Maurice Bernier

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Simcoe North for his words, and to comment on how refreshing it is to hear something like this. For the last several hours I have had the impression that we were being treated to speeches from each and every member of the reform wing of the Liberal Party, because we were hearing nothing but the opposite views.

I will ask a question of my hon. colleague, but I wish to start by focussing on a comment he made. I wanted to do so a while ago, but the time allowed for comments was up. When his colleague for Mississauga South was making the connection between pedophilia and homosexuality, I felt this was what would have been called "gay bashing" in any other circumstances.

Why link the two? Is it with the most explicit intention of having the public believe that pedophiles are only found in the homosexual population? The reality is totally the opposite. Looking at the international sex trade, in Asia, or in areas on which there have been reports just recently, Santo Domingo, the Philippines, I would say that, more often than not, those who are involved in pedophilia in those countries, and who come from abroad, are heterosexuals.

People are entitled to be opposed to this bill-in my opinion this is a fundamental right-but I would like to hear them state their case clearly and particularly to explain their reasons for doing so. When reference is made to this bill's conferring particular rights concerning job equity, I think people are mixing up two pieces of legislation with totally different objectives.

In the case of Bill C-33, the intent is to protect the rights of the individual, all Canadian individuals, regardless of colour, race, or any of the eleven grounds for discrimination. As for the employment equity legislation, it is groups that are being promoted. This is completely different, with completely different objectives, and I would like our hon. colleague for Simcoe North to comment on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a clear and simple question. Are we to understand from the comments made by the hon. member for Huron-Bruce that, should the Prime Minister impose the party line, he will vote against the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, both in my capacity as the official opposition critic on human rights and the status of the disabled, and personally, to take part in this debate on Bill C-33, the objective of which is, as the minister has just reviewed for us, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, in order to add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Before addressing the matter of homosexual rights, I would like to begin with a criticism of the government for the way it has handled this issue.

Only two and a half years into its mandate, we find this government is wearing out, in fact I would call it a government on its last legs. It is obvious in several areas. On the constitutional level, the "principal homeland", its latest invention for recognizing Quebec and its specific character within Canadian federation did not last long. We have also seen this on the economic level, with all the humming and hawing around the GST. We have seen it as well, and still do, in connection with national defence and unemployment insurance. Now we see the same wishy washy approach to human rights.

Why am I blaming the government? Because we really have the impression that this bill has created enormous tensions within the Liberal caucus. This is the reason the government has waited so long before settling this question, which has dragged on for so many decades.

I am, of course, pleased that this bill has got to the House, although, as the Minister of Justice has already told us, we have had to wait more than 20 years since the Canadian Human Rights Act was first adopted to add sexual orientation to the prohibited grounds.

For more than 20 years now, as the Minister of Justice has also pointed out, the Liberal Party has made it one of its platform policies, but when they formed the government no political decision was made to support that policy, nor to give it concrete form.

The human rights commissioner has intervened regularly since 1979, and in report after report in recent years has reminded the government of its irresponsibility concerning human rights as they apply to homosexuals.

Again in the latest report, tabled in this House a few weeks ago, human rights commissioner Yalden had some very harsh words for the government, describing its non intervention, its inaction in this matter, as irresponsibility.

The official opposition has also needed to hassle the government on numerous occasions since the election to get it to, finally, decide to do something.

It took the passing of a piece of legislation similar to the one before us today, just a few days ago, by the Senate, the other place, for the justice minister to finally decide to table Bill C-33 putting an end to discrimination against the gay and lesbian community on such a ground. Also, I would have liked the justice minister to behave in a less partisan fashion with regard to this issue. It seems to me that when dealing with human rights, one should transcend party lines. I believe everybody should agree that, in this country, every one is entitled to being treated with respect and fairness.

Last week, I asked the justice minister when he was going to table his bill. I would have liked him to let the official opposition know ahead of time instead of waiting until the last minute, as if he wanted to get rid of this issue in a hurry; obviously, as I said before, judging by the split we can feel in the Liberal caucus, this is a hot potato indeed.

When talking about human rights, there cannot be any grey area. It is not a question of tolerance. Sure, mindsets are changing with time, but the arguments we hear from the opponents to this bill are in every way similar to those we heard just a few years ago regarding women.

For centuries, women were not even recognized as having a soul. They had to wait until the 20th century to be allowed to vote both at the federal and provincial levels. Last year, in Quebec, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of women's enfranchisement. The arguments raised in those days are essentially the same we are still hearing today.

I will give you as another example the history of blacks in the United States. For centuries, men and women had to fight just to be recognized as human beings with feelings, with hopes, with a desire to improve their status in their own community.

I hope that during the debate we are launching into today, members of this House as a whole will keep in mind that we are talking about human beings. Last week, or maybe it was ten days ago, during the human rights committee proceedings, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce asked human rights commissioner Yalden if the bill would allow homosexuals, gays and lesbians, to marry. The commissioner answered: "As far as I am concerned, when you are talking about human rights, you are not talking about marriage". I will come back to that point later.

The issue at hand is human rights. Therefore, I hope everyone participating in the debate will keep in mind that we are talking about human rights. What does Bill C-33 propose? What is the purpose of Bill C-33? Only to recognize a reality.

That bill proposes that sexual orientation be added to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination. In fact, it will mean that, once the bill is passed, all entities under federal jurisdiction will no longer have the right to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation in matters pertaining to jobs or goods and services. That applies to all businesses and agencies under federal jurisdiction.

We must also ask ourselves why we insist, why we want that act amended. Are homosexuals protected or not by our legislation?

Let me remind the House that the federal government has almost abdicated in that area, as many members have already said. In Quebec, sexual orientation has been included in the charter of rights and freedoms as a prohibited ground of discrimination since 1977, for 26 years now.

As I said before, in 1978, the Liberal Party of Canada included that in its program. In 1985, a sub-committee of the House of Commons recommended that this issue be addressed. In 1993, during the election campaign, Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister, made a firm commitment, saying he would submit a bill as soon as possible to settle that situation. So I do hope we will proceed as soon as possible.

There is another question we must ask, and the minister addressed it earlier: Will the bill give a special status to gays and lesbians? Naturally, the answer is no. It only recognizes what many pieces of legislation already recognize, here in the federal Parliament and in other jurisdictions. Even Supreme Court justices recognized discrimination based on sexual orientation, even though section 15(1) of the Canadian charter does not specifically mention sexual orientation.

We must also ask ourselves, and the answer seems particularly hard to find within the Liberal caucus: Is the bill changing the concept of family? There again, clearly, the answer is no. Unfortunately, I would say this bill does not go far enough, at least as far as I am concerned, but it is clear, and the minister confirmed it earlier, that it does not change in any way the concept of family as we know it. However, we should recognize that the concept of family changes with time.

Our laws refer to the traditional family, a man and a woman married in church or legally, but we have to recognize that for a number of years now several jurisdictions have recognized common law unions.

When the human rights commissioner appeared before the human rights committee, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce asked him whether adding non-discrimination of homosexuals in the Canadian Human Rights Act would automatically give gays and lesbians special privileges. In other words, would that lead to recognition of gay couples? The commissioner said, and I mentioned it earlier, this does not change in any way the concept of marriage as we know it.

However, when the time comes to implement legislation, if we accept non-discrimination based on sexual orientation, if we accept common law marriages, we will of course have to recognize one day or the other that two men or two women could live together, recognize each other as spouses and benefit from the advantages resulting from that.

The point is not to change the concept of family, it is to recognize de facto situations, to recognize that in our world today, some men and some women decide to live together without necessarily having their union approved on a legal or religious level, and that is recognized in terms of the benefits that must be given to these individuals. As soon as we accept to ban discrimination against gays and lesbians, it is obvious that, sooner or later, a further step will have to be taken to recognize that two men or two women can live together, and I repeat, benefit from the advantages resulting from that.

There are already precedents in this regard. Once again, Quebec is showing the way. The National Assembly is currently considering Bill 133 that aims to give gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples in terms of social and economic benefits.

If, as the justice minister mentioned in his speech, some provinces, in this case Quebec, take specific action to recognize gay couples, it is obviously because the simple fact of listing sexual orientation among the prohibited grounds of the discrimination in Quebec's Rights and Freedom Charter and in the Canadian Human Rights Act does not allow to automatically provide to gay couples benefits that are presently provided to heterosexual couples. I point this out to demonstrate and to insist upon the fact that we will soon be taking one step, but that there is still work to be done in this direction.

Another key argument we often hear every time the subject of sexual orientation is raised, every time there is talk of granting homosexuals the same rights as those enjoyed by all other members of society, is that those who are opposed are betraying their own insecurity toward homosexuality. They wrongly claim that recognizing the rights of homosexuals is tantamount to promoting homosexuality. Worse yet, we have heard members of this House link homosexuality with paedophilia. We heard members of this House liken homosexuality to a disease, to an immoral act.

I find this kind of talk unacceptable, because it is not based on reality and only intended to discredit, to show contempt for men and women who are only seeking respect and recognition for their

basic rights, which are indeed recognized by the Catholic Church, as the Minister of Justice pointed out in his speech.

In the few minutes I have left I would like to refer to the Bloc Quebecois' position. As he was leaving the House of Commons yesterday, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois indicated that his party would support Bill C-33. We in the official opposition would like the Prime Minister to see to it that his party, the Liberal Party, adopts a similar position.

It is important to send our fellow citizens a clear message that intolerance in any way, shape or form cannot tolerated, that discriminating against, discrediting or bringing shame on honourable men and women is unacceptable.

This Parliament is making an important gesture today, even with the limited impact of this bill.

I want to remind the Prime Minister that he has made formal commitments in this regard. During the 1993 election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to ensure that gays and lesbians are granted the same rights as those enjoyed by all other Canadians. This promise was reiterated in a letter sent to EGALE by the Prime Minister's senior adviser on October 18, 1994.

This adviser, Mr. Goldesberg, wrote this on behalf of the Prime Minister, and I quote:

"As this initiative is a matter of longstanding party policy and fundamental human rights, the bill will not be the subject of a free vote".

I insist in the name of human dignity, fundamental justice, equity and tolerance that all members of this House give their support to this bill. By amending its human rights legislation, Canada will not set a precedent at the international level, or even at the national level. As I mentioned earlier, Quebec has had its pioneering legislation since 1977, that is the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, in which sexual orientation is included as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Similar legislation was also passed in seven other provinces, the exceptions being Alberta and Prince Edward Island. Countries such as Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Holland also passed such legislation to give gays and lesbians rights similar to those of the rest of the population.

I will conclude by emphasizing the exceptional work done by the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve regarding this issue. Members will remember that, when he was the critic for human rights issues, our colleague rose on many occasions to remind the government of the importance of taking action regarding this issue.

You will also remember the private bill tabled in this House to recognize the rights of same sex couples. Today, we should unanimously resolve this issue once and for all. As Stéphane Baillargeon from Le Devoir pointed out: ``Nowadays, homosexuals want to be fully recognized, just like ordinary citizens, with no more and no less rights than left handed people or members of other minority groups''.

It is in this spirit that the official opposition will support Bill C-33.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend my colleague from Rosedale for his comments. Had his remarks led to the tabling of a motion, I would support it almost in its entirety, except of course when he refers-I understand that he may have to toe the party line-to his support for the amendment put forward by his colleague, the Secretary of State responsible for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women.

In fact, as we mentioned several times, the government's amendment to this motion plays down the impact of the tragic events experienced by the Armenian people in 1915-16, thus

managing to avoid calling a spade a spade and referring to those events as a genocide.

I understand that the evolution of international law and attitudes certainly allows us to be more specific in analyzing such events. It seems to me that, even when referring to the 1915-16 context, the facts can only point to a recognition that a real or at least attempted genocide of the Armenian people took place at that time.

I fully agree that what my colleague said about Canada's human rights record should be acknowledged. Both the international community and the official opposition recognize outright that Canada's human rights record is quite good. Last week, the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission testified before the committee on human rights to point out the major improvements needed with regard to the First Nations and, of course, the need to add sexual orientation to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. Having said that, I recognize, we recognize that there are advantages to living in this country as far as human rights are concerned.

But precisely because of the progress made in Canada and Quebec in terms of human rights, I think the international message we are trying to convey should not, as I mentioned, be watered down in any way.

That is why we must send a clear message with regard not only to the Armenian genocide but also to the other crimes against humanity being committed around the world. Can my colleague tell us to what extent Canada must compromise because of international trade and set aside human rights in favour of Canada's commercial interests?

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

And friend, notwithstanding, as he reminds me.

I was saying this morning that there was an urgent need, with respect to Canada's role internationally, its role in the defence of rights and freedoms, not only to have consistent discourse, but not to leave room for any interpretation that would tend, in the view of humanity and of other countries, to diminish the importance Canada accords to human rights.

When one looks at the amendment presented by the Liberal government to this opposition motion, one might well ask some serious questions. As my colleague has just mentioned, this is a way to play down the seriousness of a completely reprehensible act and almost to invite a certain tolerance of this type of event.

If we want human rights to be respected internationally, we must send a clear message, because any departure from this line of conduct will certainly have repercussions at home. As I have said, if Canada shows a form of tolerance for what should be condemned, sooner or later we will find ourselves in a similar

situation. The danger is there. If we are less vigilant at home, it is our fellow citizens who will suffer.

I am going to put my question to my colleague, because I know that many people would like to hear him again. It concerns human rights and international trade. I ask the question very seriously. I would like my colleague to tell us what he himself thinks of this: To what extent can a government make compromises, dishonest compromises, in order to establish or maintain trade relations with a country to the detriment of human rights?

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I much appreciated, of course, the remarks of my colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. I commend him on so aptly reminding us of the importance of designating correctly by the term "genocide" what the Liberal government considers as a tragedy experienced by the Armenian people in 1915 and 1916.

I would like to recall what I said this morning and I will put a question to my colleague along the lines-

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks made by my colleague from Cape Breton Highlands-Canso. He referred to all the decisions made by Canada to participate in peacekeeping missions. He ended his speech by reminding us of Canada's great friendship with Armenia, but his last words reflected his government's tendency to play down the importance of the 1915 events and to dodge the real issue, namely the 1915 genocide of the Armenian people.

Since my colleague has established a link with the first world war, as though it were the only motive for trying to exterminate a whole people, I would like him to elaborate on this.

My question concerns international trade. I would like our colleague to tell us to what extent Canada, or its government, must overlook human rights in order to maintain trade relations with any country that abuses human rights?

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that I have one minute left to ask a question or make a brief comment. I will comment the question and then go back to my colleague for Edmonton Southwest regarding the member for Don Valley North. I find it odd that he should put such a question to our Reform colleague; he should have put it to the government since the government, through the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, moved an amendment to the motion we brought forward, with a view to considering not so much the genocide of Armenians as the tragedy it represents.

The problem today is on the government side. We agree with the member for Don Valley North that pressure should be brought to bear on the Turkish government to get it to recognize the genocide of Armenians and take measures to right, if possible, the wrongs done to this community.

As far as my colleague for Edmonton Southwest is concerned, I want first to congratulate him on his speech. Liberal members like to depict Reform members as right-wing. My colleague, who also sits on the human rights committee, has taken a perfectly correct position and shown how important human rights are for him and how important it is not to make any compromise in this respect.

My question goes along the same lines. I would like my colleague to tell us what his position and his party's position are with regard to human rights and international trade.

How far should Canada go in making concessions? Should it make any at all? For my part, I believe it should make none, but in his opinion, how far should the government go in making concessions regarding human rights and international trade?

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the question of my colleague from Louis-Hébert is very relevant. As a matter of fact, I pointed out at the beginning of my speech the kind of political jockeying the government is doing by putting on the table-and the reference to the Prime Minister's words is totally eloquent-human rights and international trade. That is not only unacceptable, and the term is not too strong, but totally repugnant.

Like my colleague from Louis-Hébert just did, I would remind the House that despite all the things we can blame on the previous government, the Conservative government of Mr. Mulroney, parliamentarians of this House and observers of the political scene in general will recognize that Mr. Mulroney did not miss an opportunity to denounce the way various communities throughout the world were treated and to promote human rights. I remind the House that it was a Conservative government, therefore theoretically more right wing, if you will.

We now see a government calling itself liberal in terms of its political allegiance, but in reality, its decisions are even more typical of the extreme right. When my colleague from Louis-Hébert reminded us of the Prime Minister's words, as I was saying earlier, that is the message people throughout the world remember in terms of Canada's political stand as regards human rights.

If that message is heard around the world, it will surely be heard and understood by many people and groups here in Canada, a situation that threatens the future of our rights and freedoms if we are not careful.

Not only it is justified, but the official opposition would be derelict in its duty if it failed to raise this kind of debate in the House. That is why we have tabled this motion today. We want all members of this House who speak up in support of human rights to have the opportunity to ask the government, by voting on this motion, to be consistent and to promote these rights at the international level.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member for Don Valley North is looking for financing but, if he is, we would like to join him in asking the government to proceed.

I just mentioned that if there were inconsistencies among parliamentarians, they were on the other side, which tries to reduce the importance of these events by referring to them as a tragedy, when we are talking about the extermination of a people.

This is my answer, and if that does not suit the hon. member he could repeat his question.