Réal Ménard

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

Madam Speaker, Reform members have, on several occasions, indicated that the Canadian AIDS Society, which you know, made a connection between being opposed to benefits for same sex couples and homophobia. Reference was made to the campaign conducted last year by the Canadian AIDS Society. I am asking the member to table the document he referred to.

I am asking the Chair to ask the member to table that document.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I deal with the real issue, I wish to draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that expressions such as "unhealthy lifestyle", which are used somewhat lightly by very light-headed Reformers, have no place in a debate like this one.

I can accept that people say they do not understand homosexuality, or that they have not been in contact with homosexuals. However, I believe that Reformers should be a little more polite and certainly more careful in their comments. I do realize that this is asking a lot from people who have been very biased since they set foot here, this according to their own leader.

Let us now turn our attention to the object of this debate. We are discussing a bill which seeks to prohibit any form of discrimination based on sexual orientation. All the amendments before us will only create confusion. They are intended by their authors, who have made a career of exploiting bias, to create an unhealthy, conservative and reactionary confusion. As we know, it is easy for certain parts of the country to exploit bias.

First, the amendments moved in this House create confusion between the notions of couple and family. As an individual and a homosexual, I am certainly aware that two people, whether they are from the same sex or not, do not form a family. No one claimed that two people who do not have children form a family. Why is it that today we are seeing this nonsense, I would even say dishonesty, this attempt to confuse Canadians with two distinctly different concepts? Again, who wins in this House by continuing to exploit this confusion?

For once and for all, let us try to be clear. What does the Minister of Justice say? He says: "We know that there exists, in some work places, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation". Who can forget that the reason the Minister of Justice is in the process of amending the Canadian Human Rights Act is because in 1990 an individual named Mr. Haig was kicked out of the Canadian Armed Forces because he admitted to his superior that he was a homosexual.

This is discrimination and it is unnecessary to know whether Mr. Haig had a family, whether he had children, or from what sort of family he came. What we should be looking at right now is the discrimination that is still rampant in the work place, or any other

form of discrimination to which people receiving services from the federal government could be subjected.

When I see, for example, the Reform member, who shall remain nameless, I believe she represents the riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam, when I see people who take their responsibilities as parliamentarians so lightly and set out to make amendments on marriage, the family, spouses, I repeat, I find that dishonest. I do not believe that serves the cause of human rights.

As parliamentarians, we must be able to make distinctions between types and sexes. We have before us a bill, the purpose of which is to end discrimination. Of course, when they form a couple, and are refused certain benefits, income supplement, paid bereavement leave, and the like, certain courts of common law and certain administrative tribunals throughout the country have required employers to pay those benefits. Not because the people in question formed a family, but because they formed a couple.

When will we in the House have the capacity, the open mindedness, to understand that there is no place for discrimination, whether a couple is homosexual or heterosexual. I trust that the hon. members in this House will grasp that.

I want to ask the Reform members something. As you know, when it comes to human rights, they are way back in the horse and buggy days. What I would like to ask is this: Do they seriously believe that, for a homosexual, being in love is different from what it is for a heterosexual? Do these people believe that, as a citizen who pays taxes and is entitled to benefits, a person deserves to be deprived of those benefits because he is homosexual? Could there be two different tax systems in this country? Is there anyone among them who can stand up and state that an income tax return is different depending on whether it is filed by a homosexual or a heterosexual taxpayer? No one can.

Just look at the insubstantial arguments being used. Those who are opposed, those who are presenting the amendments we are addressing at this time, have nothing more to say than to rehash the old traditionalist line, incapable of making a decision on legal merit, incapable of the slightest legal logic. These people know very well that their legal arguments do not hold up.

When people are unable, like most of the people presenting amendments today, to rise in this House and argue on legal grounds, they haul out their prejudices. I repeat, they haul out prejudices which have only one aim and that is to sow confusion in the minds of Canadians and of Quebecers.

I repeat, and mine I think is a respected voice in this House, no one among us is claiming that a man and a woman, or a woman and woman or a man and a man constitute a family if there are no children.

I do not see the relevance at this point of members of the Reform Party or the "Flintstone" wing of the Liberal Party making amendments that could, once again-you know how good they are at developing prejudices and using their particular talent of saying one thing and thinking another, creating confusion, whenever they have the opportunity. We would have hoped such a talent was on the way out.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Canadian Human Rights Commission is not headed by the Bloc Quebecois. It is an independent commission, comprising people with a public mandate accorded them by this House. They have executive power. How is it these people overlook the fact that, since 1979, the Commissioner of Human Rights has, report after report, year after year, in words that can leave no doubt, recommended an end be put to discrimination.

Discrimination has a very clear legal definition. It means treating someone differently because of a specific characteristic, a distinction that is not justified because, may I remind you, homosexuals also fill out their tax returns and send them to Revenue Canada. There are not two kinds of taxation, two kinds of money, two kinds of tax returns in this country.

There are some concerns that discrimination may prevent us from treating people differently at the fiscal level. These people cannot understand. Both their minds and their hearts are closed. They would rather shut themselves off in their mean, cheap, narrow little worlds and try to make fun of us because we are different.

That time is over. The majority of people throughout Canada and Quebec, whatever their religion, their profession and their vision of family, share our view that, as parliamentarians, we must do all we can to end discrimination. One day, those who continue to discriminate will have to account to Canadians and Quebecers. They will have to explain their actions. And I know that the Canadian people will judge them quite harshly because most of them understand that discrimination is unacceptable.

Again, this is what this bill is all about. The Minister of Justice was very clear in committee; he was very clear when he made a statement at second reading here in this House. The purpose of this bill is to end discriminatory practices. True, ending discriminatory practices means accepting differences.

What will we, as parliamentarians, have to do? What will the Canadian people have to do to make this hard-core group understand they are not doing anyone any favours by continuing to convey a message that is no longer necessary, that borders on hatred, that suggests we must be guilty just because we are different? That is what the amendments moved by the Reformers and some-thankfully not all-members of the government majority are all about. What is it that bothers them about adding in a

statutory provision that no discrimination shall be made on the basis of sexual orientation?

Are there members in this House or among the motions' sponsors who are not comfortable with their sexuality? Are there members who are unable to imagine that someone could be attracted to someone of the same sex? People who are at peace with themselves, happy to be who they are, well adjusted and generous do not mind that others are different.

Let us try to understand why members are unable to accept that others can be different in that way. Why are they feeling threatened to the point of having to band together, forming some kind of a watch guard? They band together, get together, make statements, present petitions, then develop an action plan, a plan whose sole objective is to undermine the right that individuals have in this society to be different.

Let me tell you what one witness told us in committee when we studied Bill C-33 at report stage.

We have been told that, in Canada-not just in Quebec, Prince Edward Island or Western Canada, but across Canada-two million people commit suicide every year. In the 15 to 24 age group, suicide is the second leading cause of death, second only to traffic accidents. Sixty per cent of the young people between the ages of 15 and 24 who commit suicide kill themselves because they are having problems coming to terms with their sexual orientation. This is what we were told by a University of Calgary paediatrician, who is represented in this House by a Reform member, which only adds insult to injury.

Will these people finally realize that this bill before us is designed to ensure that discrimination will stop, thus making people realize that, while being different, they have their place in society-

[Criminal Code, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, of course, we note the government members' cowardice toward any remotely sensitive issue. Canadians will judge their government accordingly. But could we just check if there is

unanimous consent to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, as a non votable measure?

[Criminal Code, May 6th, 1996]

moved that Bill C-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal organization), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

Mr. Speaker, I will say for starters that this bill goes beyond amending the Criminal Code, as you mentioned, since it is aimed essentially at including in the Criminal Code provisions that would make it possible for Canada to have the tool necessary to fight organized crime, namely antigang legislation.

Allow me to explain why I am tabling such a bill. You will recall that last year, in early August, a car bomb went off in the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, which I represent here in the House of Commons, killing Daniel Desrochers, an 11 year old boy who had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This incident was the most eloquent, the most perverse, the most revolting example of what can happen when society does not have the necessary tools to fight organized crime. As you know, this car bombing was part of a fratricide struggle between the Hell's Angels and the Rock Machine.

Let us start at the beginning-I hope the pages are going to bring me some water, otherwise I will not last for 20 minutes, I can tell you that. Today we are talking about organized crime. Organized crime is a concern in all major cities in Canada. I gave you an example which occurred in the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, but the threat from organised crime, the underworld and the mafia is as real in Toronto, York, Vancouver, Halifax as in any other city in Canada.

Organized crime is ubiquitous. Let us see how organized crime works. Not every society is plagued with organized crime. Certain conditions are needed for organized crime to thrive. The first of those conditions is a wealthy environment, one where criminal organizations can make some profits. There must be an open society, one where axes of communication allow these organizations to communicate easily with all continents. I repeat, there is a good reason why organised crime is found mainly in large cities.

When I think about Montreal for example, there is the port, there are the roads, the highways and the airports, so it is simple to understand why it is unusually easy for the underworld to communicate with other continents and to create readily accessible networks. Another condition is a society free from any dictatorship, where there are legal rights and therefore, where human rights are respected, where there are charters and where all individuals have equal rights. Generally it is easier for the underworld to establish itself in a highly bureaucratic society.

That being said, we all remember the car bomb attack which killed the young Daniel Desrochers. Because of my contacts with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, I can easily see that there are other trouble spots, other cities in Canada touched by organized crime, particularly in Ontario. I hope the Ontario members will vote for this bill, because later on I will ask for the House's consent to make it a votable item. Let us be clear, if we do not act right now in order to fight organised crime, we are in for some very troubled times.

How does it happen? Organised crime works in phases. First, they gain control of the territory. When that is done, through fear and intimidation, they go on to the second phase, money laundering. It is estimated that, last year in Canada, a total of $20 billion were laundered. Such an amount means there is an underground economy being set up; that gives us an idea of the magnitude of organized crime.

So organized crime grows by phases. It settles in cities or regions where communications are easy. It takes over control of a territory and starts taking part in money laundering activities. In a third phase, it invests in legal and illegal activities. As I said money laundering activities in Canada have been estimated by police forces at $20 billion.

Organized crime not only deals in money laundering activities it invests in specific ventures. People familiar with the issue, who have studied the underworld and know what it is about, have told

me that at present in Montreal organized crime is investing mostly in two sectors, restaurants and construction.

What is going on? What is the situation? Here are few figures which were given to me by the person probably best informed on organized crime, Mr. Sangollo who works for the Montreal urban community police department where he is responsible for organized crime investigations.

According to Mr. Sangollo, in Canada, drug seizures represent some $1.5 to 4 billion. Keep im mind that the police seizes about 10 per cent of the volume coming into Canada. This gives you an idea of the size of the problem.

I mentioned earlier that each year, in Canada alone, the underworld invests $20 billion in legal and illegal activities. Investments mean there is a connection, an interface if you like, between the underworld and the legal world. If $20 billion are invested in illegal and legal businesses, that means accountants, lawyers and people in high places allow these activities to proceed. Some even believe politicians help smooth the way for such activities, but as you can understand I am not here to name names. I will let those in a position of authority do that.

The underworld is associated with territory control, money laundering and investments in legal and illegal activities. Members understand that we are talking about the reality of drug trafficking, which is the easiest way for the underworld to get rich.

Perhaps I can give some other examples. It is said that 75 to 80 per cent of drug trafficking in bars in Quebec is controlled by organized crime; 75 to 80 per cent, that is something. Since 1988, 90 per cent of the cocaine and hashish that have been seized in Canada were originally intended for Quebec's criminal network. Montreal, where, as I pointed out, there are airports, transcontinental highways and an efficient railway system, has mafia bosses on its territory.

In this context, it is very important that we, as parliamentarians, take our responsibilities. I do not even dare to think that this government will not give me its support to state that this bill may be votable, not only to state that it may be votable, but also to ensure there is a real debate here in Parliament. Do we not have the responsibility to make sure that Daniel Desrochers, who died last August as a result of a car bombing in my neighbourhood, did not die in vain? We have the responsibility to take action to make sure he did not die in vain.

The first thing to do is to take our responsibilities as parliamentarians, by proposing an amendment to the Criminal Code so that it contains the main provisions for an anti-gang legislation.

What am I proposing? I am not saying this is perfect, this is the bottom line. If there is a parliamentarian in this House, whether a government member or an opposition member, who decides one way or the other to improve the bill, any intelligent suggestion, wherever it comes from, will be welcomed.

But we tried, I tried, to make a contribution to the development of an anti-gang law.

I have four proposals. I spent a great deal of time consulting with lawyers, criminologists and other people who are familiar with criminal law. My first proposal is to define "criminal organization" as follows: "a group of individuals-who habitually engage in activities that bring them into serious conflict with society or with the police". I stress the words "that bring them into serious conflict". If at least five members of this group have in the past committed enterprise crime offences, the courts will have the authority to regard it as a criminal organization.

Enterprise crime offences have been in the Criminal Code since 1987. These offences are theft, possession of stolen goods, forgery and breach of trust. There are some 30 offences already on the books.

What is missing is a definition of "criminal organization". The advantage of this bill is that it introduces three presumptions allowing public prosecutors to bring crime bosses before the courts. The great paradox we face is that these crime bosses in Montreal and elsewhere are known to the police but cannot be prosecuted because, under the existing provisions of the Criminal Code, they must be caught red-handed. We know full well that those who planted the bomb that killed little Daniel Desrochers are obviously not the same people who planned the killing.

In the fight against organized crime, we are trying to give ourselves the means to bring crime bosses before the courts. To that end, my bill not only gives a legal definition of "criminal organization" but also introduces three presumptions. First, that an individual who keeps company with a criminal organization is presumed to be living off it. This, I think, is very clear. A link could be made with prostitution.

Under existing provisions in the Criminal Code, an individual who is habitually in the company of prostitutes is presumed to be living off the avails of prostitution. So the first presumption making it possible to prosecute crime bosses would be that an individual who keeps company with a criminal organization is presumed to be living off its proceeds.

The second, but just as important, presumption is that an individual who frequents places linked to organized crime is presumed to be living off the proceeds of a criminal organization.

The third presumption allowing public prosecutors to bring crime bosses before the courts is that an individual whose worth increases disproportionately between the time of the offence and the beginning of the trial is presumed to be living off the proceeds of a criminal organization. It is not normal for an individual whose

net worth was estimated at $10,000 for income security purposes, who was known as a welfare recipient by the police, to have a personal fortune estimated at $3 million three weeks, three months or one year later. You will not convince me that this individual was a three time winner of the Quebec lottery; that is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is the illicit way these individuals are getting rich.

That is why we need a legal definition of "criminal organization". We will create a new criminal offence-living off the proceeds of a criminal organization-and give public prosecutors three presumptions allowing them to bring crime bosses before the courts.

The existence of these presumptions does not mean that defence lawyers cannot refute them or that the principles of natural justice do not apply, but that it is up to the individual to demonstrate, for example, how he got richer.

Another provision of this bill that police forces had been requesting for many years to fight organized crime is the one addressing the need for those sentenced to imprisonment to serve three-fourths of their sentence. If this bill is passed, there will be no remission of sentence and, after sentencing, access to parole will become possible only when three-fourths of the sentence has been served. Why is it necessary to hold firm on having people serve three-fourths of their sentence? Because that is how networks are dismantled, how the chain of command is broken in the underworld and organized crime.

I would like to conclude by saying something important about my bill. Of course, in preparing this bill, I had to consult extensively and I had mixed feelings about going through with it. I concluded that it is important for any bill that comes before us to make sense and be valid, legally speaking. That is why I provided for the use of the notwithstanding clause: section 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Why did I chose to do so? Because I realize that, if this bill is passed and then challenged in any ordinary court of law in this country, it could be argued that it interferes with freedom of speech, freedom of association and the legal rights set out in section 7 of the charter, namely the presumption of innocence.

I am convinced that each of us in our various ridings represent people who would be very pleased to see this Parliament take its responsibilities, even if we determine that, in order to fight effectively against organized crime, we may have to restrict certain rights by limiting the scope of the charter.

As you know, in February, I tabled a petition signed by 65,000 people from all over Quebec, calling for the adoption of antigang legislation. I have yet to meet one person saying: "But it is important not to restrict in any way the movement of the most

criminalized segment of our society because we have this charter, you see". That is not what the charter is about. I am sure my fellow citizens of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, like all Canadians and Quebecers, would have no objection to sacrificing some degree of freedom to the higher interest, which is fighting organized crime.

That is why my bill provides for the possibility of resorting to the notwithstanding clause, which, indeed, has been used very seldom. The truth is, as one government member or another will no doubt mention, the notwithstanding clause has never been used by the Canadian Parliament. Two provinces did: Quebec, between 1982 and 1985 and again in 1989, after the Brown decision was handed down, and Saskatchewan, in a labour dispute. If the legislator included a notwithstanding clause, it is because it needs to be used in some cases, and the threat posed by organized crime across the countries of Quebec and Canada is so serious that we have a duty, as parliamentarians, to point out that, without a notwithstanding clause, no antigang legislation can be brought forward.

We cannot allow what happened in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and Montreal to happen elsewhere. I ask for consent to see if it would be possible to have this bill declared a votable item and not only voted on but also debated for two extra hours, because the situation is so serious that parliamentarians will agree with my diagnostic.

[Rcmp, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour, who seems eager to reply.

On November 17, 1994, during debate at second reading on Bill C-58 dealing with labour relations whithin the RCMP, the Minister of Labour declared: "the purpose amendments do not change the status of the RCMP. They only confirm the status it had prior to the

Federal Court decision". However, the Sims report says exactly the opposite: "the bill will have a major impact on the rigths of management and members or the RCMP".

The minister clearly contradicted Mr. Sims' analysis. Therefore, is he prepared to review his position and allow members of the RCMP to form a union and to undertake collective bargaining, like their provincial and municipal counterparts?

[Employment Insurance Act, May 2nd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. I am pleased to speak to these amendments because I have always thought that in politics, especially when talking about social programs, words are not meaningless.

I do not think we will have many opportunities to see, in this Parliament, a word as daring and as inappropriate as the one proposed by this government which, with its inflated ego, with all the superlatives and the artificial pride it is capable of and with the strength of its weight, has the audacity to call this bill that is before us today, and that has been before us for a number of weeks, the Employment Insurance Act.

Can you imagine that Canada, a country which, if we look at the statistics, has a dismal unemployment rate and where poverty is a problem-the National Council on Welfare reminded us of that last month when it encouraged us to invest $15 billion to fight against poverty-can you imagine that Canada is talking about employment insurance?

The government is talking about employment insurance with a kind of impudence that is unacceptable for parliamentarians. What we are saying is that we will talk about employment insurance when and only when the government has finally set the stage for job creation.

And what do we see today? There have never been so many unemployed people. There have never been so many people wanting so much to work than at this time, and we know many in our ridings.

Each of us has a public voice. Each of us represents people. I represent the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. This riding is in the Montreal area, which has a far higher unemployment rate than the national average. Yet, today, the government would like the Bloc Quebecois to be part of this play on words. But we are vigilant, we know what these words mean and we will not support a bill that, even in its title, could suggest conditions are there to create jobs. We do not accept that and we will never accept that as long as we live.

Let us look at the premise on which the debate started. Did the government ask the human resources development committee to suggest ways to develop a number of strategies leading to full employment, with what that implies in a system where there are two levels of government? That is not the premise on which the debate started. The debate started with a $2.3 billion cut. We cannot forget, when we analyze this bill, that it aims first and foremost to rationalize, that is, to balance public finances. Of course, we are not against balancing public finances, but we are not convinced it must be done at the expense of the unemployed.

We are in the presence of a government that, with a quite appalling regularity, it must be recognized, has tried over the last few years-since the Liberals have been in power for almost three years-with each of the successive budgets the finance minister has tabled in the House, to make cuts that were aimed at people in our society who need help.

You know what the views of the hon. member for Mercier are in this regard, how she and our colleagues who worked with her on the human resources development committee propose to put people back to work. That is what we should be talking about. But the premise we must start from is not a sense of brinkmanship, a burden of $2,3 billion. This is not the way to hold a successful debate that will allow us to set the stage for full employment.

I do not know whether you had the opportunity to read the Fortin report. I did. According to Mr. Fortin, since 1990-I must be honest with you-the various attacks against unemployment insurance, which limit access to benefits, have exerted pressures in the order of $1 billion on Quebec's public finances. This statement was not made by the hon. member for Mercier, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve or the hon. member for Verchères. The economist Fortin-who is not known for his support of sovereignty, who is not a friend of the Bloc Quebecois-tabled a report saying that repeated attacks against unemployment insurance by restricting eligibility to the program had exerted such pressures on Quebec's public finances that the Quebec government had to spend another $1 billion.

What is happening? I am surprised that this government does not understand. It is refusing to hold a debate on the real question: How can we create jobs in the conditions that will prevail in the year 2000 and the year 2005? How can we set the stage for full employment? Some countries have succeeded.

True, those are not continental countries. True, those countries are not as vast as Canada. True, those countries do not have two levels of government obstructing each other. But the question remains. The real issue we face in each of our ridings, whether in the scenic Lower St. Lawrence region, where you may be thinking of spending your next vacation, the riding of the Minister of Immigration, or the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, is that people are looking for jobs. And what is this government proposing to them? You may nod in agreement, but the fact remains that there is nothing in the bill before us that would help create jobs.

Again, what the opposition finds unacceptable is that there should first have been a debate on the way to overhaul social programs and to set the stage for job creation, but not with a sword over our heads, not with the burden the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development had to carry: cutting some $2 billion beforehand. This is not the end of the fiscal year.

It is as though a CEO trying to determine what human resources he will need in the coming years was told he had to juggle with a $250 million burden in taxes of all kinds.

The exercise was flawed from the beginning and the official opposition cannot accept that even the title of the bill is confusing to the point of suggesting to people that this legislation includes measures to stimulate employment.

Let us talk about the philosophy of the bill. Madam Speaker, I know you like philosophy. Let us take a look at the philosophy underlying the bill. Do you think that consideration was given to the fact that there are honest people out there who are actively looking for work? How do you explain that the government targeted in a blatant and totally inconsiderate manner the so-called frequently unemployed, as if life was like a career plan, and as if people, over the last five years, had deliberately chosen to put down on their resume: "I collected unemployment benefits on two, three or four occasions".

What is the logic behind the idea of penalizing people because they used a program which they funded without government assistance? Indeed, all those who are listening must know that, in 1992, the government completely withdrew its financial support to the unemployment insurance fund.

This is quite the paradox. The government wants to limit eligibility. It tells people: "If you are frequently unemployed, if, in the last five reference years, you had the audacity of collecting unemployment insurance benefits for more than 20 weeks, it is just too bad. For each multiple of twenty, the benefits to which you would otherwise be entitled will be reduced by one per cent".

Madam Speaker, you are telling me my time is up, but let me say I am still quite upset by all this and I hope to speak again on this issue.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, April 30th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, let me quickly say that, last weekend, I delivered a speech in Toronto and paid tribute to the hon. member who put the question, because I know he is a enlightened colleague.

That being said, the issue is the following: Has the fact that, since 1977, Quebec has recognized in its Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination noticeably changed the family, or is there, in all the documentation on this issue, information suggesting that this recognition has changed the family or inhibited people from starting a family? This is the real issue, and I believe the answer is no.

After all, there is still a secretariat for family affairs in Quebec, family allowances are still being paid, and there are still people interested in starting a family.

One day, I visited a community organization on international family day, and met a person who had no university degree but a healthy dose of common sense and who suggested a definition of the family I have never forgotten. That person said: "A family is made up of people who love, help and protect each other".

If we love, protect and help each other, we form a family. This definition can include all sorts of combinations. There are single parent families, blended families, nuclear families and families living with the grandparents. These are different families, but they all have one thing in common: their members love, protect and help each other.

This is absolutely fundamental and, again, we have to make it clear. I firmly believe in this principle as an individual and I personally adhere to it. My family plays a determining role, and I hope that some day you will meet my father, who has more or less my sense of humour. There are five children in my family, including a twin brother. I live on Viau Street and my parents are just around the corner. There is some good and bad in this arrangement, but I will not go into details. The bottom line is that the family is important, because it is still the place where solidarity is best displayed.

Sometimes things do not go well in my life, for example when the Liberals give me a hard time-it does not happen often, but it has been the case at times; luckily, the Chair is there to see that it does not happen too often. Each of us knows that when things are not going well, the only reality is the family.

Knowing we can count on our family makes us hope that it continues to exist, that it is recognized as an established value, and that it can take several forms. It goes without saying that many members in this House belong to families very different from the one I described and grew up in. However, the importance of the family remains and is affirmed in the preamble to the bill. The family is something that must be preserved; it is a value that must be recognized. Again, there is no link between making sexual orientation a prohibited ground of discrimination and any attempt to undermine the family.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, April 30th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is my friend and, to tell you the truth, I would have preferred that some other member ask me this question. If there is a Reformer who understands and is sensitive to this bill, it is him. It is, however, their prerogative to decide who asks the questions and I will tell him two things.

I do not think this bill will lead to positive discrimination. Looking at things from a different angle, has the fact that the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on religion led to positive discrimination for Catholics? Has the fact that the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on, let us say, conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted resulted in employers hiring more pardoned offenders?

Again, this bill will not lead to positive discrimination in terms of employment equity, something for which we both worked.

In response to the second question-will this bill lead to de facto recognition of same sex marriages?-the answer is no. The best proof of this is that even though seven provinces and one territory in Canada have human rights codes prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, none of them recognize same sex marriages. Yet I feel that same sex marriages will inevitably be recognized in the short, medium or long term. I am going to work very hard to see it happen.

I cannot tell you that this bill will automatically lead to legal recognition of same sex marriages. We are talking about two totally separate things. I think same sex marriages should be recognized because we cannot claim to reject discrimination based on sexual orientation without going so far as to recognize homosexual relationships.

But the law should be clear. The Minister of Justice was clear; the human rights commissioner was clear. We have in Canada seven provinces and one territory where one has not led to the other. I would say that in statistical terms-you know how statistics courses usually made us sweat in the past-there is no cause and effect relationship between the two.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, April 30th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, you will not be surprised to hear that I stand today to express my firm support for this bill. I do it with great pleasure, since I know that in this House there are times for being partisan and times for not being partisan. If you ask me what is the main reason for my involvement in politics, I would tell you that sovereignty was the first reason, of course, closely followed by my determination to promote equality among individuals. I think that each time Parliament discusses the promotion of equality among individuals, there should be no partisanship involved.

I listened to what my colleagues from the Reform Party had to say, but not only does it not conform to reality, it is in my opinion riddled with inconsistencies and nonsense to the point that it borders on the unacceptable. But this is not what I want to discuss today.

I know that my chances are very slim indeed, with a few notable exceptions-and I will always respect them for the great parliamentarians they are-of convinving Reformers, as I am fully aware that the Reform Party is to human rights what silent movies are to the motion picture industry. These are people who, oddly enough, take pride in looking back and confusing genres and styles with disconcerting aptness and eloquence.

This being said, what are we talking about today? Today, we are asked to examine the Canadian Human Rights Act. We have to remember-since this is a common mistake, including among the media-that we are not talking about the Charter. The Canadian Human Rights Act has no constitutional value and is not included in the 1982 Constitutional Act. It is one of two instruments to promote human rights. Thus it is an organic law, whose scope and status are the same as those of the other laws of this Parliament.

The Canadian Human Rights Act applies to all those who benefit from federal government services and to all workers under federal jurisdiction. So, essentially, we are speaking of interprovincial transportation, banks, the public service, large crown corporations such as the CBC, etc.

All we are asking members today is to accept that, as far as the Canadian Human Rights Act is concerned, discrimination based on

sexual orientation against people who receive services will not be tolerated. That is what this bill is all about. All efforts by our colleagues of the Reform Party or of the "Flintstone" wing of the Liberal Party would be intellectually dishonest.

Let them rise in the House and say that yes they believe that discrimination based on sexual orientation is acceptable; I am ready to accept that. It is not my opinion, I will not be pleased by that, but people have a right to be against the end of discrimination. But let us have the courage, as members of Parliament, to recognize that what we are speaking of today is the end of discrimination.

I will try to explain, a little later, that this has nothing to do with a redefinition of the family and, especially, that it has nothing to do with possible recognition of same sex spouses, something I want with all my heart. For as long as I will be in public life, I will never stop asking for it, but I will be honest enough, I will be intelligent enough to call a spade a spade and make the distinction where it exists.

Today, once more, allow me to be out of order and to look in that direction for 30 seconds, because what we are talking about is the end of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Discrimination, what does that word mean? It is clear in the act. Discrimination is treating a group of people differently or giving them different benefits from what they are entitled to.

I will give you a concrete example. Of course, these last few years, legal progress has been made.

It is true that between 1968, when John Turner, then minister of Justice, decriminalized homosexuality, and 1996, we not only made legal progress but we also developed an intellectual maturity, with some 52 exceptions.

It is this intellectual maturity that allows us today to be MPs and to rise in this House knowing full well there is, in Quebec, a majority of people who clearly showed us their support in surveys, and I personally think that such a majority also exists in English Canada.

As a Bloc member, I must frequently go to Vancouver and Toronto and to Manitoba. Since I was elected, I have gone to many parts of English Canada to give conferences and nobody ever told me that: "Yes, we must perpetuate discrimination".

When we address the issue intelligently and explain it with some consistency, we notice that people do understand that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unacceptable in our society.

How does one live that kind of discrimination? Not long ago, and I am not talking about 25 years ago-and I will choose my words carefully because I know that things are changing more and

more-known homosexuals were not accepted without some coolness. The first example that comes to mind is that of thearmed forces.

Does this mean that the senior command of the armed forces systematically practice discrimination? Of course not. That is not what it means. But we know very well that, by adding sexual orientation to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination included in the Canadian Human Rights Act, we are giving judicial protection to a category of individuals who, one might say, is very likely to experience discrimination.

Not long ago, in fact, two years ago, a officer in the Canadian forces, a sergeant I believe, was fired because her colleagues discovered that she was a lesbian. At that time, the Canadian Human Rights Act did not offer the protection we are about to include in it. That woman had to take her case to a civil court, but, in the end, there was an out of court settlement. Today, we are sending a clear message as to the way we want the laws interpreted.

Why do we have to take such action? We have to do it, and I think the Minister of Justice spoke eloquently about that, because we are parliamentarians. Being parliamentarians means that we have a public voice, of course, but it also means that we pass laws.

If we, as parliamentarians, do not have the courage to say that we want the words "sexual orientation" to be included explicitly in the Canadian Human Rights Act, how can we expect the judiciary to have the courage to interpret these words and how can we expect Canadians not to suffer from discrimination when we, as parliamentarians, do not have the courage to fulfil our responsibility to define in legislation the kind of society we want to live in?

I think that if we do not understand or subscribe to this basic principle, I would even go so far as to say that we do not deserve to have a public voice and that we certainly do not deserve to sit in Parliament. It has been mentioned, and I think it must be part of our understanding, that the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which is not a political body, a partisan body, has been saying since 1979-and that is a very long time in political terms-that the Canadian government must have the courage of its rhetoric.

I say that because, at the rhetorical level, there have been many occasions when parliamentarians rose in this House to say that discrimination is indeed unacceptable, that the situation must be rectified. However, in reality, it is today that things are happening, that we are getting serious about this issue and that we have to begin to take concrete measures to rectify the situation.

I would just like to read a short extract from an exchange between Human Rights Commissioner Max Yalden and a senator from the other House: "We are doubly pleased to see that Senator Kinsella has introduced a private member's bill that will add sexual orientation to the prohibited grounds of discrimination. Parliament has a responsibility-and that is the key point he makes-to legislate in this kind of important matter. Canadians should be able to find out what is in their legislation without having to read reports or interpretations of the courts. If Parliament does not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, it would, in our view, amount to an abdication-this could not be clearer, I think-of its responsibilities".

This, then, is exactly what the Minister of Justice is calling on us to do. Naturally, one may ask oneself questions, and you will understand that I have asked myself some, on what it is that makes some people homosexual. There are many theories. There are those who say you are born that way, that it is in the genes, that you come into this world homosexual, and that some people take longer to come to the realization, but if you are profoundly homosexual, sooner or later you are condemned to act on it. That is one view.

There are others who say that, no, homosexuality is not innate, that it is a social thing and that one context will predispose us to homosexuality and another to heterosexuality.

All this is terribly theoretical. But I think that what is important in society is that whether one is homosexual or heterosexual, whether one is polygamous or abstinent, whether one leads the life of a monk or is a little more hotblooded, what is important is that whatever one's choice, one can make it with respect for oneself and for others. And if there is to be this respect for others, some legislative conditions must be put in place.

And the most important of all is that we come to have a normative view of homosexuality. That does not mean that any of us is obliged to promote homosexuality. Someone said-I do not know if it is the hon. member for Chambly or my colleague from the government majority-that homosexuals make up about 10 per cent of every society. This figure was arrived at in the 1952 Kinsey report, the most comprehensive study on the sexual behaviour of Canadians ever made, a first. The study revealed that 10 per cent of people openly said they were homosexual.

Again, the important thing is that we, as parliamentarians, work to establish conditions of optimum tolerance. Whether you live in Calgary, Winnipeg, Vancouver or Montreal, the important thing is to know you will not be discriminated against if you are 13, 14 or 60-years old and you are homosexual. Homosexuals must know they are entitled to the same services whatever the circumstance. More importantly, homosexuals must have the assurance that in their professional life they will not be subject to discrimination or reprisal because they belong to a sexual minority.

Again, this is why we have to pass this act. The Canadian Human Rights Act is a concern for many people. The complaint procedure under the act starts with an investigation, followed by the

establishment of a tribunal and if someone is unhappy withthe tribunal's decision the matter can be heard by an ordinarylaw court.

Most of complaints submitted to the commission concern prejudices in the workplace.

I regularly meet people who are homosexual and who are experiencing discrimination. Sometimes very borderline discrimination, not always as straightforward as what we hear from the Reform Party, sometimes a situation is not that cut and dried. Sometimes the discrimination is as clear as black and white, sometimes it is grey. It may be in the workplace, when you are passed over for a promotion because of your homosexuality, when you are excluded from a delegation because of your homosexuality. It may be in daily life, where you bear the brunt of all manner of seriously inappropriate remarks disguised as humour.

Our responsibility, in the coming years as today, is to make it possible for someone who discovers he or she is homosexual to state it openly, to be comfortable with it. To get to that stage, however,-and we are not yet there-conditions of non-discrimination must be put in place. The real victory will be the day when people in Quebec, or anywhere in the country, can define themselves openly as homosexual without fear of reprisal.

Just imagine what a tolerant society, an ideal society, an absolutely admirable society, we will be living in when the day comes that there is no longer any differentiation, any different labelling, of those defining themselves openly as homosexual and those who are heterosexual.

We must be clear on this. If the government goes on to the next step I will be the first to state-the government could have no stauncher ally than myself-that it has not only fulfilled a commitment to which it had subscribed in the past, and I will say this every chance that I get, it will have taken a profoundly dignified and worthy step concerning human rights, for once again when human rights are the topic in a parliament, there can be no political partisanship.

We must be very clear. I believe my hon. colleague from Chambly is a notary, and you all know what they are like about documents and papers, and that I respect. That is what you need to be like to be a notary, but let us not kid ourselves. The bill before us is not about employment equity. The example our colleague gave a little while ago about police officers was not particularly enlightened, because no employer will be taken to court, after we pass this bill tomorrow, for taking a person's sexual orientation into account for hiring purposes. That would be out of the question in human resources management policy.

Even the Employment Equity Act, which the Reform Party opposed tooth and nail, does not require employers to hire people who are not competent. These myths arise from ignorance of the law.

I conclude by saying that I am a homosexual. I have already said so, and I am very proud indeed to be one. If you had a page deliver a pill for me to take to become a heterosexual I would refuse, because in my life, with my family, within my caucus, people have always known what I was. It is because people understood what I was that I saw homosexuality so positively. I do, however, understand that this bill before us also calls for respect for the concept of the family.

Families are special in society. Some of our colleagues, especially members of the Reform Party, might be tempted, rather awkwardly and with a narrow-mindedness that does them no credit, to vote against this bill saying, and you will not miss them, no voice is strident enough for what they have to say and no room big enough to resound with the inappropriateness of their discrimination. They will say: "Oppose this bill, because it calls the family into question".

I hope they will be honest enough to read the bill. I agree that the family is important in society. It can take all sorts of forms, not just the traditional family in which you and I were raised. One thing remains, and that is the family as a place for learning, for socialization and for mutual assistance. No one can deny that. However the bottom line is that no member should abstain or vote against this bill because they think it calls the family into question because that is not true.

Think how the stature of Parliament will grow if we send a clear message of non-discrimination with one voice. I hope the Reform Party will extend this generosity.

[National Day Of Mourning, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition wishes to join with the government and the other parties in this House in paying tribute those who died or were seriously hurt in the workplace.

These injuries were undoubtedly an important, a disturbing moment in the lives of those concerned, and it is our duty as members of Parliament to remember, so that such accidents do not happen again.

We are fully aware that, despite the laws now in effect across the country, two workers are killed every five working days in Canada.

Every two minutes, a worker is seriously injured in one of Canada's workplaces. In total, each year, 57,000 workers are involved in sometimes fatal accidents. On an economic level, $100 million in compensation is paid to workers who can no longer earn a salary as a result of an accident; last year, 860,000 work days were lost to accidents, which could have been prevented in some cases.

Let us hope that we can work together to improve health and safety in the workplace. The best way to do so is to co-operate so that the workers, unions and employers can arrive at the wisest decisions and work on prevention together. In this regard, the official opposition wants to work on improving the existing legislation.