Debates of May 7th, 1996

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in my absence yesterday, this being the first opportunity to address this issue, the Minister of Foreign Affairs attributed comments to me which were factually inaccurate and totally untrue.

The Reform Party has a very clear statement and undertakings on our belief in human rights in Canada. I support the Reform Party on those-

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is debate.

Petitions

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today. The first one is from Sarnia, Ontario.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to society.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged and the disabled.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from Brantford, Ontario.

The petitioners bring to the attention of the House that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability, and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of alcoholic beverages.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am being inundated with petitions sent by all methods short of horse and buggy. The petitioners are concerned about the method by which the government is pushing through in such rapid fashion the addition of sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

These petitioners call on Parliament to oppose this. They have taken a number of different ways to express that but are very concerned with both the method and the message the government is sending.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-33, an act to to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Canadian Human Rights Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

There are 21 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The motions will be grouped for debate. The Chair is not yet ready to give a full ruling on the groupings of the motions and the voting patterns. What we are doing regarding members with motions has been indicated by the officers at the table.

We can start with Group No. 1, which includes Motions Nos. 1, 9 to 15 and 18. If this is agreeable to our colleagues, we will start with Group No. 1, which includes the motions I indicated.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

moved:

That Bill C-33, in the Preamble, be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3, on page 1, with the following:

"firms the dignity and worth of every individual and recognizes that every individual has the right to be".

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-33, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 33, on page 1, the following:

"2.1 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."

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-33, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 33, on page 1, the following:

"2.1 The teaching and hiring practices of religious institutions shall not be considered a prohibited act of discrimination for the purposes of sections 2 or 3 provided that such practices are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if there would be unanimous consent that all motions at report stage of Bill C-33 be deemed to have been moved, seconded, read and proposed to the House. We used that procedure in a bill recently. It would be convenient for members.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before I ask for consent on that, perhaps I should mention, since the matter came up yesterday, that any member who does not wish to dispense with the reading of any motion can simply say no. Please say it in a loud, clear voice. This happened yesterday. I did not hear a person say no and I assumed there was unanimous consent when there was not.

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-33, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 33, on page 1, the following:

"2.1 The reference to "sexual orientation" in sections 2 and 3, shall not be construed so as to amend the meaning assigned in any Act of Parliament to the terms "marriage", "family" or "spouse"."

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-33, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 33, on page 1, the following:

"2.1 The reference to "sexual orientation" in sections 2 and 3, shall not be construed so as to affect freedom of religion, expression or association as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-33, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 33, on page 1, the following:

"2.1 The reference to "sexual orientation" in sections 2 and 3 shall not be construed so as to render any provision of the Criminal Code inoperative or of no force or effect."

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-33, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 33, on page 1, the following:

"2.1 Nothing in sections 2 or 3 shall be construed so as to authorize the extension of spousal or family benefits or entitlements funded and administered under any Act of Parliament to any person who cohabits with a person of the same sex in a relationship similar to a conjugal relationship."

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-33, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 33, on page 1, the following:

"2.1 Nothing in sections 2 or 3 shall be construed so as to authorize the marriage of persons of the same sex."

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-33, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 8, on page 2, the following:

"3.(2) For greater certainty, nothing in Sections 2 or 3 of this Act shall be construed by any court or tribunal in such a way as to add, read in, or include the words sexual orientation in Section 16 of this Act."

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

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.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the mover of the motion. He made some very good points, one of which I believe is absolutely critical. He enunciated the concerns of Canadians, that is, the potential ramifications which are not stated in the bill and for which there are all kinds of assurances outside of the bill.

The hon. member discussed discrimination. Clearly Canadians do not support discrimination. Clearly Canadians want to ensure that no one is discriminated against. The point is the potential ramifications outlined by the hon. member.

What disturbs me follows from the attempts which were made by the hon. member to find out why the words were changed. This statute has been in place for many years. It has been interpreted by the courts, based on the language in the act. All of a sudden, at the same time that those two contentious words are being added, we are being asked to change other wording in section 2.

The hon. member tells us that he attempted to find out the legal rationalization for making those changes. He tells us that the justice department was unable to give him any legal rationalization. Indeed, I would suggest that there is no rationalization for making those changes, unless it is to do precisely what the hon. member suggests, to address groups instead of individuals.

The problem is that we have not yet heard anyone from the justice department express a clear reason why these words are being changed. In the absence of a clear reason to change a statute which is already in place and which has been judicially interpreted, I believe there is no clear reason to change the words. Therefore, I am in complete support of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth. I await a justification, from either the parliamentary secretary or the Minister of Justice, for this change in words and a convincing argument why we should accept these words as opposed to leaving section 2 as it now stands, with the exception of the addition of the words sexual orientation.

I repeat, if there is no reason to make the change, there is no reason to vote for the change. I support the amendment of the hon. member.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this week members of Parliament will speed through the intersection of values and politics. Not even a skid mark will trace the collision between a radical agenda and the foundations of our society. Fleeing from the scene is any hope of full and open debate. No legislation is more consequential than laws which affect the core values, the building blocks of our civilization, the cornerstone of our culture.

In this respect, Bill C-33 will be the most significant legislation since the charter of rights. We have shifted our aims from a just society to a frontier society, a society lacking structure, without guiding values, with no blueprint for the next generation.

Family is the bridge between our roots and the foundation of our future. Its demise, the dilution of its purpose, will reduce children to little more than a commodity, the guinea pigs of a brave new world.

To compare my objections to Bill C-33 to those of the member from Nanaimo would be as wrong as to connect the support of the Minister of Justice to the North American Man Boy Love Association, which also backs his bill.

In June 1995 I voted for Bill C-41. Its only direct consequence was longer prison terms for violent criminals who targeted homosexuals or other identifiable groups. Three years ago I was ready to support Bill C-108 which had wording almost identical to Bill C-33. I was persuaded at the time that its additional definition of marital status would limit its scope and prevent any consequence on the irreplaceable and central role of the traditional family in our society.

Today's Bill C-33 is a Trojan horse, its payload filled with legal reinforcements for the war against values currently being waged in our courts, the constitutional war against core values. Just one more tool is needed to rid our social infrastructure of traditional family values. This bill is that tool.

Bill C-33 was introduced boasting lofty words and lofty intent. I listened to the Minister of Justice tell us how this bill would help persons who may suffer discrimination in the workplace. On that intent I absolutely agree. No Canadian should be fired or demoted for any reason other than the quality of his or her work. That is fundamental and it is a principle that the government must enforce.

We all agree with the platitudes motherhood, apple pie and justice for all, but platitudes in legislation are an abdication of Parliament's responsibility to make tough, controversial and political decisions. One man, one vote has been replaced by one judge, one vote. Sadly the concept of justice is drowning in the courts.

Today the public has been largely removed from debate about how their society should evolve, about how their children should be raised. Those decisions too often rest with unelected judges responding to complaints from special interest groups. Typically the only role left for the public is to read the results in the newspaper and react with helpless outrage.

Some lawyers, appointed by politicians to sit on the bench in judgment, have abused the highest law of the land, the charter, to legitimize everything from child pornography to the sodomy of a 14-year-old by a fugitive sex offender. Timely barely permits a single example.

Vernon Logan was charged with and pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography. Then, despite the guilty plea, Judge Brian Saunderson gave Logan an absolute discharge. Why? Because in the judge's view child pornography law violates the charter of rights.

I do not recall child pornography being protected in the charter but judges have nearly unlimited licence to read their own personal views between the lines of the law. Of course no consideration is given to the rights of children victimized by the pornographer. They have no standing in court.

The values of society should determine the law. The law should not determine the values of society. Clearly the courts are not guardians of our values. We cannot afford to give them any more legislative blank cheques. No more bills like Bill C-33. I looked to the Library of Parliament, our legislative counsel and even outside resources to predict the consequences of Bill C-33. Is it radical to ask to be informed of the consequences of a law before you vote for it? I was told and I quote from the Library of Parliament:

-it is not feasible to draw up an exhaustive listing of entitlements that might, in theory, give rise to the lodging of complaints based on sexual orientation under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

You should not have to be Nostradamas to predict the consequences of law. Is this not unlimited scope, a blank cheque, no legal guarantees, no collateral, no fail safe, no debate? Mr. Speaker, no signature.

My mentor in drafting the two amendments I propose was of course the Minister of Justice whose booklet on the bill declares that:

The proposed amendment will have no bearing on definitions of "marriage", "family" or "spouse". It will simply guarantee individual rights.

We have also been told that this bill will have no bearing on criminal offences. The best way to make these guarantees is in the body of the bill and that is what my amendments seek to do.

I have added a definition of marital status. Marital status means "the status of being married, single, separated, divorced, widowed or cohabiting with an individual of the opposite sex in a conjugal relationship for at least one year".

Kim Campbell referred to this definition as simply confirming the existing law. Is it any different from how almost all Canadians view marital status? Would it diminish human rights in this country to state a central value in our society? Is it too much to ask that more than lip service be given to the notion of the traditional family?

Bill C-33 is intended to have no impact on the definition of marital status, so says the Minister of Justice. If this is the case, then this amendment is perfectly consistent with the position of the Minister of Justice.

My second amendment restates the minister's position that Bill C-33 should have no impact on criminal offences. It reads: "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". In other words, Bill C-33 cannot be used to thwart justice.

To support these amendments will allow Parliament to achieve its goal of a non-discriminatory workplace. It would also signal to the courts Parliament's intent that this bill should not contribute to any redefinition of marital status or weakening of the Criminal Code. Support for these amendments would address legitimate concerns. Opposition to them makes the case that our concerns are well founded.

Bill C-33 in raw form is unacceptable to me. It is unacceptable to my church and I believe it is unacceptable to the majority of my constituents. The amendments I propose define my main concerns. They preserve the central thrust of government policy without harmful side effects for the Canadian family and children. The amendments would confine the bill to the rhetoric that is being used to sell it.

No debate about values will ever be solved with platitudes. We cannot forever deflect the challenges facing our society with glib truisms, but what we can do is make responsible changes necessary to maintain fairness in society without demolishing other key principles at the same time.

At the intersection of politics and values, conscience must always have the right of way.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Motion No. 10 I will take the opportunity to speak to Motions Nos. 19 and 20 which are interrelated.

I listened intently to previous-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Motion No. 20 is not on the floor at the moment. That will come up later. Please do not speak to Motion No. 20, but speak to the other ones as indicated.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will confine my comments to Motion No. 10 which is on the floor at this time.

Previous speakers have very eloquently stated the unease that many Canadians, including myself, feel about this bill. It really strikes to the basic honesty of the position taken by the government in this bill.

If we are going to be debating, and if the debate is to be framed on putting same sex relationships on an equal footing as heterosexual relationships, then we should have the honesty to say so. That is how this debate should be framed.

To frame the debate around discrimination and say not just to members here but to all Canadians who feel uneasy and are against this that somehow they are discriminating against human beings who are gay is wrong. Not only is it wrong, it is insulting. Then to push this debate through the House with such unseemly haste when there are wise and considered arguments on both sides that should be heard by all Canadians so that all Canadians can consider these very important issues of relevance to the kind of society that we are, in my opinion is deceitful, dishonest and beneath the dignity of this House. I am embarrassed and I am ashamed.

I am embarrassed and I am ashamed by the way many witnesses were treated at the committee meetings. People came and as Canadians expected to have their voices heard with passion, with dignity, with some sense of solemnity for the occasion and the moment. This is their House of Commons. These are their committee meetings where people on both sides of the issue expect to be heard with dignity. To treat fellow Canadians like cattle in the rush to get this legislation through the House is beneath the dignity of all of us. At least I would hope it is beneath the dignity of all of us.

My specific amendments are based upon the amendments that were brought forward by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. Their amendments and the amendments I have brought forward would have one purpose which is to limit the scope of this bill to that which the justice minister has said this bill relates. There are two aspects: the human rights considerations and the justice considerations.

Canadians are virtually unanimous in saying they support the human rights aspects of the bill. They support the notion of prevention of discrimination. No Canadian should be discriminated against for any reason, including their sexual orientation.

On the other side of the coin are the people who say that the terms marriage, family, tradition have a place and a foundation in our society and we should not tread lightly upon these foundations, the building blocks of our society. If we are going to change the way we relate to each other, one to another, then for goodness sake let us do so honestly.

There are ways the issues of fairness and equity for our fellow citizens who are homosexual can be addressed. Those of us who are not homosexual but feel just as strongly that these issues need to be addressed for the sake of fairness feel they may be addressed through other measures such as a registered domestic partnership which need not threaten the traditional sanctity of family and marriage.

Thank you for allowing me these few introductory remarks. I would just caution this House that we and all Canadians not take lightly those with whom we do not agree. Even if we do not agree with them, their views do have merit and worth and should be treated with dignity and respect. If their views are unheard they will build tremendous resentment in the land.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, I would like to make a preliminary statement before proceeding with the full ruling on the matter of the motions.

The hon. member for Central Nova has proposed to table two motions which would have removed the words "sexual orientation" from each clause of the bill. The hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam has proposed identical motions. Those motions were returned to the hon. members and not printed on the Notice Paper by error.

Consequently, the Chair has decided to allow the motions to proceed. Since the hon. member for Central Nova tabled her motions first, the motions will be in her name. They will be numbered as Motions Nos. 8A and 16A.

Accordingly, there are 23 motions in amendment for the report stage of Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. They will be grouped for debate as follows:

Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1, 9 to 15 and 18. Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 2, 3, 17, 19, 20 and 21. A revised version of this ruling will be distributed as it is easier for members to follow than hearing it read quickly. Group No. 3: Motions Nos. 4 to 8, 8A, 16 and 16A. The voting patterns for the motions within each group will be available at the table very shortly. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

Resuming debate on Group No. 1.