Sheila Finestone

[Quebec Referendum, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pity poor Pierre F. Côté. He is insulted. He is upset because Alliance Quebec questioned the objectivity of his report on electoral fraud in the Quebec referendum.

Let us see. An independent study by McGill sociologists looked at all 22,000 polls, yet Mr. Côté only investigated 290. Evidence showed the same pattern of fraudulent steps taken by the "yes" side in at least three ridings that were examined, but Mr. Côté concluded that there was no national conspiracy to undermine democracy.

More than 60,000 perfectly good "no" ballots were illegally rejected by sovereignist officials, but Côté considered this less serious than freedom of expression at the Montreal rally.

He is upset. It is Quebecers who lost their democratic right as citizens to have their votes count who are legitimately upset.

Join Alliance Quebec tomorrow at noon in front of the Hydro building. Let the government know about democracy, fairness and decency in the voting process.

[Parti Quebecois, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago, Jackie Robinson arrived in Montreal. Today, we are proud of his accomplishments. However, it is obvious that the Parti Quebecois is not inspired by his example.

The very day that Montreal recognized the key role played by Jackie Robinson in the fight against discrimination, my province of Quebec discriminates against students wishing to pursue their studies outside the province, most of them in English.

While Jackie Robinson overcame the colour barrier, the Parti Quebecois is imposing a territorial barrier and, by the same token, a linguistic barrier.

While Jean Lesage and the Liberal Party promoted freedom, Lucien Bouchard and the Parti Quebecois are driving Quebec back into darkness.

Quebecers no longer have the option of studying in other provinces, amongst their fellow Canadians with whom they built our beautiful country. They can no longer enjoy the freedom of expression, the freedom of movement and the freedom of choice.

It is obvious the Parti Quebecois does not have-

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there have been no less than seven justice ministers who I have had to listen to in this House. They all made promises to make sexual orientation a prohibited ground of discrimination. Not one of them did. Gay and lesbian Canadians have paid the price until now.

We are very fortunate to have a minister who is prepared to move ahead to finally give gays and lesbians the same status, the same protection from discrimination as all other Canadians now enjoy: nothing more, nothing less. The bill will not, as many members fear, have anything to do with being protected in three areas. There will be no changes in the definitions of marriage or family. It will not legalize criminal sexual behaviour. It will not confer benefits.

I find it somewhat unfair and irresponsible for hon. members of this House to say that those issues will be covered in the bill. They know perfectly well it is not so. They are using this issue to promote their own ends. The bill does not confer benefits. It does not cover illegal acts or criminal acts. It does not change the definition of family.

If we want to have the discussion at some time about the state of the family, we should put it on the agenda. The state of the family is a reflection of economic, social and political realities in the country at this time. Those factors are causing some of the concerns regarding families.

Lesbians have families. Gays have families. There are reconstituted families. There are common law families. There are all kinds of families. This bill deals with sexual orientation and asks that as a group these people not be discriminated against. It is only fair.

When was the last time that granting equal rights to women diminished the rights of-

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

Pedophiles have nothing to do with this law. The member's ignorance is absolutely abominable. Go as a parliamentarian and understand pedophiles and the whole question of criminal acts in this society.

That was the least we could do to meet the charter requirements, to ensure that Canadian values had any true meaning, and to maintain our country's reputation for justice.

Last week when the standing committee heard witnesses on this bill I learned that not much had changed. We were told of a lesbian couple on a train that was ordered to stop holding hands or be thrown off. We learned about ongoing dismissal in our forces and of employees here on the Hill, which you might want to look into, Mr. Speaker.

We heard the story of a homosexual building manager who had been in his job for years without a single complaint, and who was let go when the management learned that he was gay.

We have been told by parents of gay and lesbian children that they had to face their own prejudices. They had a lot to learn, as do many members of the House. They were very concerned for their children's well-being, knowing they would have to face ignorance, hatred and discrimination.

No one in the House, and I have been here to witness not less than seven-

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate for too many years. For those with a deep interest in the issue of human rights in Canada and the introduction of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination and for those with serious and legitimate concerns about Bill C-33, I would like to recommend the speech given at second reading by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, for their enlightenment.

They will find the answers to many of the questions and to some of the concerns which I legitimately recognize are from the depths of their hearts. I understand that.

We would be foolish if we did not acknowledge that over time there have been misunderstandings, stereotypes, myths, misrepresentations and all the words that one would care to use. However, the bottom line is that there are groups of people in this country who suffer from discrimination. They suffer from prejudice, they suffer from bias. Within that group, which is a major group-we just have to turn on the Internet to see what I am talking about-there are people who have a different orientation with respect to the expression of their sexuality.

In the time I have today I am not able to explain as clearly and in such an enlightened way as the minister did. He has expressed, as we have all expressed in our remarks, why we are not adding a special right and why we are being very defined and confined in our view that there is a segment of our population which is suffering from discrimination. This is not the Canadian way. This is not how we care to address these issues. Adding sexual orientation to section 3 of the human rights act completes the list which was intended with respect to the prohibition of grounds of discrimination.

As the chairman of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of the Disabled, I have found that this bill is in some way a logical progression of the work I have done over many years in this House. I have had a great interest in the field of human rights. When the charter of rights and freedoms was first introduced in 1982 there was a three-year hiatus during which time the question of section 15, the question of the application of non-discrimination and a list of those areas in which people were most vulnerable were included in this charter.

We were asked to look at section 15, study it and see how to bring it into force by the year 1985. Time allocation was an extremely interesting eye opener. We looked at many areas of discrimination, including the elderly, the disabled, women and children. We went through a whole range of acts, including those related to the economy, insurance and all aspects of our daily lives.

I was proud to be a member of that very hard working, all-party committee which examined, inquired into and reported on equal rights. We looked at areas in which federal law had to be changed so the rights of the individual would be respected. The committee was convinced after consulting Canadians across this country that "to leave any one group of citizens beyond the pale is a dangerous precedent. In a democracy it is equally dangerous to leave the decision about inclusion or exclusion of any particular group from human rights safeguards to the will of the public or at any moment in the course of our history".

Many people react to questions involving homosexuality on a visceral level. We have heard that reaction in this House. I think they are expressing some serious concerns which they have been exposed to over a long period of time. This reaction reflects longstanding attitudes and stereotypes in our society. It is time we wiped the cobwebs and put the facts on the table.

We are dealing with a question of public policy that must be reasoned through. We have reasoned this through since 1985. Minorities in our society need protection to put them on an equal footing with all others.

Because the government provides legal protection, does not mean it endorses a particular religion, a particular political belief or a personal trait. It simply means that in a free and democratic society, discrimination under our laws on the basis of those differences will not be tolerated.

We have said many times in the House that racism is not to be tolerated, ageism is not to be tolerated. We have removed the obligation to fire people based on age. We have looked at racism and we have developed a whole series of programs to address the unfounded targeting, particularly of people who are visible minorities.

In 1985, the committee met Canadians of all ages, professions and religions who were gay. For many of us this was our first contact with people who professed this kind of lifestyle. In all honesty and all candour, we were a bit shocked. First we were shocked by the number of people we met. In every city we went to, in all the towns and villages there were people who had chosen a lifestyle that we had not chosen. They live everywhere. They are part of the larger family and I guarantee that if members look at their families, they will find people with homosexual preferences.

Minorities in our society need protection. Provision of legal protection does not mean we endorse their approaches. Discrimination under our laws on the basis of those differences is what we are talking about and will not tolerate.

We met these people. We heard details about physical abuse, and psychological oppression from which they have suffered. We heard about the hate propaganda which had been targeted toward them and that they had been demonized in many ways. We heard about the outright discrimination they faced in employment, in housing and in services.

Some, moreover, were apprehensive about coming before the committee, for fear of losing their jobs or their homes.

That was what the situation in Canada was like just 10 years ago, in a country that boasted of its justice, compassion, tolerance and mutual respect, but did not extend them to people with a different sexual orientation.

My colleagues and I, some of whom had never before been aware of or been very concerned about the discrimination faced by homosexuals and lesbian Canadians, submitted to this House a unanimous report called "Equality for All". In it we recommended that sexual orientation be added to section 15 of the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

If members would care to read the document which contains some of the things we heard, they will see we used the term sexual orientation. It could have been any one of a number of different terms. This term is used and referred to very often worldwide. It is an inclusive ground of exclusion. It covers homosexuals, heterosexuals and transgendered Canadians.

[Human Rights, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-33 that we debate today is about prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation against a vulnerable group in our society in employment, in accommodation and in the provision of goods and services. It is about fairness and equality and treating all citizens with dignity and respect in the interests of tolerance. It is about equality, not special rights for anyone.

We want to protect homosexuals who risk losing their jobs and their homes simply because of who they are. Today they are the only Canadians who cannot look to the Canadian Human Rights Act for protection and whom Reformers would fire.

Bill C-33 would finally give gay and lesbian Canadians the same status and the same protection from discrimination as all other Canadians under the law. Nothing more, nothing less.

I congratulate the Coalition for Equality on its appearance before the committee this week along with 30 other groups of witnesses. I also thank the 30 parents, parishioners, lesbians and gays, members of the coalition who have come to Ottawa today to see that justice is done.

[Anniversary Greetings, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House of Commons to bring two special greetings.

First, with the enduring friendship that binds our two democracies, greetings to the state of Israel on the occasion of its 48th anniversary of independence. A dynamic country which enjoys a long and rich history and which links Jews throughout the world, greetings of peace, security and prosperity as we celebrate Yom HaAtzmaout.

Second, this year marks a very special milestone in the history of Jerusalem, one of the world's most ancient and beautiful cities, a spiritual city central to three of the world's major religions. Jerusalem 3000 is being feted with many wonderful cultural and educational events here in Canada and in most major cities and countries around the world as well as in Israel.

As our Prime Minister said in his message quoting from the Psalms: "For my brethren and companions' sakes, I will say now, peace be within thee, Jerusalem".

Hag sameach-Yerushalim Shel Zahav. Happy birthday.

[Employment Equity, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the annual report of the human rights commissioner noted that progress has been made in the public and in the federally regulated private sector with respect to employment for women, visible minorities, aboriginals and the disabled. In the government, however, orchestration has been a bit on the slow side.

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Could he point out whether he is planning to be the leader of the band on employment equity? Is he planning to improve the performance of women and men so that they can move forward in the departments? Will he change his tune for the public service from a slow waltz into a quick march? How much longer will the target groups have to wait for employment equity?

[The Forum, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last night we bid adieu to the Forum as the Canadiens played their last game in that building. The cheers and tears of those in the stands testified to its special place in the hearts, minds and memories of Montrealers.

Over the past 72 years the Forum has had high points of cultural expression which link the diversity of our people.

The forum was a place for all Montrealers, whether they were anglophones or francophones.

Memories span the interests of many beyond hockey. There were events for every age and stage of life.

Let us not forget the turning point of the 1980 referendum, the big "rally of the Yvettes", at which 15,000 women gathered to say yes to Canada and sing no to separation.

We could also add fantasy and grace, spring and fall, at the Ice Capades and Ice Follies. Drama, hype, the big voice and rock and roll shows-

-the joys of the circus for children, and so on.

Just as the torch was passed on from generation to generation of great Montreal Canadians hockey players, today, the forum's tradition is being handed on to the Molson Centre, a symbol of renewal. We are ready. We will keep on winning.

[International Women's Day, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow will be International Women's Day. In my capacity as the chair of the task force on the tax treatment of child support payments, I wish to thank the thousands of men and women who voiced their concerns to us about child welfare.

The government has listened to us. I am proud of the policy announced by our government yesterday, which is the result of your efforts. This is an approach which gives absolute priority to children from all types of families, particularly poor families.

Finally, women raising their children on their own will not have to pay income tax on money intended for their children. Finally, they will receive equitable child support payments. Finally, they will have the assurance that payments will be on time. Finally too, their child tax benefit will be doubled.

These measures are the culmination of our government's efforts in the best interests of children, and the long struggle for female equality.

I thank everyone.