clearly states that it is against the law to discriminate on the basis of race, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status and disability.

The bill where we are adding two more words to the list is in essence a fulfilment of a resolution passed by the Liberal Party at its 1994 biennial policy convention. This resolution represents a longstanding policy of the Liberal Party dating back to at least 1978.

In January 1994 the Minister of Justice indicated during a response to the government's first throne speech that amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act were to come. Specifically he stated: "In the throne speech the Prime Minister's commitment made during the election campaign was renewed. We shall introduce amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act. These amendments, among other things, will include sexual orientation as a ground upon which discrimination is prohibited".

This House has been attempting to implement this principle since 1986. Ensuing governments since that time have also expressed intentions to introduce this amendment. Bill C-33 will finally accomplish that.

What most people do not realize is that this bill will do what eight other Canadian provinces or territories have already done. Every province and territory has a separate human rights act, such as those found in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Yukon. This bill will also bring us in line with court decisions and with an all-party parliamentary subcommittee report from 1985 which recognized that gays and lesbians merit equal protection under the law.

Just what is it that this amendment is advocating? Primarily this amendment seeks to allow someone who has been fired from their job or denied a service by a federal business because of their sexual orientation to file a complaint of discrimination. By federal business I am referring to any company, public or private, which is regulated by federal laws, rules and regulations, such as banks, railways, airlines and telecommunications companies, plus all federal employees.

Clearly this is a question of fundamental fairness and justice, fairness and justice for approximately 10 per cent of the Canadian workforce. What about the other 90 per cent? I repeat, the vast majority of the remaining workforce is covered by provincial and territorial legislation.

The Reform Party would have Canadians believe that this bill detracts from the importance Canadians place on strong, healthy families in our society. This is absolutely and completely false. The fact is that this government has, is and always will protect, maintain and introduce legislation that places the traditional family as the very basis of our society. A strong, healthy family unit is created through the loving relationships among all members of that family unit.

In our family my loving wife and I have taught our children and grandchildren that Christian values are to be used as guiding principles in relationships with all groups and individuals. They are not to be used only with a selected few. How can one be a good Christian by selecting a few and rejecting others because of their differences?

This amendment will have absolutely no bearing on the definitions of marriage, family or spouse. In fact, similar legislation at the provincial level has never had any bearing on issues of same sex benefits. These are the facts, whether the Reform Party likes it or not. Marriage is a provincial issue, not federal. Adoption is a provincial issue, not federal. That is where they shall remain.

It was a very sad occasion last week when the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan made discriminatory statements regarding gays and visible minorities. It is truly unfortunate that members of the Canadian Parliament in this day and age subscribe to such a despicable belief. However, he is not alone. Let me share some of my recent experiences from my riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan.

In the past two weeks approximately 40 phone calls have been received by me and my office staff. We received most of them in the last two days, after people had attended church. Every time I managed to get one of the phone calls I asked the person: "Why are you asking me to vote against this amendment?" They always had reasons: "It is going to allow same sex marriages". I had to explain to them that they were wrong. "It is going to lead to the adoption of infants". I had to explain to them that what they were told and what they were saying was not true.

The calls established three categories. When I had a chance to explain what Bill C-33 was all about a very large percentage of the people accepted my position. They accepted what it was all about. They were happy and no longer distressed and uncomfortable. A smaller group did not want to discuss the matter with me on the telephone and asked that material be sent to them. We shipped material off to their homes.

However, there was a small, small group, four in total, no more, who frightened me because of the kind of things they said. They made threats and declarations about what should be done to people who are so different from them, that they should be taken out of the city limits and stoned. They also talked about the leeches in our society, those who suck the treasury dry and said that they should be treated the same way.

At that moment, I knew there were no options for me. I knew I had only one avenue to follow, which was to support Bill C-33. I had to make sure that as long as there were neo-Nazis in our community advocating what they said to me, members of Parliament must do everything to adhere to our mandate to protect the citizens of this country no matter what their differences might be.

Canadians do not approve of discrimination based on sexual preference. A 1994 Angus Reid poll supported this, indicating that 81 per cent of those surveyed would be bothered if a gay or lesbian colleague experienced discrimination in the workplace.

In conclusion, I take pride that our government has done more to support equal rights for all our citizens within our first two years in power than the previous government did in almost a decade.

Bill C-33 is delivering justice to all Canadians. I commend the minister and this government for strength of resolve. I ask Canadians of every ethnic background and every religious faith to celebrate their differences-

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kootenay East.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, to begin my portion of this debate I would like to read into the record a column which I just published in our local newspapers.

The federal government has introduced a new Bill C-33 that would introduce the term "sexual orientation" into Canada's human rights charter. Liberal members of Parliament claim that the special inclusion for homosexuals in the charter would ensure their protection.

I believe that all Canadians are entitled to equal rights, responsibilities and protection under our current human rights legislation. In fact, this is a fundamental principle in Canadian law. Section 15(1) of the charter applies to all Canadians: Every individual is equal before the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination-.

If this is the case, you, like me, must be asking yourself why we need to identify a particular group as needing special protection. Each and every one of us is a human being with a right to be treated equally and fairly.

There are some other concerns about the specific language and intention of the bill. The first is that "sexual orientation" is not defined anywhere in Bill C-33. This leaves the bill open to interpretation. The second concern that has been brought to my attention is how including sexual orientation in human rights legislation will affect the right of homosexuals to claim marital or marriage-like status. Finally, that the conscience rights of Canadians who may be morally opposed to homosexual behaviour be protected.

Based on what I have outlined here and what I believe to be the opinion of the majority of my constituents, I will vote against Bill C-33. I am voting no in hopes of reinforcing our belief as Canadians that we are all equal with no special status for any persons or groups.

Speaking to the motions before the House, I support Motion No. 11 moved by one of our members. It adds a new clause defining that sexual orientation will not redefine the terms marriage, family and spouse in any act of Parliament.

I say the following to my friend from Thunder Bay and to other members of the Liberal Party. The government has decided it is going to be including the word family in the preamble to the law. Notwithstanding that the preamble has no force of law and it is only a preamble to the law, the fact that the word family has been put in there undefined creates exactly the same problem as the fact that the term sexual orientation has been put in there undefined.

I therefore will be voting specifically in favour of Motion No. 11 in that the term family is not defined. In addition to that, it will not redefine or define the terms marriage or spouse. This lack of definition and leaving it up to the courts is just a cop-out on the part of the House of Commons. We should say what we mean and mean what we say.

I also support Motion No. 10 moved by one of our members. This motion adds the recognition of the freedom of religious institutions, providing their practices are consistent with the charter of rights and freedoms. It should go without saying that if we extend rights to one group, by definition that means it will infringe on the rights of another group. Otherwise why would we be extending those rights in the first place?

This House as a matter of principle must always guard freedom of association and freedom of worship. This House must stand on the principle that the church may not be interfered with by the state. If, as I believe, this legislation is going to give direction to recognized and organized religious groups and organizations and is going to define what those religious groups are capable of doing or not doing, that is my worst fear. I believe it is a very real fear. It is a very real fear on the basis of what has already occurred in the province of Alberta with respect to this particular question and with respect to a college in the city of Edmonton.

This is not a partisan bill. This has clearly been shown by the fact that there are members of the Liberal Party who, like myself and my colleagues, have serious concerns about the impact of the bill. This is not a political bill in the ordinary sense and therefore I do not want to make strongly partisan comments. I want to respect the fact that there are some people in the Liberal Party who are thinking about the consequences and what this bill will do to the legitimacy of the separation of church and state.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the member. He will have approximately five minutes left after question period.

Report Of Auditor General

[The Deputy Speaker]

Dear colleagues, I have the honour to lay upon the table Volume I of the Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons, dated May 1996.

Pursuant to our standing orders, the document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

We will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Housing

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask that the federal government make assurances to the people of my riding living in the Cambridge New Hope Housing Co-op that they will not lose their homes when jurisdiction for social housing is turned over to provincial control.

I have received letters from many of the residents of the New Hope Co-op, from young children like eight-year old Scott Entwhistle, who is worried that he will lose his home and will have to live on the streets. There are letters from parents struggling to provide their families with a safe, affordable home to grow up in who are afraid that the Mike Harris government will axe funding to their co-op.

I alone cannot allay the fears of these people. I require the assistance of the hon. minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Prime Minister to let these people know that this government is not abandoning them to the Mike Harris government.