John Harvard

[Petitions, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition bearing the signatures of about 1,500 fellow Manitobans.

The petitioners call on Parliament to establish national policies to control and contain the incidents of myalgic encephalomyelitis, fibromyalgia, and multiple chemical sensitivities in Canada and to ensure care, treatment, comfort and dignity for persons afflicted with these illnesses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that when I denied unanimous consent yesterday it was on a request to speak on

a motion twice. It had nothing to do with extending the timefor a speech. It was only on the request to speak twice on the same motion.

[Firefighters, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to bring to the attention of all members and all Canadians the hard work and commitment shown by our professional firefighters.

Firefighting is an honourable profession in which men and women place themselves at risk in order to serve their fellow citizens. It is important for all of us to realize the contributions our firefighters make to society.

This week members of the International Association of Fire Fighters are in Ottawa to discuss issues within their profession. I welcome them and I thank them. On behalf of all Canadians I say thanks for the services of our firefighters, their dedication and professionalism.

[Reform Party, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the leader of the third party has finally taken action, although belatedly, to deal with the offensive and disgusting behaviour of two of his caucus members. I hope this will finally force him to review the record of all members of his caucus when it comes to human rights.

I hold out little hope that this will actually happen when the leader of the third party has attempted shamefully to minimize their actions and to blame the media for his members' outbursts. I am sorry, it is not the media that is responsible for the long record of intolerant statements made by Reform Party members.

Was it the media that prompted the member for New Westminster-Burnaby to blame gay men for violence against gays? Did the media make the member for Athabasca repeat his offensive remarks? How can the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan now blame the media for his bigoted comments when he stated similar views in 1994?

I hope we will see genuine action against intolerance-

[Human Rights, May 1st, 1996]

Are you going to vote for equality, Leon?

[Human Rights, May 1st, 1996]

How are you going to vote?

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

Madam Speaker, for the information of the hon. member, I am not from the province of Ontario. I am from the province of Manitoba.

The hon. member raises a couple of questions. One is a more technical question. He really wonders whether there is a discrepancy or a difference between the English language version of the bill and the French language version.

I am not a lawyer and I am not competent to address that question but let me assure the member that a question of this kind is certainly appropriate to raise at committee. At committee there will be members of the government and lawyers and others who can answer any technical questions. I invite the member to raise that question before committee. He will not have to wait long for that.

On the question of quotas, targets and affirmative action, let me assure the hon. member the bill has nothing to do whatsoever with affirmative action.

We have to be careful when dealing with the bill not to read more into it than is there. We are talking two words, sexual orientation. Those two words are being added to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. There is nothing more to this, nothing less. It

simply means Canadians, after the bill becomes law, will not be able to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. I assure the hon. member it has nothing to do whatsoever with affirmative action.

While the hon. member has some questions, I realize, recognize and appreciate that he and his party support the bill. That is very important. The bill is about equality and tolerance. We appreciate their support very much.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on Bill C-33.

Everything we say, do and touch in the House of Commons is important, one way or another, to all Canadians. Some things are more important than others. This bill to ban discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is one of the more important measures to come before the House.

It is important to all Canadians because it is about fairness. It is about tolerance. It is about equality. It is a message to all Canadians that discrimination will not be and is not acceptable.

For those of us who feel it is important, I point out I am a family man. I come from a large family, raised on the prairies. I am one of 12 surviving children. My mother gave birth to 14 children. I am number 11. I have a large family, at least in contemporary terms. I am the father of five children. I am the grandfather of four children.

Family values to me are very important. I assure all Canadians watching today that my wife and I take our family responsibilities very seriously. We think values are very important and we pass those values which we hold dear to us on to our children. We impart those values. I feel very strongly that Bill C-33 represents no threat to me, no threat to my wife, no threat to my children.

I understand that from time to time in the affairs of human kind certain ideas come along and certain changes are made. Some frighten people. I can understand that. Banning discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is one of the changes which frightens people. People say "don't do it, for it frightens me". We have heard these voices before. We have heard these voices on very important issues throughout history.

Slavery was abolished in the United States over 150 years ago. Before that happened there was a great debate. There were Americans who said "don't do it, for I am afraid".

More than 30 years ago integration became a hot issue in the United States. People said "don't do it, for we are afraid. Do not allow blacks to ride at the front of the bus".

In Canada in 1916 or 1917 Canadians were debating the right of women to vote. People said "don't do it, for we are afraid". The same thing happened in the 1960s on the issue of contraception. "Don't allow it, for we are afraid". The same voices were heard on the issue of divorce: "Don't permit the state to allow divorce, for we are afraid".

When we face these issues, people like me who feel a responsibility to push changes of this kind have a responsibility to allay fears. I want to allay some of the fears respecting Bill C-33. I refer people in the House and people watching across the land to the preamble of the bill.

The preamble has two important "whereas":

Whereas the Government of Canada affirms the dignity and worth of all individuals and recognizes that they have the right to be free from discrimination in employment and the provision of goods and services, and that right is based on respect for the rule of law and lawful conduct by all;

And whereas the government recognizes and affirms the importance of family as the foundation of Canadian society and that nothing in this act alters its fundamental role in society;

It is important to point out that preamble, for it gives this act meaningful context. It should allay some of the fears and concerns of some Canadians.

Let me put something else to rest. The bill is not about special rights. It is about equal rights. Right now in this land the human rights act states that one cannot be discriminated against on the grounds of age, sex, colour, religion. These are not special rights, because everyone enjoys them. The same can be said when the words sexual orientation are added to the list of prohibited grounds. It will not be a special right belonging to homosexuals or heterosexuals, because everyone will enjoy this same right, be they homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual.

This amendment provides for protection against discrimination in the workplace and in the provision of goods and services. It means an individual cannot be fired on the basis of his or her sexual orientation. The law also prohibits an employer from doing this on the basis of other grounds such as race or religion.

It is not a special treatment but the very opposite. It is intended to stop employers from singling our homosexuals or blacks or a religious minority and instead treat them as everyone else, the same as everyone else. And so I say this is not a special right.

People might ask what does the Canadian Human Rights Act do? The title of the statute suggests a broad range of coverage, but when we look at what this law actually covers, we gain some perspective. It applies to employment and the provision of goods and services. It does not apply to other matters. It applies only to areas under federal jurisdiction, which is fairly narrow. The vast majority of employers and service providers, about 90 per cent, come under provincial human rights laws. Therefore the changed law would not be all encompassing, as some people might suggest. The interesting thing is that most employers and service providers are covered by provincial rights codes. The majority of these provincial laws have already been changed to add sexual orientation.

What about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and why is it important? It is important because the charter is part of the Canadian Constitution. It applies to all other laws in Canada be they federal, provincial or municipal. This is important because the Supreme Court of Canada has said that section 15, the equality guarantee, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It is in the law already. It is in the charter and the charter applies to all federal laws.

In this respect the Canadian Human Rights Act changes nothing. This is very important and worth repeating. The charter already prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation at the federal level regardless of whether this amendment comes along or not. It is very important to take note of this. Thus before one draws conclusions about the impact of this amendment, it must be understood that its impact already exists because of the charter.

Another point I would make about the state of the law is that the courts have already ruled that sexual orientation is in the Canadian Human Rights Act. There has been, admittedly, a contrary decision about the Alberta legislation but the decisions with respect to the federal legislation stand. Overall the state of the law is such that it is hard to see this bill as anything but a catching up to what has already happened in most places across the country.

How does it affect the family? How does it affect marriage? How does it affect adoption? The preamble to this bill which I cited earlier answers the question. It recognizes that the family remains at the foundation of our society and this amendment is not going to change that. The family remains strong.

How does it affect marriage? This law has nothing to do with marriage. The Canadian Human Rights Act has no application here.

How does it affect adoption? This law has nothing to do with adoption. Adoption is a provincial matter.

This brings me to a fundamental point about this bill and the Canadian Human Rights Act. The purpose and impact of this bill is not as broad as some would have it. Its purpose is not to change people's sincerely held beliefs. Its purpose is to prevent an employer from firing someone because of his or her sexual orientation. It is to prevent someone from being denied service by a

federally regulated business simply because of his or her sexual orientation.

It is important to note that the law makes this distinction. The law says that when the border between belief and action is crossed, that is when an employer or service provider acts to refuse a job or service simply because of a person's sexual orientation, then the point has been reached where the law should intervene.

When you look at this bill more closely, Mr. Speaker, you realize that it does a lot less than some suggest but something still very important.

Let me address some other issues that have been raised. One is the meaning of sexual orientation. Some have asked if this might include unlawful conduct. As I mentioned, sexual orientation is already in the charter and the majority of provincial human rights laws, as well as being read into the Canadian Human Rights Act.

There have been quite a few cases and there is a well-developed understanding of this term. It means homosexuality and heterosexuality as well a bisexuality.

The answer to the question about unlawful conduct is a clear no. This law does not apply to such conduct. The preamble to the bill confirms this. There is no doubt about it. I remind the House of this and it is very important: pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It is a crime. It is a crime regardless of whether the offender is heterosexual or homosexual. It is important to put those facts on the table. It is very important to understand that.

I have heard it suggested that it would be better to drop the list of grounds from the Canadian Human Rights Act altogether rather than adding the two words sexual orientation. I am not really certain if I understand this point. If the list of grounds is dropped, with what would it be replaced?

How do we protect against discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex and sexual orientation? How would we know what forms of discrimination are prohibited and which forms are not? I do not understand what this would accomplish. Either we protect against discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation and other listed grounds or we do not.

In my view it is misleading and disingenuous to suggest dropping the list. Ultimately this suggestion is quite meaningless. It is designed to stir up trouble and it is intended to avoid the issue.

Ultimately if we are to protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the proposed amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act is the way to do it. There is really no other way.

Having reflected on this, and having carefully considered the purpose and the effect of the bill, what else can be said about this amendment? It is a rather modest bill, despite the kind of attention it is getting. It allows the federal government essentially to catch up, to the courts, to the provinces and to catch up to the law. When this is looked at issue by issue, point by point, the impact of this amendment has been greatly exaggerated by some. This amendment is about human rights, a simple matter of fairness and tolerance.

A majority of Canadians support this amendment and they have for years. For most people this is not a controversial issue. This is because Canadians understand that this comes down to a basic question: "Do you think it is right to discriminate against gays or lesbians, to fire them from their jobs, or refuse them a service simply because of their sexual orientation?" The majority of Canadians know that it is not. This flows from basic Canadian values, important values, values that we all hold very sincerely.

I have talked about catching up. Most of the provinces with the vast majority of the population have voted to add this protection to their human rights acts. This is not something new. It has been the Liberal Party's policy for a good many years. I think it goes back to 1978. The fact that the Liberal Party has supported this amendment has been known to people for a long time.

After so many years, after being elected to govern this country it is really time to act. Enough time has passed and now is the time to follow through. I sincerely ask all members to consider this bill, to examine it, and in the final analysis I think they will find that it is very worthy of their support.

[Canada Post, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

Members of the House know that the Radwanski commission is in progress right now, hearing ideas, concerns and proposals from all Canadians. This particular proposal has been heard. The work of the commission will continue. According to the current schedule, Mr. Radwanski will report mid-summer, approximately.

[Human Rights, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate what I said before. An agreement is already in place between the general contractor and the subcontractor. That settlement does not speak to any sentiments that we have with respect to human rights legislation.

Let me also point out that there are a couple of outstanding issues in this regard having to do with moneys owed. The government is concerned about that. It has appointed a facilitator to try to work out a settlement so that all parties can be satisfied with the outcome.