Réal Ménard

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, although I am extremely pleased to rise today to speak to this motion, I do so with some sadness.

I do so with some sadness because I cannot imagine how this debate can take place in this Parliament where sat Henri Bourassa, in this Parliament whose members, especially those on the government side, extol the merits of democracy in detail at every opportunity. What is democracy if not our collective ability to decide what we are?

Do you think that, if Henri Bourassa, Lionel Groulx, André Laurendeau, René Lévesque were taking part in this debate, they would not say that each of them worked in his own way, in accordance with his own philosophy and through his own contribution to political life, so that in the end we Quebecers can democratically-repeat, democratically-determine our own future?

I cannot imagine for a single moment, even during my most eccentric musings, that there are Quebecers in this House who, like us, received a public mandate under the election process and who do not fully agree with the underlying philosophy behind the motion put forward by the official opposition, which we are reiterating very clearly. The fact that the official opposition in this Parliament was democratically elected on the basis of a very clear program, which, as you know, is still to promote Quebec's interests and ultimately to achieve statehood, is quite meaningful.

I hope that all of us tonight will have a sense of history and agree with the current Prime Minister's diagnostic at a public meeting in Alma in the early 1970s, when he said: "Let us be democratic". He was right to say that. The intensity of constitutional options can never compete with what should be the purpose of communities, namely the ability to recognize a democracy freely expressed through its most legal forum, a referendum.

That is what the Prime Minister said in 1970 and that is what we want to see recognized. That is why, in our opinion and in the opinion of others-But I challenge any member of this House, including Quebec members, to find a single decision maker-be it an editorialist, a journalist or a member of the business community-who supports what the Canadian government is about to do by getting involved in the Bertrand court case.

No one supported this decision. Even La Presse , which is not known for its sovereignist sympathies, said, through some of its editorial writers, that this approach was stupid. Why is it stupid? Because we know full well that international treaties recognize the right to self-determination.

The people on the other side are proud to say that Canada contributes $200 million to the operations budget of the United Nations, they are proud to uphold international law along with its main supporters at the United Nations, and that reminds me of what the Secretary General of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, said when he came to Montreal. He said that the most accomplished type of collective organization, even though we are at the dawn of a new century, is still sovereignty.

Here is what he said and what caught our attention. He said: "Sovereignty is the basic principle of universal organization. It is the art of making equal powers that are not equal." That is what we have in Canada, two nations within the same political organization. There cannot be two nations within the same political organization, because one is then subordinate to the other.

In essence, with this motion today and with the message it has conveyed here for the last three years, the Bloc has remained loyal to these principles and to the principles of international law.

The principles of international law and international covenants stipulate two things concerning human rights, and especially the right to self-determination. When one reads about international law, it is interesting to see-and I have the privilege of sitting next to a legal expert-that it is always subject to human rights. This is so true that this issue is always discussed, year after year, at the International Conference on Human Rights in Geneva.

So there is a very important relationship between human rights, collective rights and the right to self-determination which, according to the UN charter, is the first attribute of peoples.

If we follow the government's logic, it means that, by the end of the day, unless the Liberals are hypocrites, which is always a possibility, they should, if they are logical with themselves, rise in this House and say that they do not believe Quebecers are a people. From the moment it is recognized that Quebecers are a people, it means that they have a right to self-determination even under major international law.

The right to self-determination is not always but often exercised through a referendum. But the law also says, and I think this should be our first consideration in this House, that the right to self-determination, in addition to the legal considerations, is first and foremost a matter of political legitmacy, which can be exercised under certain conditions.

Of course, you need to have a history. You need to control a territory. You need to have the will to live together collectively. You need to have a legal tradition and, once sovereignty is achieved-and this was said clearly by the Bélanger-Campeau Commission and was repeated many times during the referendum debate-you need to have effective control of a territory under the state continuity rules.

Which member will rise in this House, whether he is from Ontario, Newfoundland or the Magdalen Islands, and say that Quebec does not meet these conditions?

What interest does the government have in joining forces with the man who will no doubt go down in history as the greatest crank of our times?

I remember very well that in 1987, just to give you a few biographical details, I was responsible for running Francine Lalonde's campaign for the leadership of the Parti Quebecois, and I came into contact with Guy Bertrand, who had just been campaign-

ing all over Quebec telling us that we had the right to decide our own future.

This man ran for the leadership of the Parti Quebecois on a single theme, Quebec's right to decide its own future. He was so all over the map that, had we been in a different century, he would have been sent to see a doctor. But we are not in another century, and everyone has the freedom of expression.

That being said, there is something deeply offensive and hurtful in the action taken by the justice minister, who has always seemed a courteous man, and the approval given by this government, in trying through legal subterfuge, to deny Quebec's right to decide its own future. If the action by the Government of Canada is taken all the way, I can certainly promise you that something very serious will happen in our political society, both for Quebec and for Canada, and that will be the refusal to recognize the legitimacy of this decision.

It is not true that since 1960-there are even people who trace the quest for sovereignty back to the 18th century-well, certainly for 30 years, Quebecers have been preparing themselves as they have, only to be denied the right to self-determination, now that they have democratically elected representatives to this House.

Still, it is sad that the government has been so lacking in judgement, perception and the most basic political tact, that it has failed to recognize that this is a profound question of political legitimacy. It is not by trying to transfer the debate to the legal arena that the government will achieve its ends.

You know, not more than two years ago, there was a declaratory judgment, because a member of the First Nations, Ovide Mercredi, not to name names, also tried to have a possible referendum declared unconstitutional. The judiciary was extremely clear on this subject, by virtue of what democracy is, but also by virtue of what should prevail in a society such as ours, that is the distinction between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature.

So let us hear from these Liberal MPs with ridings in Quebec, in the coming days, in a public forum-they can choose the time, the date, the place-let them tell Quebecers they do not have the right to decide their own future. Let them come and say it in Montreal or in the regions. Let them for one moment tell Quebecers that they do not exist as a people, that what they have accomplished over the last 30 years is all in their heads, a political fantasy.

It takes a justice minister from Toronto, a Prime Minister like the one we have now with his own very personal view of history, to support a motion such as the one before us, which is profoundly irresponsible and profoundly disrespectful towards Quebec.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 9th, 1996]

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?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 9th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech. I also appreciated his efforts to deliver a few words in French and would like to tell him his French is excellent and that I have no doubt things will improve. As the member knows, I try to speak English. I am taking courses three days a week at 8 a.m., with the firm objective of becoming perfectly bilingual within two years. This, however, is not the subject of today's debate.

There is no way we can forget that all sorts of remarks have been made on the subject of Bill C-33 in the past two weeks, since the debate got under way. Some remarks have caused us to grow, some have caused us to blanch and some have caused us outrage.

I would like to continue in the same vein as the hon. parliamentary secretary and try today to remain very generous, very open in what I have to say and try especially to put a number of things back into context.

I would recall that our debate today concerns an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act. So we are not talking about the charter. Sometimes journalists and perhaps our fellow Canadians get these two mixed up, but the act is an organic law with the same status as all the laws we pass in this Parliament. The difference between it and the Canadian Charter of Human Rights is that the charter is enshrined in the Constitution and cannot be amended without a round of constitutional negotiations and the use of the seven and fifty amending formula, which requires seven provinces representing fifty per cent of the population to approve any amendment to the Constitution Act of 1982, which is the country's supreme law.

That said, the Canadian Human Rights Act is a very important act because it is one way we have as parliamentarians to put a stop to potential discrimination in this country. There are in fact three ways to do this: the charter, of course, which has already been mentioned; the Canadian Bill of Rights, which was passed in the early 1960s by the Diefenbaker government and which continues to apply; and the Canadian Human Rights Act, which, and I do not think it can ever be said clearly enough, applies to firms under federal jurisdiction and to individuals receiving services from the federal government. So, we are talking about some 10 per cent of Canadian workers.

The Canadian Human Rights Act has been in existence since 1977. It is worth remembering that, first, when the Canadian Human Rights Act first came into effect-I was rereading the 1977 debates-some parliamentarians proposed including sexual orientation with the nine other prohibited grounds for discrimination. For a whole lot of reasons that do not warrant going over this morning, it was not possible. What we are doing today as parliamentarians-a little later in the day, at 5.30 p.m., if my information is correct-is changing the Canadian Human Rights Act to include an 11th item in the list of prohibited grounds for discrimination.

Now, let us have a closer look. What is discrimination, under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which applies to businesses under federal jurisdiction and to people receiving services from the federal government? Discrimination is defined as follows, and I think we should bear the definition in mind during the debate. To discriminate against someone is to treat that person in a different,

negative or unfavourable manner, for no valid reason. When the courts have had to interpret discrimination they, of course, stumbled over two elements of the definition: "to treat" and "no valid reason".

As we are speaking, there are prohibited grounds of discrimination and I want to mention them. There is of course discrimination based on race. As we know, an extreme form of such discrimination can lead to tragic cases of intolerance, as we have seen all too often during this century. Then there is national or ethnic origin. No one can be deprived of services or discriminated against regarding employment, based on his or her race, national or ethnic origin, or colour. This reminds me of comments made by some members which were, and I know you will agree, absolutely unacceptable in Parliament and in society in general. Then there is religion. Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, it is prohibited to discriminate against someone on the basis of religion.

Then there is age. As we know, it is because this is in the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination that the government cannot, for example, force an individual to retire at age 65. Madam Speaker, you could, if it is the voters' wish and yours as well, remain in the Chair beyond the age of 65.

Then there is sex, including the fact that one is pregnant. Other prohibited grounds are marital status, family status and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted. Indeed, all those who were found guilty by the courts and who served a jail sentence, but were then granted a pardon under the established practice in our legal system, cannot be discriminated against because they have been granted such a pardon. Physical or mental disability is of course another important item on the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

What the bill seeks to do is to add sexual orientation to this list. The parliamentary secretary mentioned it earlier. I think we have to say it, and I agree with the government. There are certain issues regarding which I fully endorse the government's views. Then, of course, there are others regarding which I do not want to be associated with it. However, this time, it would have been a serious mistake on the government's part to try to define sexual orientation.

Why not define sexual orientation? First, because between 1977 and 1993, out of the seven provinces and one territory that sought to provide such protection regarding sexual orientation in their human rights code, none defined sexual orientation. They did not include a definition because, given existing legal precedents, this expression clearly refers to three possibilities: homosexuality, heterosexuality and, of course, bisexuality.

The saddest thing that has gone on in this debate, where certain members, which the most elementary courtesy prevents me from naming, have unforgivably overstepped the bounds, is of course the absolutely ridiculous, idiotic, confused and unfounded connections made between the protection we want given on the basis of sexual orientation, and pedophilia.

I rely on all the strength of my convictions in telling members and listeners that there is no possible connection between what we are now discussing and pedophilia. And do you know why? For two reasons. First, because it is very clear, as both the parliamentary secretary and the justice minister have said, that what is prohibited under the Criminal Code will, in all circumstances, continue to be prohibited.

It is very clear, under the Criminal Code, under conventions, in the case law, that pedophilia is an offence. There is not a living soul, and certainly not the one now speaking to you, who, however liberal he might be, is going to tell us today that protecting people against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the work place or in the delivery of services by the federal government will lead to the recognition of pedophilia.

Pedophilia is a criminal offence. Not only is it a criminal offence, but I challenge-I do not know if I may do so through you, but I challenge-any member of the Reform Party to rise in this House, with statistics to back him up, and to put his seat on the line and table studies or rulings showing that either administrative or legal tribunals have, in the past, offered protection on the basis of sexual orientation to pedophiles. It has never happened, and it cannot happen, because pedophilia is a criminal offence and must continue to be one.

It must continue to be a criminal offence because it depends on the exploitation of a child by an adult. Once there is exploitation, non-consent, and this is true for rape, it is very clear that the provisions of the Criminal Code come into play. I find it utterly dishonest, and I am being polite, to make the sorts of comparisons that have been made by certain members of the Reform Party.

It is not only dishonest, but irresponsible. It is irresponsible because it suggests that all homosexuals are pedophiles. Furthermore, according to the rigorous studies that have been conducted, 98 per cent of all pedophilia charges laid in the last 20 years-not last year, not two years ago, but in the last 20 years-were laid against heterosexuals. Make no mistake: 9.8 out of 10 people who commit the crime of pedophilia are heterosexuals.

I am not saying that our society must not try to rehabilitate pedophiles. It is clear that it is a deviant behavior, that it is truly

pathological in the etymological sense of the word, but, for pity's sake, let us be responsible and stop drawing parallels that are not supported by jurisprudence, psychology or criminal law.

Although the government should probably have acted earlier, I am happy that it has finally done so. What matters is the outcome. The government knows it could not find a better ally in this debate than me, but why did it have to introduce a bill like Bill C-33? Because people forget-I do not want to alarm you with this, because I know you have many other concerns-that the Canadian Human Rights Act is unconstitutional. That is a fact.

In 1992, the Court of Appeal of Ontario ruled that some of the provisions in the Canadian Human Rights Act were unconstitutional.

Let me remind the House of the events that led to that point. In 1990, an officer in the Canadian Forces-"there's no life like it"-went to see his commanding officer and told him he was homosexual. The year was 1990, and the commanding officer applied a directive. He did his duty in applying the directive then in force in the Canadian Forces. Although it is no longer in force, that 1990 directive provided for the demobilization-that is the word used in the directive-of those members of the Canadian Forces who declared themselves or were presumed to be homosexual.

The officer in question, Mr. Haig, brought the case before the courts. Officer Haig was demobilized. He tried to avail himself of a provision and filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The commission was unable to hear his case because there were no grounds for filing grievances based on sexual orientation.

Officer Haig tried to avail himself of the protection based on marital status but his complaint was rejected. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, which is in fact an administrative tribunal, suggested that Mr. Haig, who was demobilized because he had admitted being homosexual, take his grievance to an ordinary court of law.

So the legal saga from an administrative tribunal to the Court of Appeal of Ontario led to some of the provisions in the Canadian Human Rights Act being ruled unconstitutional.

I do not remember whether the decision was unanimous or not, but the fact remains that the Court of Appeal of Ontario ruled that, under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms-which the parliamentary secretary was referring to earlier and which, as you may recall, came into force in 1985 and is part of the Constitution-every individual is equal before the law.

That is why, since 1992, not only has the Canadian Human Rights Act been declared unconstitutional, but also it has become common practice to construe that the charter and the Canadian Human Rights Act should be read as including sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

In 1992, Kim Campbell was the Minister of Justice. This may be a good or a bad memory for this House, but the historical fact remains that Ms. Campbell was the Minister of Justice at the time. Kim Campbell, as the Minister of Justice, decided-and we should be grateful to her for this-not to appeal the case. As a result, not only did the Ontario court's decision become binding in Ontario, but Ms. Campbell decided to make it binding across Canada.

That is why the government decided, in its generosity, to include sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act. In fact, legally speaking, and I know that the hon. parliamentary secretary's many qualifications include a law degree, we had no choice but to make this change.

I have followed the debates on Bill C-33 assiduously, as you know. I was here the whole time, but not once did Reform members rise to call attention to this obligation. Not once did they take the logical line of reasoning of saying that, parliamentarians' wishes aside, what we are about to do a few hours from now-and there is no doubt that we will win this battle-is to bring the legislation in line with a decision made by a court, a court of appeal, an ordinary court of law, namely the Court of Appeal of Ontario.

I think that our viewers, anyone who is concerned with human rights must be reminded of these historical facts.

We started down the slippery slope of confusion and dismay the moment you and those before you gave the floor to the Reform Party. Then we heard about everything but the kitchen sink. We were threatened with just about everything except being prohibited from eating our Corn Flakes with milk, if this bill went through. Canada was going to turn into some kind of Liberia and was facing potential anarchy.

Fortunately, this debate is an opportunity to get our facts straight. First, let their be no mistake. I think it must be out of some freudian obsession that every member of the Reform Party told us the definition of marriage would be altered if this bill were passed. I bet you a quart of beer of your choice, Madam Speaker, that the next Reformer to speak after me will make the same point.

We must bear two things in mind. First, the solemnization of marriage comes under provincial jurisdiction. Second, nothing in this bill-it is merely three clauses long; it cannot be all that

difficult to read-will in any way, shape or form, directly or indirectly, change the definition of marriage.

In fact, if the government had wanted, which is doubtful, to make any change to the concept of marriage, its decision would most likely have been invalidated. Do you know why? Because, in 1995, last year then, a judgment was handed down under common law. I wish to dedicate this judgment to my Reformer friends.

In the matter of Layland and Beaulne versus the Province of Ontario, the claimants challenged under section 15 of the charter, to which I referred earlier-it provides for equality for all and therefore protects against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation-the requirement under common law that marriage be the joining of a man and a woman in matrimony.

The charter, which is enshrined in the Constitution, takes precedence over any other act. In essence, the Layland and Beaulne judgment said the following: "The restriction imposed by common law in that marriage must be entered into by persons of different sexes does not constitute discrimination against the claimants in violation of section 15 of the act".

Until now, no court of justice has ever sought to change the definition of marriage under section 15, and it is unlikely that we should ever see such a ruling. Of course, other countries in the world, such as Denmark and Norway, while not allowing same sex marriages, do authorize declarations of civil union. This is not a sacrament: it is a declaration of civil union allowing spouses to enter into a mutually benefitting contract.

I tried to be as clear as possible in making this clarification. I hope that those who are listening, including Reform Party members, will understand that this bill does not change the notion of marriage. There are legal precedents in these countries and, without predicting the future, I think that if a fellow Canadian, whether from Newfoundland, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan or anywhere else, were to attempt, under the Canadian legislation or the charter, to change the notion of marriage, there are firm guarantees that, under the common law, a marriage can only take place between two people of opposite sex.

This is not to say that I am not personally in favour of giving some guarantees to same sex spouses. I even tabled a bill to this effect. However, this is another issue, and it definitely does not involve marriage. These clarifications had to be made regarding the case law and the justice system.

Another often heard misconception is that, should the legislation go through, the family will suddenly, as if by magic, be undermined in our country.

First of all, this bill concerns individuals. Those who file complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission involving possible challenges relating to sexual orientation are definitely individuals. In recent years, such complaints accounted for 4 to 10 per cent of the total number.

Second, there is no reason to believe that a bill such as this one will allow us to redefine or to undermine the family. The justice minister, unnecessarily in my view, played it safe and added a preamble stating that the family remains the basis, the foundation of Canadian society.

I am not necessarily any happier that this preamble is there, because I do not think it is necessary. But it is there, so be it, and we are not going to amend it, we will live with it.

So, there is confusion between couples and families. It is true that, in the past, the Canadian Human Rights Act-in fact, not just the Canadian Human Rights Act, but various administrative tribunals, including certain labour relations boards-has forced employers to give certain benefits to same sex partners.

You are indicating that I have only ten minutes left, Madam Speaker. How time flies. I wonder if there would be consent to let me have more time. I would guess not. I will therefore try to wrap up my remarks, but ten minutes is more than I need.

The fact is that certain rulings have been made under the Canadian Human Rights Act by tribunals throughout the country, particularly administrative tribunals, allowing certain benefits to same sex partners, in the case of dental or health insurance for example. That is true, it would be dishonest not to mention it, but that in no way changes the definition of the family.

A couple is a couple. It is true that I myself think that a couple can consist of a man and a woman, two men, or two women, but this does not constitute a family.

However much of an activist I may be, recognition of same sex partners will not lead me to say that two lesbians or two homosexuals constitute a family. It is not true, and it is not what we are talking about in this bill.

I think another distinction should be made. You will remember that in 1985 a parliamentary committee toured Canada. It included the member for Mount Royal, whom I would like to salute, because of her strong commitment in recent years to promoting human rights. The year 1985, you will remember, was the year section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect. It identified various discrimination scenarios, scenarios that continue to exist today.

Still, in 1995 and 1996, there are people who are not promoted because they are gay. There are people who are deprived of federal services because they are gay. There are people who are deprived of services. Not so long ago a group that was at my house reminded me that a priest of a parish, a parish I will not name, had refused to

rent them a hall, because the group was openly identified with promoting homosexual rights.

We are, today, not only updating legislation, we are sending a very clear message to all elements of Canadian society that we as legislators cannot allow discrimination to continue.

Most important is the fact that we are able to work so that, in ten years, should we find ourselves again in the midst of a debate, things will have changed and people who are 14, 15 or 16 and discover they are homosexual may know that there are guarantees under the law and also that legislators, those who have a public voice, out of respect for the family and the constituent majority, will ensure that we may tell homosexuals they have their rightful place in society, like all taxpayers. They have a rightful place as producers, creators and citizens.

This is the most important aspect of the bill. Today as legislators, we will say on both sides of the House that we assume our responsibilities, that we disapprove of discrimination and that we want their rights and the services they receive protected under the federal system. We will not tolerate discrimination.

Allow me to close with one point. We had one day where we heard witnesses in parliamentary committee. There was a pediatrician from Calgary, a city represented by the Reform Party. I am going to talk to the Reformers and thus be out of order. The pediatrician in question is a university professor. He had done a longitudinal study, that is, one over several years. He reminded us that, in Canada, two million young people die by their own hand each year, for various reasons of course. Of these, 60 per cent, according to the professor from Calgary, are unable to cope with the discovery of their homosexuality.

This is what Bill C-33 is about. It, with a number of other measures, because the problem is not solved, will allow us to say to young people who are homosexual-Because do not think for an instant that it is a matter of choice, that you wake up one day and say: "Today I am homosexual, tomorrow I will be heterosexual, and on the weekend, who knows?"

But that is not the case. When one discovers one is homosexual-and, as you are aware, I know what I am talking about-one knows it is not a choice but a matter of predetermination. That is why Bill C-33 is important, because it will tell young people across the country-whether they live in rural or urban areas, whether they are students or workers, whether they want to become professionals or technicians-that we recognize their rights as first class citizens.

Not only do we recognize their rights as first class citizens, but we will not tolerate discrimination. Not only will we not tolerate discrimination, but we want them to succeed on the basis of what they are in their professional environments. I sincerely believe that all those in this House who will rise in a few hours to vote against this bill are committing a serious, an irreparable violation of human rights for which they will have to account some day.

I will say in closing that both the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Justice were very eloquent in this regard, and I hope that I too made some impression. What we are discussing today is legislative protection. Nothing in this bill will change the family. Nothing in this bill will prevent someone who is proud to be heterosexual but who is tolerant deep down inside from receiving services from the federal government or having the sex life he wants for himself.

May I make a final appeal to Reformers; I know there are generous people among them. I know that, like us all, they too were elected and that all of us in this House share the same mandate. To them I make a final appeal to review their position and vote in favour of this bill.

We may well disagree on economic policies or on the national issue. I, for one, will continue to defend my ideas on economic matters-which may sometimes go against those of the government-and I will remain a sovereignist. However, when we as parliamentarians witness open discrimination, we have a duty to help end these practices. To Reformers I make a final appeal to review their position and find it in their hearts to vote in favour of this bill.

[Department Of Labour Act, May 9th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-283, an act to amend the Department of Labour Act (eligibility for assistance for long-service employees).

Madam Speaker, I wish to introduce a bill aimed at modifying the POWA, or Program for Older Worker Adjustment, so as to change the rule of 100 that applies to cities whose population exceeds 500,000.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.)

[Equal Treatment Of People Cohabiting In A Relationship Similar To A Conjugal Relationship Act, May 9th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-282, an act providing for equal treatment of people cohabiting in a relationship similar to a conjugal relationship.

Madam Speaker, for the second time in this House, I am pleased to introduce a bill aimed at recognizing same sex partners. This bill would ensure that 53 definitions in Canadian legislation are amended so as to include homosexual relationships in the definition of conjugal relationship.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.)

[Canada Labour Code, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to say that the use of strike breakers aggravates labour disputes and that anti-scab legislation would contribute to establishing and maintaining civilized negotiations?

[Canada Labour Code, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.

The Sims report on part I of the Canada Labour Code was divided in its opinion on the use of replacement workers.

Could the Minister of Labour tell us his position on the use of replacement workers, commonly known as scabs. I would like a clear answer.

[Human Rights, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we now know the Reform Party's position regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation. The hon. member for Macleod, with a lack of consideration unworthy of a member of Parliament, has associated the word "sexuality" with disease and physical degeneration. Moreover, sounding quite sure of himself, he stated, and I quote:

The specific problems promoting this lifestyle relate to HIV, gay bowel syndrome, increasing parasitic infections, lowered life expectancy and finally, the one I have chosen to highlight today, an increase in hepatitis in Canada.

Not to be outdone, his colleague, the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette, said that if Canada went ahead and banned discrimination based on sexual orientation, it could well become the Liberia of North America.

These analogies are unacceptable. The Reform leader has more cleaning-up to do within his party.

[Child Labour, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to tell you that we will be supporting the bill introduced by the hon. member from the NDP, and we hope that this bill will be made votable.

I would like to mention that a few days ago a delegation of Canadian parliamentarians, including myself, went to Geneva to take part in the international conference on human rights. As part of this conference, we visited the International Labour Organisation.

I find it strange, to say the least, that the government is refusing to make this bill votable, because, and I will have an opportunity to explain this in some detail, the point was brought home to us, as Canadian parliamentarians, in figures we were given showing the International Labour Organisation's estimates of the extent of child labour in various countries throughout the world.

I should perhaps read a definition provided by the International Labour Organisation: "We consider child labour to be any economic activity performed by a person under the age of 15, regardless of their professional status". There is a clear definition. It is the economic activity performed by a person under the age of 15-not very old really-regardless of their professional status.

The International Labour Organisation estimated that, worldwide, in 1990, there were 78 million children under the age of 15 engaged in economic activities. And of these 78 million, close to 70 million were between the ages of 10 and 14. I think it is important to keep these figures in mind.

It must be noted that there is, throughout the world and particularly within the large UN agencies, a growing awareness that it is no longer acceptable for 78 million of the world's children to find themselves in the situation of having to choose between education and work.

As the mover of the motion perhaps mentioned in his remarks, Asia now holds the record for the largest number of child labourers. Sometimes, we might think that this is the fate of developing countries, that this is a reality not found in industrialized countries. I myself asked the question when I travelled to Geneva with a number of my colleagues, and I learned that there were companies in Ontario that exploited children, young children that are hired, particularly from immigrant families. I was told that this is also true in the United States, our neighbour to the south.

In the case of Turkey, the International Labour Organisation has more specific estimates showing that in 1994 8.3 per cent of children in that country were economically active. I think that it is important to know, as Canadian parliamentarians, that this is not just a fate that befalls children unfortunate enough to have been born in developing countries.

As a further point of interest, it is also known that children in rural areas are twice as active economically as those in urban areas. Still more interesting, because this gives us some idea of what we will have to do, or what we will have to subscribe to, at the next conference in Norway, to which our colleague has referred. Three-quarters of children involved in economic activity in the various countries around the world, those who make up the 78 million figure I have referred to, are engaged in family businesses.

This adds to the difficulty we will be facing, since there are all sorts of considerations relating to family life, life in cramped conditions, in short to the connections between a child and his immediate family. Three-quarters of children engaged in economic activity are involved in a family business, in very specific sectors such as the textile, garment or rug industries, as the motion's sponsor has mentioned, particularly in Egypt and India. They are also involved in making shoes.

It is important to understand that a connection has to be made in the understanding we members of Parliament must have of this reality between access to education and child labour.

When in Geneva, we came to understand that in the developing countries enrolling a child in primary school can take one-third of a family's cash income. Many of the households in question have a number of school aged children. This is why the International Labour Organization, in parallel with its efforts to help us in the rich countries understand how important it is for us to have solidarity around future child labour legislation in these countries, is making us see how closely related the issue is to education.

We are, I think, capable of understanding this as members of Parliament, particularly those of us who are from Quebec. It is not all that long ago that we too have had to do a lot of catching up as a society in the area of education. It is only when the conditions for

access to primary school are also addressed that it becomes possible to militate against child labour.

Let me remind you that only 68 per cent of children in the world finish primary school, whereas the rate is 95 per cent in industrialized countries. I think these figures remind us of the whole relationship to be made between child labour and education. There is also of course a link, as the mover and the parliamentary secretary have pointed out, between child labour and family poverty. There is also a link between child labour and the overall wealth of a family.

In studies done by the International Labour Organization, especially for countries like Bangladesh and India, child labour is closely linked to family survival.

There is good reason why the International Labour Organization, through its director general in Geneva, has made it clear that, even within the UN, the issue is extremely sensitive. It is one that strongly divides the rich and the poor countries, because the poor countries are not necessarily prepared to pass legislation.

This takes us back to the question of the transfer of wealth. What is the recommendation of the International Labour Organization? It asks us to set up an international organization and to establish a regulatory framework to monitor this issue. It reminds us that concerned governments should take three basic steps.

The first, obviously, is to establish legislation on child labour. The second is to establish a national policy on child labour that would set public priorities and mobilize society as a whole. The ILO also reminds us that funding for a system of primary education guaranteeing access to quality schools for all children is absolutely vital if the battle is to be won.

I thank the NDP member for introducing the motion. I hope it will be made a votable item, and I want to assure my colleague that the Bloc Quebecois is very concerned about this issue.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I do not know whether you understood the same thing as I, and perhaps there is a problem with the interpretation, where there is always a little time lag, but I believe that the hon. member is going a bit far in suggesting to us members some connection with societies in open ethnic conflict, certain African countries, and the question-