Debates of May 9th, 1996

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty under our standing orders to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Mackenzie-Railways.

I have received notice from the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that he is unable to move his motion during private members' hour on Friday.

Since it is not possible to trade places on the order of precedence, I ask the Clerk to drop this order to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Private members' hour will thus be cancelled and the House will continue with the business before it prior to private member's hour.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member for London West has two paragraphs to complete. Someone in our assembly said go, and I think you understood it as no.

I would like you to ask for unanimous consent for her to conclude her speech.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The no did not come from that side of the House.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I said no. The reason I said no was because the same request was made in reference to me yesterday. The hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James said no. However I withdraw my no, if the rest of the House agrees.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much to the members in the House.

By repudiating discrimination against gay men and lesbians we extend a hand to those who have suffered, and acknowledge the contributions of others who have risen above prejudice to enrich their own lives and those around them.

Respectful of all my colleagues in this House, I call on them now to look deeply into their hearts with knowledge and understanding in their minds when casting their vote on this fundamental human rights issue, a bill truly worthy of their support. I thank hon. members all over this House for my ability to ask my prayer for them.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that when I denied unanimous consent yesterday it was on a request to speak on

a motion twice. It had nothing to do with extending the timefor a speech. It was only on the request to speak twice on the same motion.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we would not want to foster disunity in the government benches so I will proceed.

I rise to participate in the closing debate on the government's Bill C-33. In preparation for this debate my reading has included most of the speeches made by members on both sides of the House. I want to commend members for the sincerity and quality of their contributions. I particularly want to thank the members for Port Moody-Coquitlam and Edmonton Southwest for co-ordinating Reform's analysis of the bill and for the amendments that they have put forward to address its defects.

As debate winds down there is little I or anyone else can add at this stage to the discussion of the details of the bill. Therefore, I would like to focus on the bigger picture starting with its intent.

Discrimination has its roots in prejudice, in the tendency of the human heart to prejudge others on the basis of appearances or unfair or unreasonable criteria. A prejudice becomes discrimination when it expresses itself verbally in particular decisions or acts, including hiring and firing and providing or withholding services on the basis of prejudgment or unfair or unreasonable criteria.

I therefore wish to make clear at the outset that Reform supports the noble intention of this bill. We fervently desire, as do all members, a society free from prejudice and discrimination. Our commitment to this intention comes from two sources, from the Canadian people whom we endeavour to represent in this Chamber and from the principles of our party itself.

The foremost among the attributes that Canadians want reflected in our political leaders and institutions are integrity, accountability, freedom, equality and tolerance of differences. These are fundamental to the aspirations of Canadians to be one of the world's most democratic, just and pluralistic societies.

The principles of the Reform Party are equally clear on this subject. Our party affirms the equality of all Canadians in law, the fundamental importance of the individual and the right of individuals to be different from one another. Our party affirms the right of Canadians to be free from discrimination, hate mongering and intolerance on any basis.

It is because statements by several of our own members this week cast doubt on these commitments that I have had to take some extraordinary steps to reassure Canadians of our commitment. It is not all right for employers to fire an employee simply because an intolerant customer complains about their colour or lifestyle. It is not all right to justify and explain away discrimination or to imply that some Canadians have invited discrimination against themselves. These views are not consistent with the broad values of Canadians, with the broad values of Reformers or with the principles of the Reform Party, and I want that on record.

That being the case, why do the majority of Reformers oppose this bill in principle? It is first and foremost because we believe that its approach to attacking discrimination is wrong headed and ineffective.

The basic approach to preventing discrimination incorporated in the Canadian Human Rights Act, the act which this bill amends, is to define prohibited grounds of discrimination.

By section 16 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, what started out as categorizations of Canadians simply for the purpose of defining prohibited grounds of discrimination have become special entitlements for groups of disadvantaged individuals defined essentially in terms of their race, ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, et cetera, and if this bill were passed, sexual orientation.

I define this approach to dealing with discrimination and affirmative action as a special status approach. My basic objection to it is that it has not worked well and has some very negative consequences.

For 30 years Liberal governments in particular have taken this approach to combating discrimination. However, there is still all kinds of discrimination in this country, including systemic discrimination practised by the state under statutes like the Indian Act. One of the unfortunate side effects of this approach is that it requires and fosters this divisive categorization of Canadians to which I have referred.

Reformers want to explore. We do not profess to have all the answers but we want the justice department, the courts and this Parliament to explore whether or not there is a better approach to protecting minorities from discrimination and to providing special help to disadvantaged Canadians.

The approach we want explored is one that would base the entitlement to special help and protection not on personal characteristics or membership in a special group, but simply on the naked fact that those people are Canadians period, entitled to equality before the law. This is an equality approach to affirming rights and preventing discrimination. Its chief advocate in the federal field is the Reform Party of Canada. In my judgment it will lead to higher ground and better results than the tired old Liberal approach to dealing with discrimination, aboriginal policy, multicultural policy and national unity on the basis of special status.

Hon. members should ask: How do you protect someone from discrimination, let us say, in housing and accommodation, on the basis of equality rather than special status? This is the question Parliament should have been addressing in reference to this bill and has not. I would be pleased to enlarge on our answer to that question in questions and comments if someone would like to put

it. How do you protect someone from discrimination? My time is short so I will come back to that in questions and comments.

There is a second fundamental reason for having grave reservations about this bill and its implications. It is a reason that has been expressed by many on both sides of the House and that is its potential impact on the traditional family. Reform is committed by its founding principles to strengthening and protecting the family unit as essential to the well-being of individuals and society.

If Reformers and Canadians believed that this bill was a simple amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act with no future implications for the family, that is, if we could believe that it provides no grounds for the courts or the government to change the definition of the family, or to provide state sanction of same sex marriages, or the extension of spousal benefits to same sex couples, we would still oppose the bill but mainly on the grounds I have previously outlined. If however this bill is the first step toward these other changes in the status of the family or entitlement to benefits, then we and I believe the vast majority of Canadians do not want to start down that slippery slope.

I am well aware the minister has tried to assure the House that this is a stand alone amendment with no future implications for the family. However his assurances and arguments have failed to convince us that this is the case.

Government members defeated every amendment which would affirm that the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act would not redefine the terms of marriage, family or spouse in any act of Parliament. Government members defeated every amendment that would prevent follow up to this bill to extend spousal benefits to same sex couples or to include sexual orientation as a ground for affirmative action. The government opposed these amendments even when they were put forward by Liberal members.

The justice department's policy agenda dated March 8, which the justice minister was questioned on in the House yesterday, listed a series of initiatives the department is pursuing. At the top of the list was this amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act, but right next to it on the list, despite the minister's assurances that there was no connection or progression here, were references to family status, same sex couples and dependent benefits.

The Liberal member for Mississauga South rightly quotes the chairman of the Human Rights Commission, Max Yalden, as saying in his March 1996 report that if we give a benefit to a heterosexual couple and deny it to a same sex couple that is discrimination. This is a statement by the head of the commission that will implement the bill we are discussing today.

The Liberal member for Huron-Bruce rightly quoted Justice Lamer in the 1993 Mossop case speaking for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada saying that if the Canadian Human Rights Act included sexual orientation he might well conclude that family status includes homosexual couples. This is from the head of the institution that will interpret the bill we are dealing with today.

Representatives of gay rights lobby groups such as EGALE, as pointed out by the member for Medicine Hat, have made it quite clear they regard this amendment simply as the first step toward the building of a whole new set of rights and privileges for their group across the country. There are many members of this House, and I would argue a majority of Canadians, who might view this bill differently if they honestly believed it was simply a stand alone amendment. If they have any grounds for really believing it is the first step down the slippery slope that I have described, they cannot support it.

The bureaucrats who will implement the amendment, the court that will interpret it and the interest groups to whom it will give standing are all out there greasing the slippery slope and making it abundantly clear they intend to send Canada down that slope. When the minister and the government oppose and defeat every amendment designed to prevent that from happening, the minister has given family oriented members of this House a substantive reason to vote against the bill.

Finally, I am pleased that a number of members, including the minister, have seen fit to comment on the inappropriateness of this bill from a religious perspective. We in this House are too inhibited by the current doctrines of political correctness and the dangers of media misinterpretation from speaking frankly on public issues from the perspective of our spiritual values and spiritual experience.

We should remind ourselves that the principle of the separation of church and state, which is essentially an American constitutional principle but one with which most of us would agree, ought not to mean the separation of public people from religious conviction or the separation of religious and spiritual values from considerations of public policy.

I was therefore pleased to hear the justice minister refer openly to his Roman Catholic faith and upbringing, to hear him read from the catechism of his church entitled "Life in Christ" and hear him try to link the principle of this bill to the teachings of Christ. The Minister of Justice perhaps better than anyone in this House knows that any extension of freedom, including freedom from discrimination, is subject, as our Constitution says, to such reasonable limits

prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The reasonable limit to any freedom, including freedom from discrimination, is the point at which that freedom impinges upon other freedoms guaranteed by the charter. Those of us who in addition to believing in freedom from discrimination also believe in freedom of conscience and religion want to be assured that the enactment of this bill will not infringe upon the freedom of any religious group to express or teach their beliefs the morality or immorality of any sexual activity or relationship, heterosexual or homosexual. That is the function of religion in society. If there is error in religious teaching that should be subject to correction, but subject to the great corrective action of freedom of speech.

The fact that the minister and the majority of his colleagues voted down amendments affirming that including sexual orientation will not affect freedom of religion, expression and association as guaranteed by the charter of rights and freedoms gives members who take these religious freedoms and values seriously another substantive reason for voting against the bill.

In the final analysis I do not believe that the root cause of prejudice in the human heart can be exorcized through legislation, caucus rules or admonitions by leaders. That requires a change of heart which is beyond the reach of this Parliament.

As the justice minister saw fit to conclude his remarks by quoting from his church's catechism and the "Life of Christ", perhaps I could close by quoting from another great authority on the life of Christ, the Apostle Paul, a man who first practised and then worked against the bitter racial and systemic prejudices of his day.

He stated the ideal in these terms: In the Kingdom of Christ there would be neither Greek nor Hebrew, neither racial distinction nor discrimination based on race or religion, neither male nor female, neither bond nor free, but all would be one. The Christian ideal is not only the complete eradication of prejudice and discrimination but the elimination of the very conceptualizations and categorizations, the end of categories, upon which prejudice feeds.

This of course is an ideal which cannot be fully achieved in this world but we can decide whether we press toward it or go in the other direction. This bill in my judgment does not press in that direction and provides another substantive reason for voting against it.

I therefore advise members of the House to defeat this bill on the grounds that it is based on the special status approach to reducing discrimination which does not work well, that it provides inadequate support for the family and freedom of religion and does not further the vision of genuine equality to which the vast majority of Canadians aspire.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Reform leader for taking the time to participate in this debate. I think it is very nice of him. I feel like asking him two or three questions.

My first question is this: Does he believe that homosexuality is innate or acquired? Second, if one of his colleagues in this House told him he was gay, would the Reform leader allow him to keep his seat? Third, would the Reform leader agree to clarify his position on the highly discriminatory comments made by the hon. member for Macleod, a medical doctor?

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to the member's second question is yes.

The answer to his third question is that the member for Macleod was expressing a medical opinion on the state of health connected with homosexual activity. Other members of the House who are doctors also expressed medical opinions of a different view. That is his right to do so.

On the member's first question, is it innate? I would say it is immaterial to this debate. It is immaterial because the law it not concerned with what a person is. It is concerned with what he or she does. The essence of the principle of equality is that the law is concerned with what people do, not with what people are.

[Peter Thalheimer, Liberal, Timmins—Chapleau, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could assist me.

I am sure he is aware of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Egan and Nesbitt which says unanimously that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination under the equality provision of section 15 of the charter. I am sure he is aware also of the fact that the charter does not apply to private companies and federally regulated industries and that the Canadian Human Rights Act does apply.

How can gays and lesbians be protected in the private sector workplace under the charter if there is no amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act?

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the charter of rights and freedoms protects everyone. However, I think the member is missing my point.

I am not talking about not having protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act. I am disagreeing with the approach that is being taken to the provision of protection from discrimination or special help for special groups. I am saying that there is a different approach than this categorization approach which is used in the Canadian Human Rights Act and which is partially mixed up in the charter. There is a different approach based strictly on equality.

I am arguing that at least the House ought to consider that. I do not think it ever has.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a quote here from the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette, who said: "If we want to look at what homosexuality and permissiveness have done to some countries, let us look at Africa and the problems it has run into. Let us look at Liberia right now. Do we want that type of system? I do not". This is implying, of course, that homosexuality will lead to civil war.

In addition to that, a Reform member from British Columbia at a public meeting indicated earlier this week when a series of intolerant statements were made, he asked what was the dividing line between China and India and named the Fraser River as the answer.

I wonder if leader of the Reform Party could tell us if he agrees with these statements. If not, will he tell these members what to do.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have made clear what our position is on this issue. The statements to which the member refers are partial quotes from newspaper accounts and do not fully represent what we think.

What I am waiting for the leaders of the government to deal with is the problem of prejudice within their own ranks. We have heard Liberal member after Liberal member in this House, from the Prime Minister on down, proclaim self-righteously how repugnant they find prejudice, the prejudging of others, the condemnation of whole groups of people because of the words or actions of the few. However, we see some of those same members practising in a different way exactly the same thing.

Why is it that the member for Central Nova can make inflammatory statements which, if made by a member of my caucus, would be denounced as prejudice and homophobic by the very same member who raised this question?

The Liberal member for Mississauga South said it best in this debate. He said: "Why is there so much acrimony in this place? Why are people in this place, who were my friends and colleagues"-he is talking about Liberal friends and colleagues-"no longer speaking to me? It is because I have a different position. Why have so many people"-and he is talking about Liberal friends and colleagues-"demonstrated intolerance toward my position?" He is talking about prejudice, not in the Reform caucus but in the Liberal caucus. He is not talking about racial prejudice or gender prejudice, he is talking about political prejudice, but prejudice nonetheless.

Reformers ask the same question. If governments want to stone bigots, let the party which is wholly without prejudice cast the first stone. If the government is so desperately interested in rooting out prejudice of all types, not just the categories defined by political correctness, it must begin with the political prejudices in its own caucus.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Prime Minister for his decision to hold a free vote on this contentious bill. His wisdom and integrity in making this correct decision are recognized and appreciated by most Canadians.

For me Bill C-33 is legislation fraught with uncertainty and unacceptable risk. It is hardly a simple, routine and definitive amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In good conscience I cannot and will not support this bill. I am totally opposed to discrimination against or hatred toward any human being and that is why in all good conscience I supported Bill C-41. That bill extended to individual gay and lesbian Canadians the same protection in law from crimes of hate as that enjoyed by all other Canadians.

If it was absolutely clear and certain that Bill C-33 was only a matter of preventing discrimination I would support it. However, for me, as for many other Canadians, various comments from judges, other experts and the minister himself, do not bring clarity to this debate but rather confusion.

The only certainty is uncertainty. Am I certain that Bill C-33 will lead to same sex benefits, the legalization of so-called same sex marriages and same sex couples adopting wards of the state? No, I am not certain, but more to the point, I am not satisfied that this bill will not lead to these deleterious changes in our society, changes which I as a Canadian and as a member of Parliament can never accept or condone.

What is very clear is that the Canadian gay and lesbian leaders demand that these changes must occur. Well, let them not look to me nor to the majority of Canadians for support of such changes.

This is for me a moral issue and a matter of conscience. I respect the rights of others who see this issue in a different way. I respect their rights. I abhor the fact that respect is not unanimous in this House. However, I disagree with the people who take the other view.

It has been suggested to me that I set aside my own conscience and join the majority of members of Parliament in supporting Bill C-33. To that I say no, Mr. Speaker, emphatically, no.

In his famous play, "A Man For All Seasons", Robert Bolt has Thomas More say words to this effect when faced with a similar dilemma: "I think that when in the performance of his public duties, a man ignores his private conscience, he leads his country on a short route to chaos".

I reject the invitations to ignore my own conscience. No, I will not ignore what I believe in all sincerity to be true. I must and I do oppose Bill C-33. In doing so I firmly believe that I support a higher good, the traditional heterosexual family.

Much has been made of the fact that for many years several conventions of the Liberal Party have endorsed an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act such as that which we debate today. Allow me to remind the House of three relevant facts.

First, the commitment to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation was not in the Liberal red book on which our party campaigned and on which we were elected in 1993.

Second, such a commitment was not in the speech from the throne of February 1996 when the government's priorities were enunciated for Canadians.

Third, the Ontario wing of the Liberal Party of Canada at its recent convention in Windsor passed a resolution calling on the Government of Canada to promote and protect the traditional heterosexual family. In my view and that of many Canadians, including Liberals, Bill C-33 is not in the spirit of said resolution.

As my constituents know, I made known publicly my intention to vote against Bill C-33 early on in this important debate. The response from my constituents has been very heavy and overwhelmingly in support of my position. In fact, the ratio of favourable to unfavourable input from my constituents has been ten to one. Any individual or group claiming that Canadians support Bill C-33 could not have consulted with the people of London, Ontario and the surrounding region.

While these people oppose discrimination, as do I, they share my serious concerns that this bill could lead to a series of changes in our society which they find to be completely negative and unacceptable.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I noted that the member put great emphasis on the fact that he had received a great amount of mail in support of his position against the bill. I would like to ask him if he feels that type of mail would be indicative of all the mail which MPs are receiving from across the country and that his colleagues would be receiving at this point in time.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The simple answer is yes. I feel that very much is the case.

In all honesty I have to say that I think the opinions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast are simply being either misunderstood or misrepresented. I do not believe that if Canadians took a look at the possible ramifications of this bill we would get anywhere near the level of support that the so-called pollsters are saying is there. I simply do not believe that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall we call it 5.15?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order made Wednesday, May 8, 1996, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to complete the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.