Mr. Speaker, this has become an extremely controversial debate. However, my constituents in Hamilton West will know I have never shied away from addressing important issues such as this one.
They will know I have consulted with many of them and I have read their correspondence. My constituents know where their MP stands on the issues.
My constituents are entitled to know my position on Bill C-33. Therefore I consider it a privilege in the House today to clarify my reasons for voting in favour of the proposed amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Amid the current angst over same sex relationships and other related issues, it seems rational considerations have been overshadowed by narrow minded, sometimes self-righteous statements from some members in this place. As opposed to embracing one of the conveniently packaged positions, for example the news headlines that scream out right wing fundamentalist homophobe or gay rights activist, it is worthwhile to examine Bill C-33 for what it is. It is an act to amend the human rights act.
It is truly unfortunate that the central focus of the bill has been distorted by other peripheral issues. In recent days I, like many of the other members in the House, have received phone calls and letters from individuals in my riding who have some very passionate but often ill informed views on this issue.
As a member of Parliament I am concerned about the general welfare of my constituents. Consequently from time to time I, like many of my colleagues on this side of the House, do everything I can to help my constituents address various needs and deficiencies related to the federal government and federally regulated services and operations.
In keeping with this I am primarily concerned with identifying how the proposed legislation, the bill before us today, will help us ensure federally regulated workplaces are tolerant and free from unwarranted discrimination.
I take this opportunity to address some of the specific concerns raised in various letters I have received from my constituents with respect to Bill C-33. For example, in their letter John and Judy wrote: "It is only used to promote tolerance for a particular lifestyle today. What will it protect tomorrow, pedophilia, incest? Also, we feel it will break down the family unit which God has instituted from the very beginning. Why should we pay for benefits for same sex couples when our country is in debt already?"
Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It is a crime. It is a crime regardless of whether the offender is heterosexual or homosexual. The suggestion that pedophilia may be read into the phrase sexual orientation has no legal basis.
Seven provinces have had similar wording entrenched in human rights legislation for almost two decades. In that time the term of sexual orientation has never been used as a defence against criminal charges of pedophilia. Clearly pedophilia would not be protected by human rights legislation under any circumstances.
With regard to the definition of the family, no changes are planned or necessary as a result of this amendment.
On the issue of same sex spousal benefits, the amendment will not extend same sex benefits to partners of gays and lesbians. On this point it should be noted that in Egan v. Canada the Supreme Court of Canada held unanimously that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination under the equality provision, section 15, of the charter. In that case the court also held that such discrimination did not support the extension of pension benefits to same sex partners.
In another letter, Ruth wrote: "I do not desire the bill to be made law that gives homosexuals equal rights to be married and adopt children".
First of all, marriage and adoption fall under provincial jurisdiction. This amendment deals with discrimination in employment, accommodation and provision of services, and nothing else. It does not condone or condemn homosexuality or heterosexuality.
In his letter, Norman wrote: "This addition removes the right of upright individuals to teach and practise moral convictions based on the truth of the Holy Bible simply to accommodate individuals practising the most loathsome, unnatural and filthy lifestyle".
On the same point, Paul wrote: "In all probability it will be illegal to teach, even in places of worship, that homosexuality is immoral, even though this is clearly the doctrine of many faiths, including Christianity".
It should be noted, however, that churches, religious organizations and schools are not under the federal jurisdiction. The amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act will not affect the way they teach or the way they operate.
Throughout this debate there has been confusion with the provision of special privileges or immunities and prohibiting discrimination. The bill represents the latter and not the former. The Canadian Human Rights Act and the amendment we are speaking of today are intended to prohibit acts of discrimination based on, among other things, age, race, religion, colour and sexual orientation.
As evidenced by the recent racist and homophobic remarks uttered by several members in the Reform Party, it appears we need legislation just like this in order to illustrate in very clear terms our distaste for discrimination and the rejection of racist and homophobic attitudes in society.
Once again to be clear, the purpose of this legislation is to make certain that workplaces in federally regulated industries are tolerant and free of unwarranted discrimination. The clear majority of Canadians support this amendment and have for many years according to various opinion polls. Most people do not even consider the issue to be extremely controversial.
I am proud my colleagues on this side of the House and some of the more progressive members opposite have shown such overwhelming support for the government's attempts to protect the basic human rights of our fellow citizens.
In the first session of the 35th Parliament the government passed legislation to toughen sentences for hate crimes and moved to address the needs of vulnerable communities in society. Not only does the government realize that discrimination exists in society, but we are ready, willing and able to deal with it head on through the legislative process.