Bill Graham

[Kosovo, October 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his positive contribution to the debate and his usual insightful observations about the situation we have to talk about tonight.

I have been listening to the debate tonight and, if I may say, I have been impressed with the change in the attitude of the Reform Party. In earlier debates we had on Bosnia and other issues there was a great deal of reticence about the engagement of Canada. I now notice that the party of which the member is a prominent member is much more active in recognizing the engagement of Canada in the world and our necessity to participate.

I listened carefully to the words of the member of parliament for Red Deer who represents the member's party as its foreign affairs spokesman. I noticed perhaps a slight nuance between the member who just spoke and the member for Red Deer.

I felt that the member for Red Deer was saying that if we act without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, which as the foreign minister clearly indicated is probably unlikely because of the position both of Russia and possibly of China, that will cause a great deal of problems for us and for the United Nations in the long run. The member himself was much more aggressive in saying that we must act and we must act now if we are to answer to the humanitarian requirements of this terrible situation.

Can he help us with his view as to how he believes this will impact on the relationship between Canada and the United Nations and other countries in the region if NATO moves in a somewhat more ambiguous area than one that would be given the comfort of a cover of a firm security council resolution?

[Kosovo, October 7th, 1998]

Ask for unanimous consent.

[Housing, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Toronto Centre—Rosedale is home to many diverse co-operative housing units. In bringing together people from different backgrounds in a secure housing environment, co-ops play an important role in providing stable communities in our fragile inner cities. The people who live there genuinely seek to improve their communities.

As we await the report of the Advisory Council on Social Housing Reform and the Ontario government's response to it, we find that the Ontario government, by downloading the responsibility for social housing to the municipalities, has created serious difficulties in how to deal with both social housing generally and co-ops in a way that ensures the viability of this important Canadian resource.

Co-operative housing is a unique form of housing. It is an important component in any comprehensive social housing policy. All levels of government together with the co-operative housing movement must work together to craft a viable and thoughtful solution to this issue, one that will preserve this important and unique form of housing.

[Special Import Measures Act, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member on his thorough comments on the bill. It reflects very much the constructive way in which the members from his party participated in the discussions which we had on this matter before the trade committee when these proposals were originally being considered.

The member was not a member of that committee but he may recall that his party, as was pointed out by the member for Brandon—Souris when he spoke earlier this morning, filed a dissenting report to the committee's report with respect to the bill outlining the recommendations made to the government.

Curiously enough, the Reform Party's recommendations drew to the attention of the committee and thus to the House, when it was filed here with the House, the fact that when dealing with the United States it is important that we deal with it in a calm, measured and appropriate way.

In the subcommittee dissent the Reform Party pointed out that getting tough with the Americans could be a strategic error. Its report states: “And since we rely so much more on exports than do the Americans, the damage to the entire economy in such a process of escalating SIMA type trade disputes could damage seriously the entire Canadian economy. Thus getting tough with the Americans would be a mistake. Rather we should work through proper channels. We share this opinion and urge the government to resist the demand for using tough measures with the Americans”.

What was good about that is good about the process where we are dealing with the Americans today over transborder transfer of grain and meat into the United States. It is exactly the same problem.

This government is suggesting we work through proper channels. We use our legal remedies. We are not going to sit and be shouted at and told we have do something dramatic or crazy. That was the position of the Reform Party in that. I suggest it should be its position today. What does the member think of that?

[Petitions, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of some of my constituents I wish to present petitions concerning the Kosovo crisis. The petitioners have specific recommendations for the Canadian government which they believe will encourage a peaceful solution to the problems in that region.

[Schizophrenia, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, schizophrenia is a devastating illness which has severe mental, physical and emotional consequences not only for those who suffer but for their families, friends and for society in general. Their suffering is made worse by the social stigma which sadly still attaches to people with mental illness. Approximately one out of one hundred Canadians will suffer from this disease in their lifetime.

Because schizophrenia often causes a lifetime of mental and physical health problems, the treatment costs to society are exorbitant, and because schizophrenics tend to have poor employment prospects, decades of productivity are lost for each patient, which just adds to the very high costs borne by society.

Schizophrenia causes acute suffering, increased homelessness and chronic unemployment. It is essential that more resources be allocated to research so that a cure may be found for this terrible disease.

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I answered that question when I first started. Parliament has supremacy in the legislative functions we exercise subject to the constraints we chose freely to impose upon ourselves through the charter, the supreme law of the land. The same is true of all provincial legislatures. The same is true of ours. Unless we choose to adopt the notwithstanding clause we have accepted to fetter our jurisdiction in that way, and I have no trouble with that.

I think the hon. member is operating from a false premise. He says we have spoken on the issue and the courts have gone against how we spoke. We have not spoken on the issue since parliament adopted the Human Rights Act amendments in a free vote, not imposed by the front bench.

The House will remember very well that it was a free vote. There was a lot of controversy here as to whether or not it should be a free vote. Many people felt it should not have been. The fact that it was a free vote, and that 75% of members of the House at that time said they were not in favour of discriminatory measures of the type we are hearing about today, sent a clear message to us as legislators and to the courts that the Rosenberg decision as it stands is consistent with the mood of the House. It is consistent with the mood of the country and it is consistent with the basic principles which govern us as a democratic society.

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very reasonable question. It is something we have to discuss in the House.

My first principle is that we passed the charter. We cannot interpret the charter ourselves. We gave the courts the responsibility of interpreting the charter. The time will come when a case similar to that of his mother and aunt living together in similar circumstances might arise. They could go to a Canadian court to say they should not be discriminated against when other groups in society are not being discriminated against. They may well find the law at that point, as the court in the Rosenberg case decided, fits them within it. If that is what the courts say I will support it wholeheartedly. I will support it in the House. I will support it as a matter of public policy.

I do not think it will cost the exchequer of the country enormous amounts of money. It will provide an opportunity for people who are living together in similar circumstances and have made similar contributions to society to be recognized in our laws.

I cannot prejudge what a court would say. I can say that it is the type of issue I would be more than happy to discuss with the member. It is perfectly reasonable. If we could keep our discussion on that sort of level we would all be much further ahead in the House.

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Oh, yes, you are. You have not read the Rosenberg and the Supreme Court of Canada decisions which clearly say that these measures are discriminatory and cannot be saved under section 1 of the charter. They can only be saved under section 7 if they are to be justified in a reasonable and democratic society which our courts have said they cannot.

Let me finish with my point and then we can engage in this debate further about the nature of the charter, the nature of the courts and ourselves.

Let us talk for a moment about ordinary people trying to work and live in our society and trying to create a life for themselves. These are decent everyday people who are saying “I do not understand something. I am working and paying into a pension plan. I do not get the same tax treatment as somebody else”. This is not a case about family values in the sense that the member is trying to cast it. This is not a threat to the traditional family. I do not believe that the traditional families in my riding of Toronto Centre—Rosedale believe that their existence is so fragile that it has to be built by discriminating against somebody else. That is not the nature of traditional family values.

The traditional family values in our country are ones of tolerance, of working with one another, of trying to work out our differences, of working out how we can survive together. The best employers in the city of Toronto follow these principles. I speak of the University of Toronto and other employers, but I also speak of the Toronto Sun which does not happen to be known as being a paragon of crazy Liberal values.

The Toronto Sun does its best to ensure that its employees are not discriminated against in their pension benefits. Why? Because it wants to hire the very best people. The city of Toronto almost unanimously—only two councillors voted against it on Friday—voted on the issue we are talking about today. They said they did not want as a city to be paying taxes and into benefit systems which could not guarantee that their employees of whatever nature would be treated on the same basis.

That is what we are talking about. That is what the Government of Nova Scotia was talking about when it adopted a similar measure recently. Nobody was talking about destroying family values.

I can understand why Reformers want to cloak this issue in family values. In that way they can rally around people who are frightened and who are seriously worried about what is happening in society. I am as concerned as they are about divorce rates, family break-ups and other issues of that nature. To suggest they are talking about how people will be treated economically is a mistake. I say that sincerely because I believe they are seeking to use the example of family values on the backs of other people to discriminate against them.

The member who spoke before me spoke about family values and the definition of spouse. I can remember when I was a young law student that the definition of spouse at that time would not have included common law spouses. It would not have included men and women living together for more than three, four or five years and contributing together in circumstances that were not part of the traditional family. The Income Tax Act and other acts in those days discriminated against such people.

We have learned since then that we must recognize the right of Canadians to be able to choose their own lives. I am surprised by the Reform Party which is always talking about getting the state out of the face of people and getting the government away from dictating how they should live.

I suggest the true social engineer is the Reform Party. It is not us who say do not let individuals choose their lives when they are not harming anyone and are making a contribution to society. It is Reform members when they stand in the House to say they want to social engineer us into living in a certain type of relationship or being discriminated against in terms of pensions in other benefits. That is the true social engineering of the Reform Party.

It is a mistake on behalf of Reformers to bring forward the motion at this time. They have misread the nature of the Rosenberg decision and the nature of the mood of our country and of the House. Let us live with tolerance and encourage citizens who are willing to work and live together to create constructive social units in our cities and in our rural areas and make real contributions to the country. Let them be a part of the Canadian family. Let them all work together. Let us all work together to create that type of society, not a discriminatory one.

I am reminded that I am to split my time with the member for Windsor—St. Clair.

[Supply, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member who last spoke did concede that this is an issue which we should be discussing and that we are on solid ground.

Let us talk for a moment in this House about the Rosenberg decision and what we are trying to achieve in the House. Rosenberg was a decision by one of the highest and most respected courts in this country. It was about the interpretation of the charter, the fundamental document which governs us in our democratic society. It guarantees that this legislature and all legislatures across the country will conduct themselves in accordance with the principles which govern us as Canadian citizens and as legislatures.

I believe that that charter decision was right. I believe that it was right in what it was stating about us and our society. It was right about what it was trying to do in ensuring that people were not discriminated against because from a practical point of view it does not make sense in today's world, and I will come back to that point. It is right in principle and it is right about what it is doing in society. It is right about what it is doing in my riding of Toronto Centre—Rosedale and in all members' ridings in terms of people who are living in similar circumstances who are paying taxes, leading decent lives and who have a right to be treated the same as everybody else.

To go back to the issue of which is supreme, the courts or parliament, I made this point when I asked the member my question. In my view the charter is supreme. Parliament spoke. The people of this country approved of the charter. We as legislators and the legislatures of the various provinces approved of the charter precisely because the people were aware that one day people could stand up and make the allegations of the type that are being made in this House. The people were aware that they wanted a bulwark of courts and law to stand between them and the type of rhetoric we have been listening to this afternoon.

When it is said the charter is being misinterpreted by the court in the Rosenberg decision, where were those members when we adopted the changes to the human rights act? I was in the House that night. Seventy-five per cent of the members in the House voted in favour of changing the human rights act to provide against discrimination. They represented the will of the Canadian people. When the Rosenberg judges read what we were doing in this House and they made that decision, they were saying Canadians do not believe in discrimination and that they as the courts are not in the business of enforcing it. If you read that decision—