Tom Wappel

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am a lawyer. They may have taken the bounty off lawyers in the Reform Party but I have to rise to debate the comments that my hon. friend has made. I want to make three or four comments. I ask my friend to have a pen and paper handy to copy down some sections. Then perhaps he would make a comment or two.

I have a great interest in this bill, having studied it in the justice committee. I have been watching the debate. I note that the debate is going back and forth. Where is Her Majesty's loyal opposition in this debate?

The last person I saw speak was from the Reform Party, then back to my own party, then back over to the Reform Party and back to my own party. I do not see the Bloc Quebecois members standing up and talking about what they think is right, whether they are supporting this bill or whether they are not.

The justice critic stood up and said a few words. One Bloc member addressed one of the many sections of this bill. I say shame on a party that does not take its responsibility seriously as Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

I want to say something about the witnesses that appeared before the justice committee. I was a member of the justice committee that studied this bill. It is very true that what we would call the ordinary citizen, in other words, the person who might live on Grenoble Street in my riding did not have an opportunity to come.

The groups that appeared before the justice committee and gave evidence were in my view representative of all of the interests that were concerned with this bill and in my judgment at least put forward the arguments for and against various sections of the bill.

I do not think the Canadian people were deprived because each and every one of the members on that committee of all the parties took a certain approach at the justice committee and were able to ask the questions they felt were required based on how they want to represent their constituents.

I know a lot of the debate has centred on section 718.2. However, this bill has a lot of interesting principles in it and it deals with a number of things. We have had history lessons about Prime Minister Trudeau and who was the justice minister here and there. Let us find out a little bit about the Reform Party.

Section 730 deals with absolute and conditional discharges, which may be granted by the courts in certain circumstances. Does the Reform Party support absolute and conditional discharges, yes or no?

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to confirm that the amendment adds a comma. I am very happy that the government supported it.

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have only 10 minutes to offer my comments on 13 very interesting amendments which obviously, as we have seen from the debate so far, evoke very strong feelings. Unfortunately with only 10 minutes I am forced to concentrate on my amendments.

I do support Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the hon. member for Central Nova for the legal, moral and ethical reasons she stated in her speech. If the House is not supportive of Motion No. 6 then I am certainly in support of Motions Nos. 7 and 8 standing in the name of the hon. member for Ontario for the reasons he gave in his excellent address.

If it should transpire that none of those motions have passed with the approval of this House, then we have section 718.2 with the phrase sexual orientation as part of that section. In those circumstances, only one of two things will happen. Either the phrase sexual orientation will remain undefined, or it can be defined by this House pursuant to one of the amendments that I have put forward.

So one might wonder why we need a definition, which is what I want to talk about in the remaining time. Let us examine some actual facts, not rhetoric and various other things, but let us talk about some facts.

Fact one: This is the first time the phrase sexual orientation is going to be used in any federal Canadian statute.

Fact two: This phrase is undefined in any legal or standard dictionary.

Fact three: This phrase is undefined by any court in Canada. There have been passing references to the phrase, a footnote here or there by one or two or three judges, but it has not been judiciously interpreted in this country.

We asked the minister what sexual orientation means. When he appeared before the justice committee on November 17, 1994, he said: "Sexual orientation encompasses homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality". If that is in fact the case, then that is exactly what my Motion No. 11 proposes. It proposes to state that sexual orientation means exactly what the Minister of Justice said it meant in the committee; namely, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality. The important point is that it would mean nothing else but those three things the minister said.

It is interesting to note that virtually every jurisdiction in the world that I have found that uses the phrase sexual orientation or similar words actually defines the phrase. We are meeting so much resistance here in Canada to defining a legal phrase that has never been used in this country in a statute. Yet in other countries there does not seem to be this problem.

Let us take a look, for example, at California, which has a population greater than our entire country. They say sexual orientation means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, period. This is exactly what the Minister of Justice said and exactly what my Motion No. 11 states.

What about our own regulations, not statutes, under the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission? Even they go some way to defining sexual orientation by saying: "Sexual orientation does not include the orientation

toward any sexual act or activity that would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code". Who could disagree with that? That is in fact a definition because it is a definition of exclusion. Motion No. 11 is a definition of inclusion.

Let us take, for example, the District of Columbia. Sexual orientation means male or female homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality-and I note for the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway-by preference or practice. But it is defined. That is the point: it is defined in statute.

Finally, let us talk about Australia. We talked about the United States, so we will now talk about South Australia and its equal opportunity act. The act states: "It is unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality. Sexuality is defined as meaning heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality or trans-sexuality". Well my other motion deals with that, with the exception of trans-sexuality.

All of these jurisdictions define the phrase. So what I am saying is we should define the phrase. What if we do not? Does the undefined phrase sexual orientation mean something other than what the minister has said it means?

Let us look at the evidence that was called at the committee. Dr. Greenberg, who is a member of the policy review committee from the Canadian Criminal Justice Association and who is also a psychiatrist at one of the Ottawa hospitals, in response to a question by me, said: "Sexual orientation is a descriptive term. It basically defines what attracts a person to a stimulus. In other words, just like a compass, what is it that orients a person toward a particular stimulus? It is what stimulus arouses a person sexually." I asked, "Yes, so necrophilia would be a sexual orientation to you?" Dr. Greenberg answers, "A deviant sexual orientation, yes."

It goes on. The Canadian Psychological Association said: "It is not for us to say whether in the courts it would be,"-that is to say, interpreted-"but certainly sexual orientation is a key and fundamental component of pedophilia". That is not the member for Scarborough West talking, that is Dr. Stephen J. Wormith, chairperson of the criminal justice psychology section of the Canadian Psychological Association. That is what he says. This is if it is undefined.

We have many other quotations, which I have sent around to all hon. members in this House.

If those witnesses do not agree that sexual orientation does not mean what the minister said, what are the courts going to do? The courts are not responsible to the people of Canada. I do not want to take that chance. It is for this House to define phrases, not for the courts.

Interestingly enough, every other characteristic listed in 718.2 is defined. Race has been defined. National or ethnic origin has been defined. Language has been defined. Colour has been defined. Religion has been defined. Sex has been defined. Age has been defined. Mental or physical disability has been defined. Here are the definitions, judicial and otherwise.

The only identifiable characteristic that has not been given a definition in this country is sexual orientation. Why is that? According to the minister, he says that it would be offensive to provide a definition. I quote: "It would be offensive for us to define that term". That is the reason he gives for not defining a term that the witnesses said includes necrophilia, pedophilia, scopophilia, or whatever other kind of philias you want to talk about. That is not just some hon. member talking; those are actual expert witnesses before the justice committee who made these points.

Who would it offend? It is not offensive to the people of Scarborough West. I conducted a poll. Seventy-two per cent of my constituents want sexual orientation defined before it is put in any federal statute. It is not offensive to anybody I know.

If we draft statutes on the basis of offence, we have given a lot of offence to a lot of gun owners and we just passed Bill C-68. That gives offence. We cannot draft statutes on the basis of who they might or might not offend. We draft statutes on the basis of what is right and what is wrong. Wedraft according to the proper rules of drafting and give definitions.

I ask the House, if sexual orientation is going to remain, please define it.

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order I refer you to Standing Order 18 where it states that no member may use offensive words against any member. The hon. member has accused the hon. member for Central Nova of slander. That is a direct accusation against a member of this House. I ask you to call the member to order.

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 1995]

moved

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended in the English version, by replacing line 33, on page 8, with the following:

"or physical disability, sexual orientation,".

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 33 and 34, on page 8, with the following:

"or physical disability, heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality of the victim, or".

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-41, in Clause 6, be amended: a ) by replacing lines 33 and 34, on page 8, with the following:

"or physical disability, sexuality of the victim, or"; and b ) by adding after line 15, at page 9, the following:

"(2) For the purposes of this section, "sexuality" means, only, heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality and, for greater certainty, does not include a preference towards any sexual act or activity that would constitute an offence under this Act."

[Criminal Code, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am looking to your guidance on a question with respect to the voting patterns you have just issued on the various motions.

Is it appropriate for me to mention this point of order now or would you prefer that I see you privately? I am somewhat confused as to item (k) in Group No. 2. I am in your hands as to how you would like to handle it.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of clarification. These are all government amendments. I am in favour of them all except Motion No. 227 which would have the affect of overturning an amendment carried at committee. If I vote in favour of Motion No. 21 can I still vote against Motion No. 227, or am I precluded from doing so?

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of Motion No. 158.

[Legal Recognition Of Same Sex Spouses, June 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to look at the exact wording of this motion. I have been listening to people going off on tangents talking about things that are absolutely irrelevant to the motion before the House today. The motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take the measures necessary for the legal recognition of same sex spouses.

There is no such thing in this country at the present time as a same sex spouse. Spouses are heterosexual. Spouses are husband and wife either legally married or common law. That is the legal fact in this country now. The words of the motion are simply incorrect to begin with. At best the motion should perhaps read: "That, in the opinion of this House the government should take the measures necessary for the legal recognition of same sex couples".

What the mover of the motion wants is that same sex couples be given legal recognition. How? By being called spouses. What does that mean? It means this motion is calling for this House to recognize two people of the same sex to be legally married. There is absolutely no other possible interpretation of this motion.

The motion calls for the legal recognition of same sex spouses. We cannot recognize same sex spouses legally unless we declare them spouses. The only way to declare them spouses is to marry them. There is absolutely no question at all about what this motion is calling upon Parliament to do. I do not care how they try to pretend it does not do this, the words themselves say it. They want this House to declare homosexual unions as legal marriages.

What do my constituents say about that proposition? It just so happens I have asked my constituents that very question. I want to read one of the questions I asked them. I will not read them all because I want to keep my comments relevant to the motion we are discussing, unlike some people who have spoken here. The question was: Do you want same sex marriages to be legally recognized as the equivalent of heterosexual marriages-pretty straightforward-including the right to sponsor same sex spouses or fiancés for immigration purposes? The answer was crystal clear: 84 per cent of my constituents said no; 13 per cent said yes; and 3 per cent were undecided. Eighty-four per cent.

In my respectful submission, there is no poll that could be taken anywhere in this country that would deviate from those numbers significantly. That is simply a fact. My constituents do not want homosexual unions to be recognized as marriages.

It has nothing to do with fear. It has nothing to do with hate. It has nothing to do with equality. It has nothing to do with homophobia. It has to do with promoting and giving advantage to that which promotes and gives advantage to society.

People have talked about inequality. I stand here as a white male. I admit it and I make no apologies for the fact I was born a male or that I was born a Caucasian. That is the way I am. The fact is that everyone in this country is equal under the law. The charter of rights and freedoms provides that everyone is equal under the law. There is not a criminal matter, there is nothing that I am entitled to as a matter of law that no one else is entitled to.

There is often a distinction made or a distinction tried to be played between a right and a benefit. A benefit is not a right. No matter how we call it, no matter how we try to disguise it, a benefit will never become a right. One is not entitled to it as a matter of right; one is entitled to it after meeting certain criteria.

The debate then has to be as to what kind of benefits we want to give to what kind of people. We can talk about that as much as we want but not under the rubric, at least not with logic, of this motion. This motion is not talking about benefits. This motion is not talking about equality. This motion is talking plainly and simply about asking this Parliament to legally recognize same sex unions as a marriage because there is no other way to legally recognize same sex spouses.

I repeat that someone cannot be a spouse unless he or she is married. The only way to recognize same sex spouses is to recognize the legality of the marriage of same sex spouses. Why should we not do that?

The Supreme Court has spoken and four of the judges, including the chief justice, had a few interesting comments to make. I wish to quote directly from the decision. I am talking about marriage. That is what we are talking about in this motion.

The decision states: "Suffice it to say that marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of longstanding philosophical and religious traditions. But its ultimate raison d'être transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense", say these justices of the Supreme Court, "marriage is by nature heterosexual".

The decision goes on: "It would be possible to legally define marriage to include homosexual couples", which is what this motion wants. Yes, it would be possible but this would not change the biological and social realities that underlie the traditional marriage. We can call a homosexual union what we want but it is not a marriage. That is what this particular motion wants.

The court then went on to consider that it is perfectly legitimate in Canadian society for Canadian society to promote the traditional heterosexual biological family. There is nothing wrong in doing that and it is not discrimination according to the justices.

Why not? I quote again from the judgment: "The singling out of legally married and common law couples as the recipients of benefits necessarily excludes all sorts of other couples living together, such as brothers and sisters or other relatives regardless of sex and others who are not related, whatever reasons these other couples may have for doing so and whatever their sexual orientation". Of course it excludes them if we are promoting the traditional family.

The court goes on to say: "Homosexual couples, it is true, differ from other excluded couples in that their relationship includes a sexual aspect, but this sexual aspect has nothing to do with the social objectives for which Parliament affords a measure of support to married couples and those who live in a common law relationship. In a word, the distinction made by Parliament is grounded in a social relationship, a social unit that is fundamental to society and that is the heterosexual biological traditional family".

The court states homosexual couples are not therefore discriminated against, that is to say when society provides benefits to the heterosexual couples. They are simply included with other types of couples such as brothers and sisters, boyfriend and girlfriend, two sisters living together who are also excluded. The court specifically said, at least four of the judges, that there was no discrimination.

My constituents have spoken clearly no matter how one pretends to hide what this motion means; it means House of Commons, declare homosexual unions, marriages under the laws of Canada.

My constituents have said no. I say no.