Nick Discepola

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that I will share my speaking time with the hon. member for Vancouver East.

As the member for Vaudreuil, I am especially proud of the fact that the government tabled this bill. This bill recognizes sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination in Canada.

The bill amends the Canadian Human Rights Act by adding sexual orientation to the prohibited grounds of discrimination already listed in the act, including race, colour, religion and sex.

This will bring the wording of the act in line with court decisions prescribing that sexual orientation be included in or added to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination contained in the act so that the act will be consistent with the Canadian Constitution.

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously recognized that sexual orientation was a ground of discrimination similar to those listed in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter applies to all legislation passed by this Parliament, including the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The proposed amendment will make this act consistent with the rights protected under the charter as well as with court decisions granting gays and lesbians the same protection against discrimination as other Canadians enjoy.

Those who object to sexual orientation being recognized as a prohibited ground of discrimination make it a matter of moral values, when this is mainly a legal matter. No one in this country should be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. This is a basic matter of justice and fairness. We have no business judging people on the basis of their homosexuality or heterosexuality. On the other hand, we have a duty to protect all Canadians against discrimination in our society.

The courts and people of Canada have recognized the fact that gays and lesbians form a vulnerable group. They have historically been disadvantaged and been the victim of stereotypes, social biases and considerable discrimination in our society.

No individual should be less deserving of being recognized as a full fledged member of Canadian society because of his homosexuality. All deserve the same respect, the same consideration and the same protection under the law of the land.

According to recent polls, most Canadians feel that gays and lesbians should enjoy legal protection against discrimination as regards employment and services. Canadians support the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

All recognize that sexual orientation, like sex, race or religion, should not have a bearing on the right to employment or services. The Canadian Human Rights Act seeks to prevent discrimination at the federal level in the areas of employment and provision of goods and services. It applies exclusively to federally regulated departments, agencies and corporations. The act provides a recourse to anyone fired or unfairly treated by an employer, or to whom goods or services are refused on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Gays and lesbians must enjoy the same legal protection as all Canadians, so that no one in our country is a victim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This amendment provides such victims with a quick and inexpensive way to engage in a conciliation and settlement process.

Eight provinces and territories already prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in their own human rights legislation. They are Quebec which, since 1987 already, has had such an act, as well as Ontario, Manitoba, the Yukon, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, British Columbia and Saskatchewan.

This amendment aligns the federal act with the provincial ones, while also ensuring that it provides the same protection to any person who is discriminated against on the basis of sexual

orientation. The amendment promotes greater fundamental justice and equity for all Canadians.

Some people have raised various concerns regarding this amendment. It is important to address these concerns. First, the protection granted to homosexuals does not apply in the case of pedophilia. Judicial and administrative tribunals have interpreted the expression "sexual orientation" as meaning homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality. Pedophilia is a specific crime in the Criminal Code, regardless of whether it is committed by a heterosexual or a homosexual: it has nothing to do with someone's sexual orientation.

In addition, this amendment does not call into question the definition of the family, marriage or spouse, or the fundamental role of the family in Canadian society. Neither does this amendment lead to the automatic recognition of benefits for same sex partners, or open the door to homosexual marriages or the adoption of children by homosexual couples.

The sole purpose of this amendment is to provide protection for gays and lesbians against discrimination with respect to employment and the provision of goods and services in areas under federal jurisdiction. It must also be pointed out that the Canadian Human Rights Act does not apply to religious, cultural or educational institutions under provincial regulation. This amendment will therefore not affect these institutions. The fears raised by this amendment do not, in general, take sufficient account of the context and true scope of this amendment.

We believe that this amendment is necessary in order to ensure a certain basic equity in order to protect all Canadians against types of discrimination they encounter in their daily lives.

The Canadian Human Rights Act, more than any other kind of legislation, reflects the values of a country and of a people. Tolerance, equity, and justice are fundamental principles of our Canadian identity. Canada is recognized internationally as one of the countries in the world with the greatest respect for human rights. We cannot accept that people in this country continue to be victims of discrimination in the workplace because of their sexual orientation. The purpose of this amendment is to correct precisely this situation and to ensure greater equity for all Canadians in our society.

Canadian society recognizes the importance of an individual's right to be respected. Each individual is unique and distinct, and must be able to count on the same protection under the law. Everyone has a sexual orientation, whether it is heterosexual or homosexual, and this distinction must not be used to justify different protection from that enjoyed by the majority of Canadians against discriminatory practices. This amendment makes it possible to end discrimination against gays and lesbians in federal work places or in federally regulated businesses, such as banks or airlines.

The exclusion of sexual orientation in Canadian legislation offers basic protection against discrimination, such as in the case of dismissal, or the refusal to provide services simply because a person is gay or lesbian.

Although this is only a minor amendment to the act, I would like to conclude by saying that this bill nonetheless constitutes an essential amendment to ensure equal treatment and opportunities for all Canadians. This bill will help build a society in which discrimination is not tolerated and in which there is equal protection for all individuals. This amendment makes it possible to ensure that gays and lesbians receive the same basic protection against discrimination enjoyed by all other Canadians. It is a question of rights, of justice and of fundamental fairness.

[Correctional Services Canada, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general's report came out this morning. The solicitor general has looked at the report and welcomes its recommendations.

We also recognize, as the report states, that Correctional Services Canada has made tremendous positive gains in its rehabilitation programs. Some of the programs that have been implemented have received international recognition.

[Penitentiaries, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is giving Canadians the false impression that inmates are getting a free ride.

I would like to quote from a recent article from the Ottawa Sun which states: What is clear though is that the Reform Party is misleading the public when it claims that convicts are having it good''. It goes on further to say:Credit for reducing costs must go the Corrections Canada managers who amazingly cut 15 per cent from their headquarters budget, instead of hitting the hard working guards''. It concludes: ``The bottom line is that, for the most part, the perception that Canada's inmates are getting a free ride is untrue. There will be horror stories to be sure but it's important to note that our prisons are well-managed and our governments are not soft on crime''.

I agree with that fully.

[Penitentiaries, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as was reported to the House, the Solicitor General of Canada took active steps to make sure that the safety of those around the institution was addressed by transferring almost 20 inmates to provincial institutions.

We have looked at the security features of the institution. We announced concrete measures to make sure that safety was addressed, such as a fence and cameras. We are taking the necessary steps to address that. It is going to take six to eight weeks.

In the meantime we are looking at the security features. More important, we are reviewing the whole premise of medium and high risk offenders and whether they should be brought back to the institution. It is under review currently and we will make sure that is properly followed.

[Vocational Training, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian technical and vocational training olympics were held in Montreal last weekend. We must not only tell young people how important it is to get sound vocational training, but also commend and thank the participants as well as the organizers, who did an excellent job of hosting these olympics.

This successful event clearly showed the participants' determination and tenacity, which will stand them in good stead in facing the challenges of a society where ceaseless change in every field of activity is the only constant.

It is important to encourage this kind of commitment to our young people's future so that today's society can take other concrete steps to ensure a good quality of life for people across Canada.

[Criminal Code, May 1st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to offer my comments on Private Member's Bill C-217.

In our opinion the bill itself would extend to all witnesses certain provisions of the Criminal Code which protect witnesses under the age of 14 years in prosecutions for sexual offences and offences involving violence. The proposed bill would extend these protections to all witnesses.

I believe that all members would agree with the member's goal of removing any traumatic element and facilitating witness participation in the criminal justice system. However, because the amendment would affect fundamental principles of the criminal justice system, such as open justice and the right to conduct one's defence, I think it needs to be examined seriously before we agree to include it in the Criminal Code.

The protection granted to witnesses in the criminal justice system has been improved significantly in recent years. The Criminal Code already includes a number of provisions to safeguard adult victims of sexual offences. At the discretion of a judge, he or she may exclude members of the public, place publication bans on the identity of complainants and witnesses, make evidentiary provisions such as restrictions on questioning about previous sexual activity and even hold in camera hearings for the determination of admissibility of certain evidence.

All of these safeguards would apply even where the accused is not represented by counsel. These protections have been granted to ensure that victims and witnesses can provide their testimony without being intimidated. We must examine Bill C-217 in light of the protections that already exist.

Bill C-217 would extend to adults protections that are currently provided to children. What protection would be extended to all witnesses under Bill C-217? Basically there are two protections. The first would allow the judge to exclude the public from the courtroom when he or she believes the interest of the witness requires this. The second would permit a judge to prevent an accused from personally cross-examining a witness.

Bill C-217 would build upon the recent Criminal Code provisions enacted on August 1, 1993. The issue is whether these protections which are justified by the particular vulnerability of young persons would also be justified if extended to adults.

Let us examine the first protection. The prohibition for an accused to cross-examine a child witness comes from concerns that a cross-examination conducted by the accused would nullify the protection granted by allowing the child to testify behind a screen. In the case of a child, it is therefore justified by this concern and the need to avoid that child from coming face to face with the aggressor. This is particularly important because we know that child abuse occurs in part because of the dominant position of the adult in relation to the child.

Cross-examination by an accused of a child victim would continue that abuse. This is the reason the Criminal Code provides that an accused shall not personally cross-examine a witness under 14 years, unless the judge is of the opinion that the proper administration of justice requires that the accused do so.

What happens when a judge does not allow an accused to personally cross-examine a child? The judge in that case can appoint counsel to conduct the cross-examination of the child. This provision applies in all sexual offences and in all offences in which violence against the person has been used, alleged or threatened. This provision, coupled with the provision for the use of screens or closed circuit television, ensures that child victims will not have to face their abusers. This may assist them in providing their evidence.

Bill C-217 would extend that protection to all victims and witnesses of sexual offences and crimes of violence. In all cases of sexual or violent offence the judge could appoint counsel for an unrepresented accused to conduct the cross-examination not only of the victim, but also of any witness.

I readily agree with the hon. member that this protection would be beneficial. I would question however whether this protection is necessary and I would like to examine its implications. There would be implications on costs when counsel is appointed by the court to conduct cross-examination for an unrepresented accused.

The Criminal Code already provides for the appointment of counsel for unrepresented accused persons in specific circumstances. For example, the court can appoint counsel to act for an accused considered unfit to stand trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada can appoint counsel when it appears that the accused, whose case is brought before the Supreme Court, is financially unable to retain counsel and it is in the interest of justice to have the accused represented by counsel.

Who pays for these lawyers? As members know, under the Constitution the administration of justice is a provincial responsibility. Where a judge appoints a counsel to act on behalf of an unrepresented accused, it will in most cases be the responsibility of the provincial attorney general to pay for that appointment.

Bill C-217 would significantly increase the number of cases where the courts would appoint counsel, if the courts were permitted to appoint counsel, for an unrepresented accused in sexual offences, sexual assaults and crimes of violence against the person regardless of whether the witness is a child or an adult.

This would create the potential for imposing major costs on the provinces, which have already expressed their concerns about the cost implications where counsel is appointed in the rather exceptional circumstances covered under present Criminal Code provisions. Cost implications would significantly increase if the amendments provided for in Bill C-217 were to in effect become law.

Because of this, I would think it is absolutely essential that all provinces be consulted about the proposed bill before it is passed. I doubt if the hon. member has had the time to perform these consultations.

I now want to examine another protection that would be extended in Bill C-217, the exclusion of the public from the courtroom. It is a general principle of our criminal justice system that all proceedings take place in open court. The presiding judge does, however, currently have discretion, provided by section 486(1) of the code, to exclude all or any of the members of the public where the judge is of the opinion that it is in the interest of public morals, the maintenance of order or the proper administration of justice to do so.

In addition, section 486(1.1) of the code currently directs the judge, when considering the term "proper administration of justice", to include in that consideration ensuring that the interests of witnesses under 14 are safeguarded in proceedings arising from a sexual offence, a sexual assault offence or an offence involving violence against the person.

The proposed bill before us would expand the direction given to the judge in interpreting the proper administration of justice. In interpreting the proper administration of justice the judge would have to consider that the interests of all witnesses, not just those under 14, are safeguarded in sexual offences, sexual assault offences and crimes involving violence.

Can we believe that a judge who is asked to decide on whether the public should be excluded from court does not already consider whether a particular witness would be able to provide the necessary and relevant evidence in a public courtroom? I believe the discretion to exclude members of the public is carefully exercised by all judges. I do not believe it is necessary to require the judge to consider the interests of all witnesses in determining whether to exclude members of the public.

While I am in agreement with the hon. member's intentions in introducing the bill, I cannot support it for two basic reasons. First, some implications of the bill involve provincial jurisdictions, and we should not impose on them without proper consultations. Second, I believe the actual modifications proposed are not necessary at this time.

[Edmonton Institution For Women, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the opening of the correctional facility in Edmonton was the result of a task force, established in 1989, which recommended the closure of the correctional facility in Kingston in favour of opening five regional centres.

To date we have had problems in Edmonton, but there are other facilities that have proven to be without incident, one in Maple Creek, Saskatchewan and one in Truro, Nova Scotia.

On the question of safety and security in Edmonton, today Correctional Services Canada announced an additional eight measures it is implementing to ensure safety, which was a concern expressed by my colleagues from Edmonton East and Edmonton North.

These measures are taken very seriously. We have implemented the procedures and are doing so immediately.

[National Unity, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan called upon me to table with him a petition presented to him by residents of the Hudson area of my riding.

Last Monday I met with the same concerned citizens of Hudson. Their message was also very clear. They fear for their future. They expect all those who share their concerns to put their political differences aside and join efforts to ensure that Quebecers are all made to feel at home anywhere in Canada. Their concern is Canadian unity and not partisan politics.

The member stated that Reformers stand solidly behind the constituents in my riding who express clearly their desire to remain Canadian. The time for grandstanding is now over. I challenge the member to reverse his vote of December 13, 1995 and to now support the initiatives of the government to recognize the distinct character of Quebec which he and his party have voted against.

Only then will the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan earn my respect and that of the constituents of Vaudreuil. Only then will he clearly demonstrate his commitment to working hand in hand with the federal government for the greater cause of Canadian unity.

[Death Of A Cum Police Officer, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, residents in my riding of Vaudreuil are still in shock following a terrible crime committed in the municipality of Senneville.

After stopping a vehicle for a routine check, Officer André Lalonde, from Montreal's police station 11, was ruthlessly gunned down by an individual who fled the scene.

This tragic murder of a police officer, the second one in five years in the Montreal urban community, has generated fear and dismay among the residents of my riding.

On behalf of the residents of Senneville and the riding of Vaudreuil, I want to offer our deepest sympathy to the family of the victim.

[Petitions, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition which calls for Parliament to declare and confirm immediately that Canada is indivisible, and that the boundaries of Canada, its provinces, territories and territorial waters may be modified only by a free vote of all Canadian citizens as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or through the amending formula as stipulated in the Canadian Constitution.

This petition is signed by 27 people from the West Island area and parts of my riding.