Réal Ménard

[Aerospace Industry, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my next question contains a solution for the minister, so I would ask him to give me his full attention.

Since the Quebec Minister of Industry is planning to put a program similar to the federal government's DIPP in place, will the minister commit to entering into an agreement with the Government of Quebec to put in place an overall conversion plan for the defence industry?

[Aerospace Industry, June 16th, 1995]

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

Yesterday, the Minister of Industry stated here in the House that he intended to review DIPP next year. For the first time, the minister appeared open to the opposition's arguments that the ability of Canadian and Quebec companies in the defence and aerospace industry to develop technology must not be eroded.

Will the minister admit that we urgently need to re-establish DIPP budgets, in order to keep our aerospace industry as competitive as it currently is with foreign companies, which are heavily subsidized by their governments for the research and marketing of their products?

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague that among all of my Reform colleagues, he is by far my favourite. However, I do not know whether I should be jumping for joy or crying after what he just said because, with all due respect, my colleague rose in this House and said: "I do not dislike the hon. member", all the better. However, he also said: "What we need to do is to start treating everyone the same".

You will understand that at face value, such a statement betrays a lack of sensitivity, because, if we acknowledge that in Canadian and Quebec society people are being molested solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, there is no way we can agree with our colleague's conclusion that we have to treat everyone the same.

This is like the kind of reasoning that used to be widespread a few years back, and I am choosing my words carefully. You will nonetheless understand to what point this example, regardless of how absurd it was, is worth calling to mind. I remember very clearly the debate that was raging in our society a few years back in which some people used to say: "Whenever a person, in general a woman, is raped, we must take into consideration whether she provoked the attack". And they said, some very sensible people included, even men of law, that the punishment for raping a woman

should vary, depending on how provocative she was, for example, if she was wearing a short skirt.

I never subscribed to this point of view. What our colleague is saying, is: "I am ready to accept homosexuality only if these people are treated the same as everybody else and only if we do not acknowledge, at this moment in time, that they are being systematically discriminated against and are being targeted for violence". This is contradictory, this is a paradox, this is illogical and cannot be. That is why we have a bill before us like the one that is before us today.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question and, more importantly, for actively supporting this bill. I know that she sits on the committee which reviewed this legislation. The hon. member very appropriately mentioned that, two years ago, the Quebec government appointed, through the Quebec human rights commission, a travelling commission of inquiry which came to the following conclusions.

First, it found that some 20 people had been killed because of their sexual orientation. Moreover, about one hundred of those people who testified before the commission had been victims of physical abuse.

The hon. member is also right when she says that, ultimately, all this takes place in everyday life. As a member of Parliament, I often meet people who are homosexuals and who tell me that they were intimidated.

These cases do not all involved physical abuse or death, but the hon. member is quite right when she says that there is still this widespread idea that you can bash people who are gay, because they may look effeminate, or because they openly show their orientation.

The only reasonable way to change that attitude is to provide some deterrent, through bills such as this one.

Again, as parliamentarians, we should ask ourselves this question, which I direct in particular to our Reform Party friends, through the good offices of the Chair, of course: What is so upsetting about our Canadian society saying that it will not tolerate reprisals against homosexuals, against the expression of one difference, among others?

Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree with me that when a person is comfortable with his or her own identity, with his or her own sexuality, that person will accept the fact that there may be differences. With all due respect, I think that we must question the well-being-and I choose my words carefully-of some members of this House who show no tolerance toward the expression of that difference.

If I were in the shoes of some Reform members, I would ask myself some questions.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I always try to abide by that principle, but I thank you for this reminder. So, through the good offices of the Chair, I reiterate my invitation to Reform members.

It may be in order to remind the House of a number of facts. On several occasions during the debate, some members claimed that it might be detrimental to the public interest to recognize, in clause 718.2, the principle and the concept of sexual orientation. What is rather surprising with this position is that it implies that the concept of sexual orientation is something new and that it sets a precedent.

Yet, if you look at the Canadian case law, you will see that the administrative courts, as well as the ordinary courts of law, have had to deal with the concept of sexual orientation on a number of instances. In fact, the whole issue started exactly 18 years ago, with the Quebec charter of rights. Quebec, ever the leader in the social sector, was the first province to legislate and provide, in its human rights code, specific protection based on sexual orientation.

If you were to ask every opponent of the legislation to mention one case where an ordinary court of law, or an administrative tribunal, established a link between the concept of sexual orientation, which the legislator seeks to protect by including it as a ground for illicit discrimination, and any of the perversions to which some members of this House referred, you would not find any such example. This is why such an attitude is so deplorable.

Let it not be forgotten that what the Minister of Justice and his government wish to offer is very explicit protection, so that when the courts are faced with the situation where a person has been the victim of violence because of sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual, they shall, in determining the sentence for homicide, cruelty or assault, take into consideration any aggravating circumstances, based on legislative principles that are very, very clear.

In other words, a person found guilty of such offences will receive a stiffer sentence. That is the main focus of Bill C-41.

This has led to all sorts of comments which, out of respect for you, I will not dignify with a response. People said, yes, but there is a problem. There is a problem of a legal nature. Members of the Reform Party in particular kept saying that sexual orientation had not been defined. They said that there was a danger that the courts would not be able to properly enforce the law without a definition of sexual orientation.

And yet, none of the detractors of the bill has stopped to wonder why it also does not define freedom of worship or religious freedom. And what about national origin? Somehow we have managed. After all, we live in a society where, in the past, people have set themselves ablaze in the name of religious freedom, in the name of freedom of conscience. There are also people who have committed acts of cruelty, as well you know, in the name of religious freedom.

If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, there are even colleagues who have made remarks that, in my opinion, are certainly pushing the limits of politeness, as well as the limits of democracy, in this House, in the name of religious freedom. None of the bill's detractors rose and asked that religious freedom, or national origin be defined.

Why this unhealthy obsession with one of the explicit motives of discrimination, as if it could open the door to recognition of what is obviously in the realm of perversion? Some not so great minds even went so far as to make a connection with paedophilia. You really have to be pretty ignorant and pretty far removed from any understanding of the term sexual orientation to make that kind of connection.

Anyone who has some concept of psychology or psychiatry knows perfectly well that homosexuality has no connection with paedophilia. Homosexuality has no connection at all with paedophilia, and it is comparisons like these that tarnish reputations and they are also most unfortunate from a legislative point of view.

Let me quote a few facts that truly demonstrate that the decision of the Minister of Justice to introduce this legislation was, without a doubt, a most fortunate, responsible and democratic decision.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in the United States says that according to a study they carried out three years ago, so this is a relatively recent study, one gay out of five-one gay out of five, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps I may glance briefly towards the other side, one gay out of five, and one lesbian out of ten were physically assaulted. We are not talking about empirical research. This is a study conducted by an authorized group in the United States, often used as a point of reference by our Reform Party colleagues, and they have information that has helped us understand statements made by people belonging to the gay community.

We are told that one gay out of five, so this means we are talking about 20 per cent, one gay out of five, and one lesbian out of ten say they were physically assaulted.

We also have information on the situation in Canada. The study was made in New Brunswick, and if I am not mistaken, New Brunswick is not very far from Nova Scotia, and in Nova Scotia there are a number of parliamentarians who are very concerned about the gay community. I will not name names.

In any case, in this study, which was carried in New Brunswick, which is not very far from Nova Scotia, we read the following: 82 per cent of gays and lesbians who responded to this study were at some time in their lives victims of physical violence.

At 82 per cent, we should start to be alarmed. There is absolutely no way anyone could call that a fringe movement or an isolated incident. I do not know whether our Reform colleagues are aware of this study. I do know that it would behoove them to take a gander at it. Then maybe they would even understand why there is a need for this legislation. Once again I ask what is the basic principle? The basic principle is that we are still living in a society that does not accept these realities, in Quebec and in Canada, but I must say more so in English Canada. Permit me to demonstrate how we, in Quebec, have a real head start on the rest of Canada when it comes to this issue.

The crux of the matter-and I would have hoped that my Reform colleagues would have been more concerned with this issue-the crux of the matter is that the very fact of being gay or recognized as such by a certain number of people in society makes people the targets of violence. If one makes the effort to read the studies which have been done, it is obvious that this is not a mere coincidence; it is not a figment of imagination; it is not an oddball occurrence.

You all know as well as I do that there is no doubt that this law will be passed; the official opposition is going to help it along. I would even say that we are going to contribute to its passage-I am choosing my words carefully-, I believe every last one of us will be behind it. However I do not want to go too far.

It still remains that a lawmaker is sending a very clear message to the Canadian public with such a law. What it is saying to the Canadian and Quebec public is that we will not tolerate that any people in our society are molested or attacked, because we are a democratic society, a society which believes in the equality of individuals. Our belief in the equality of individuals goes so far that we even accept that this equality encompasses the expression of different sexual orientations. We believe in this so strongly as a society that we will not tolerate that some people are attacked or molested because of this difference.

Whenever this happens, we will take deterrent measures. To deter people from doing this, the lawmakers must demand that the courts impose much more severe sanctions against those who do promote repression. Do you have to be a genius to understand that? Is this beyond comprehension? Does one need a Ph.D. to understand this kind of thing? I do not think so, but it takes two things some members of this House may lack. The first is an open mind, a simple and solid openness to difference. Unfortunately, this is too much to ask of some parliamentarians.

The second is tolerance, tolerance permitting the understanding that there are people, who-for all sorts of reasons, something innate or something in their personality- nevertheless differ in the way they experience their sexuality. We are asking parliamentarians, who are legislators and who must set the tone, to be open to this. Unfortunately, it is asking too much of certain colleagues, and, I imagine, that they would have to justify their position to their electors.

I said earlier that I thought there was an openmindedness in Quebec that is not always found elsewhere. If I had to explain it, I would say there are two reasons for it. The first is that, on the whole, as a society, we condemn violence. I think that, on the whole, as a society in Quebec, we recognize that there are gays and that they continue to be victims of violence. There is no attempt to beat about the bush or to hide behind this reality, which means acknowledging the facts.

Why then can Quebec claim, take pride in, a certain openmindedness not to be found throughout English Canada, although I know very well that parts of the country are very open to this. The reasons are twofold. The first is that members from Quebec, in dealing with this issue, do not ask their electors to take a moral stand. When Quebecers deal with these questions, they see that violence is committed against members of a certain group, known among other things as gays, they take a stand on rights. They take a civic stand.

They do not ask a majority or a minority to impose morals. As you know, the foul-ups that occurred during debate on this issue in this House came from members who, in my opinion, rose in this House to talk about moral values, as though there was only one set of universal moral values that must be instilled in everyone.

We as parliamentarians know, from travelling a little here and abroad, reading a little, watching television and taking the trouble of talking with people, that there is no single set of moral values, no single religion. There are numerous sets of moral and ethical values guiding individuals. This is a good thing, and not only in Quebec and Canada.

If we as parliamentarians want to successfully navigate this debate without questioning anyone's motives and with a minimum of good faith, we must stay away from moral judgments. We must restrict ourselves to legal matters, because our first duty is to make laws, to legislate. Mr. Speaker, since you are indicating to me that my time is up, I will conclude by asking all members to make a highly democratic and tolerant gesture by supporting this government and the Minister of Justice, whose courage I commend, and voting unanimously in favour of Bill C-41.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies. I was in committee and I thank you for your patience. Before being interrupted to go up to the other Chamber, I was extending a friendly invitation to members of the Reform Party that would help them understand how terribly important this bill is for the gay community.

With courage and conviction, I am going to be daring and stand by the invitation. Therefore, I turn to the Reform Party, with your permission, and I say to them that if, as parliamentarians, they are interested in expanding on their knowledge of the reality of the gay experience and the potential ill treatment to which gays are exposed, I am available to introduce them to spokespersons and leaders of these groups, because if their positions and statements are any indication, I venture to think that although the members of the Reform Party are very knowledgeable in certain areas, they are somewhat less so in this particular area.

I think that, here as elsewhere, a closer look at reality would undoubtedly help them to modify their behaviour and certainly to improve their understanding. I therefore cordially extend to each member of the Reform Party an invitation to come and spend a day with me in the gay village, so that they can meet with the spokespersons and be in-

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that, because of what is yet to come, I will not be able to talk for 20 minutes consecutively and that you are going to interrupt me to allow those who so desire to go to the Senate for Royal Assent.

Allow me to begin by saying that no party line or differences in parties could prevent me from thanking the minister in all sincerity today for his show of courage, firstly for having persevered, because we all know that if any bill raised controversy or stirred up heated debate, the bill that is now before us did.

I am very aware that the minister showed great courage, great compassion. Allow me to thank him, despite the fact that we belong to different parties. I thank him on three levels. First, as a parliamentarian, second, as a citizen, and third, as a homosexual.

I believe, and I hope that all of the terms I will use are parliamentary, yes, I believe that one would really have to be obtuse, stubborn or live on another planet to not realize that some people in our society are the victims of violence. Some people in our society are the victims of violence because they are homosexuals.

Some people may turn a blind eye to this fact, but that does not take away from our duty as parliamentarians not to do as they do. Therefore, I simply reiterate my thanks to the Minister of Justice. My sincere thanks for his courage. Obviously, I will not make a habit of it, but this is a case where sincere thanks are due.

I would also like to say, for the benefit of our Reform friends, that-we all must admit that they are actually quite clumsy in their efforts to understand this reality-it would be interesting for them to come spend a day with the gay community. I would also be tempted to say, if it is parliamentary, that they have actually been rather abrasive in their attempts to remodel Quebec's and Canada's democratic institutions.

It would be quite informative for our Reform colleagues to come and spend a day in the company of a number of spokespersons of the gay community, to cross their white picket fences and come to the gay part of town. I am giving them an open invitation.

I am the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, but just beside it, there is the riding of our Bloc Quebecois whip, a nice guy. His riding includes Montreal's gay neighbourhood. I invite them to drop in, if any of them wish to do the utterly logical thing, which is to try to really understand what it is all about.

[Defence Industry Conversion, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, despite the almost British phrasing of his reply, the minister did not answer my question.

My question is: Since Ottawa funded 18 per cent of Pratt & Whitney's R and D investments over the past ten years, mainly for military applications, why does the minister now refuse to support civilian applications of the company's research? Why does the minister refuse to help a Quebec company? That is the question.

[Defence Industry Conversion, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry has consistently refused to set up a genuine defence conversion program and has cut the few resources remaining in the budget for the defence industry productivity program, which has had serious consequences for Montreal. In fact, Pratt & Whitney, a leader in Canada's aerospace industry, is planning to move its research centre.

Does the Minister of Industry realize that by refusing to set up a genuine defence conversion program, he is denying the Quebec aerospace industry an opportunity to develop its technological capability and thus undermining its ability to compete?

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 1995]

The hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is paying me a compliment that I cannot ignore. My point is that it is certainly not as a challenge to the traditional or alternative family that we, as legislators, want to put a stop to violence. I cannot accept this kind of argument.

I suspect that the hon. member for Scarborough West made an honest mistake when he told us that there is no mention of sexual orientation in any Canadian legislation. As a good, honest lawyer, he knows full well that for a number of years now, the Canadian Human Rights Act is to be construed as explicitly including sexual orientation. Finally, it took all the determination, the energy and the drive of a group like EGALE to remind everyone, including MPs, this in a manner that deserves to be praised, that in 18 years of existing case law, no comparison can be made between what the legislator is about to do and any form

of perversion mentioned by some members of this House who, in so doing, showed an unacceptable lack of consideration.

After all, why, as parliamentarians, do we want the courts to take sexual orientation into account, among other factors, when sentencing an offender? The hon. member for Scarborough West knows full well that none of the other aggravating factors is defined in clause 718.2. Why be so obsessed about stating facts which do not withstand close scrutiny?

I will conclude with this: When parliamentarians from every party, as well as the courts, understand that we play an educating role every time we make a decision, then we will live in a society which I long for, a society where it will possible for a person, whether a public figure or not, to be gay, to live his or her difference and feel good about it, and to not be exposed to physical abuse, as is unfortunately often the case for members of the gay community.