Preston Manning

[National Unity, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if one vote is not enough will the Prime Minister tell the House how many votes are enough?

[National Unity, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, at long last the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Constitution, the rule of law and the rights of all Canadians must be respected in any future attempt at secession.

If the Prime Minister had made that position crystal clear before the last referendum we probably would not be discussing it today. It is imperative that Quebecers and all Canadians know the ground rules and the stakes before another secession attempt.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to back up his statements yesterday with a motion in the House specifying the government's position on a unilateral declaration of independence and on the rules governing any future secession attempt?

[National Unity, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister says to the premiers in June what he has just said to this House, if that is all he has to say about revitalizing the federation, he should call off the conference because it will be counterproductive.

I ask the Prime Minister again: Can he produce a substantive national unity plan prior to the June meetings with the premiers and if he can, will he table it and present it in this House?

[National Unity, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if he thinks that food inspection is going to unite the country, the Prime Minister is living on another planet.

If one picks through the various announcements that come from the government, there are about five things in things in this supposed package. There are the proposals for administrative disentanglement. There are some token decentralization proposals. There is the veto proposal, the distinct society proposal and limited curtailment of federal spending powers.

If that is all there is, then the Prime Minister has misread the fundamental desire for substantial change in the rest of the country, just as he misread the desire for change within Quebec prior to the referendum.

Can the Prime Minister not offer Canadians and the provincial premiers something more substantive for revitalizing the federation?

[National Unity, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it has been almost seven months since the Quebec referendum and the government still has not presented us with a national unity plan.

Special cabinet committees have been struck. There is a new minister. The Prime Minister has made vague pronouncements about the future, but still no substantive plan.

Yesterday the Prime Minister said he will be putting serious offers for constructive change in the federation on the table at the forthcoming first ministers' conference.

What exactly are those serious offers of constructive change that the Prime Minister will be putting before the premiers in June?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have made clear what our position is on this issue. The statements to which the member refers are partial quotes from newspaper accounts and do not fully represent what we think.

What I am waiting for the leaders of the government to deal with is the problem of prejudice within their own ranks. We have heard Liberal member after Liberal member in this House, from the Prime Minister on down, proclaim self-righteously how repugnant they find prejudice, the prejudging of others, the condemnation of whole groups of people because of the words or actions of the few. However, we see some of those same members practising in a different way exactly the same thing.

Why is it that the member for Central Nova can make inflammatory statements which, if made by a member of my caucus, would be denounced as prejudice and homophobic by the very same member who raised this question?

The Liberal member for Mississauga South said it best in this debate. He said: "Why is there so much acrimony in this place? Why are people in this place, who were my friends and colleagues"-he is talking about Liberal friends and colleagues-"no longer speaking to me? It is because I have a different position. Why have so many people"-and he is talking about Liberal friends and colleagues-"demonstrated intolerance toward my position?" He is talking about prejudice, not in the Reform caucus but in the Liberal caucus. He is not talking about racial prejudice or gender prejudice, he is talking about political prejudice, but prejudice nonetheless.

Reformers ask the same question. If governments want to stone bigots, let the party which is wholly without prejudice cast the first stone. If the government is so desperately interested in rooting out prejudice of all types, not just the categories defined by political correctness, it must begin with the political prejudices in its own caucus.

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

Mr. Speaker, the charter of rights and freedoms protects everyone. However, I think the member is missing my point.

I am not talking about not having protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act. I am disagreeing with the approach that is being taken to the provision of protection from discrimination or special help for special groups. I am saying that there is a different approach than this categorization approach which is used in the Canadian Human Rights Act and which is partially mixed up in the charter. There is a different approach based strictly on equality.

I am arguing that at least the House ought to consider that. I do not think it ever has.

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

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to the member's second question is yes.

The answer to his third question is that the member for Macleod was expressing a medical opinion on the state of health connected with homosexual activity. Other members of the House who are doctors also expressed medical opinions of a different view. That is his right to do so.

On the member's first question, is it innate? I would say it is immaterial to this debate. It is immaterial because the law it not concerned with what a person is. It is concerned with what he or she does. The essence of the principle of equality is that the law is concerned with what people do, not with what people are.

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

Mr. Speaker, we would not want to foster disunity in the government benches so I will proceed.

I rise to participate in the closing debate on the government's Bill C-33. In preparation for this debate my reading has included most of the speeches made by members on both sides of the House. I want to commend members for the sincerity and quality of their contributions. I particularly want to thank the members for Port Moody-Coquitlam and Edmonton Southwest for co-ordinating Reform's analysis of the bill and for the amendments that they have put forward to address its defects.

As debate winds down there is little I or anyone else can add at this stage to the discussion of the details of the bill. Therefore, I would like to focus on the bigger picture starting with its intent.

Discrimination has its roots in prejudice, in the tendency of the human heart to prejudge others on the basis of appearances or unfair or unreasonable criteria. A prejudice becomes discrimination when it expresses itself verbally in particular decisions or acts, including hiring and firing and providing or withholding services on the basis of prejudgment or unfair or unreasonable criteria.

I therefore wish to make clear at the outset that Reform supports the noble intention of this bill. We fervently desire, as do all members, a society free from prejudice and discrimination. Our commitment to this intention comes from two sources, from the Canadian people whom we endeavour to represent in this Chamber and from the principles of our party itself.

The foremost among the attributes that Canadians want reflected in our political leaders and institutions are integrity, accountability, freedom, equality and tolerance of differences. These are fundamental to the aspirations of Canadians to be one of the world's most democratic, just and pluralistic societies.

The principles of the Reform Party are equally clear on this subject. Our party affirms the equality of all Canadians in law, the fundamental importance of the individual and the right of individuals to be different from one another. Our party affirms the right of Canadians to be free from discrimination, hate mongering and intolerance on any basis.

It is because statements by several of our own members this week cast doubt on these commitments that I have had to take some extraordinary steps to reassure Canadians of our commitment. It is not all right for employers to fire an employee simply because an intolerant customer complains about their colour or lifestyle. It is not all right to justify and explain away discrimination or to imply that some Canadians have invited discrimination against themselves. These views are not consistent with the broad values of Canadians, with the broad values of Reformers or with the principles of the Reform Party, and I want that on record.

That being the case, why do the majority of Reformers oppose this bill in principle? It is first and foremost because we believe that its approach to attacking discrimination is wrong headed and ineffective.

The basic approach to preventing discrimination incorporated in the Canadian Human Rights Act, the act which this bill amends, is to define prohibited grounds of discrimination.

By section 16 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, what started out as categorizations of Canadians simply for the purpose of defining prohibited grounds of discrimination have become special entitlements for groups of disadvantaged individuals defined essentially in terms of their race, ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, et cetera, and if this bill were passed, sexual orientation.

I define this approach to dealing with discrimination and affirmative action as a special status approach. My basic objection to it is that it has not worked well and has some very negative consequences.

For 30 years Liberal governments in particular have taken this approach to combating discrimination. However, there is still all kinds of discrimination in this country, including systemic discrimination practised by the state under statutes like the Indian Act. One of the unfortunate side effects of this approach is that it requires and fosters this divisive categorization of Canadians to which I have referred.

Reformers want to explore. We do not profess to have all the answers but we want the justice department, the courts and this Parliament to explore whether or not there is a better approach to protecting minorities from discrimination and to providing special help to disadvantaged Canadians.

The approach we want explored is one that would base the entitlement to special help and protection not on personal characteristics or membership in a special group, but simply on the naked fact that those people are Canadians period, entitled to equality before the law. This is an equality approach to affirming rights and preventing discrimination. Its chief advocate in the federal field is the Reform Party of Canada. In my judgment it will lead to higher ground and better results than the tired old Liberal approach to dealing with discrimination, aboriginal policy, multicultural policy and national unity on the basis of special status.

Hon. members should ask: How do you protect someone from discrimination, let us say, in housing and accommodation, on the basis of equality rather than special status? This is the question Parliament should have been addressing in reference to this bill and has not. I would be pleased to enlarge on our answer to that question in questions and comments if someone would like to put

it. How do you protect someone from discrimination? My time is short so I will come back to that in questions and comments.

There is a second fundamental reason for having grave reservations about this bill and its implications. It is a reason that has been expressed by many on both sides of the House and that is its potential impact on the traditional family. Reform is committed by its founding principles to strengthening and protecting the family unit as essential to the well-being of individuals and society.

If Reformers and Canadians believed that this bill was a simple amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act with no future implications for the family, that is, if we could believe that it provides no grounds for the courts or the government to change the definition of the family, or to provide state sanction of same sex marriages, or the extension of spousal benefits to same sex couples, we would still oppose the bill but mainly on the grounds I have previously outlined. If however this bill is the first step toward these other changes in the status of the family or entitlement to benefits, then we and I believe the vast majority of Canadians do not want to start down that slippery slope.

I am well aware the minister has tried to assure the House that this is a stand alone amendment with no future implications for the family. However his assurances and arguments have failed to convince us that this is the case.

Government members defeated every amendment which would affirm that the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act would not redefine the terms of marriage, family or spouse in any act of Parliament. Government members defeated every amendment that would prevent follow up to this bill to extend spousal benefits to same sex couples or to include sexual orientation as a ground for affirmative action. The government opposed these amendments even when they were put forward by Liberal members.

The justice department's policy agenda dated March 8, which the justice minister was questioned on in the House yesterday, listed a series of initiatives the department is pursuing. At the top of the list was this amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act, but right next to it on the list, despite the minister's assurances that there was no connection or progression here, were references to family status, same sex couples and dependent benefits.

The Liberal member for Mississauga South rightly quotes the chairman of the Human Rights Commission, Max Yalden, as saying in his March 1996 report that if we give a benefit to a heterosexual couple and deny it to a same sex couple that is discrimination. This is a statement by the head of the commission that will implement the bill we are discussing today.

The Liberal member for Huron-Bruce rightly quoted Justice Lamer in the 1993 Mossop case speaking for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada saying that if the Canadian Human Rights Act included sexual orientation he might well conclude that family status includes homosexual couples. This is from the head of the institution that will interpret the bill we are dealing with today.

Representatives of gay rights lobby groups such as EGALE, as pointed out by the member for Medicine Hat, have made it quite clear they regard this amendment simply as the first step toward the building of a whole new set of rights and privileges for their group across the country. There are many members of this House, and I would argue a majority of Canadians, who might view this bill differently if they honestly believed it was simply a stand alone amendment. If they have any grounds for really believing it is the first step down the slippery slope that I have described, they cannot support it.

The bureaucrats who will implement the amendment, the court that will interpret it and the interest groups to whom it will give standing are all out there greasing the slippery slope and making it abundantly clear they intend to send Canada down that slope. When the minister and the government oppose and defeat every amendment designed to prevent that from happening, the minister has given family oriented members of this House a substantive reason to vote against the bill.

Finally, I am pleased that a number of members, including the minister, have seen fit to comment on the inappropriateness of this bill from a religious perspective. We in this House are too inhibited by the current doctrines of political correctness and the dangers of media misinterpretation from speaking frankly on public issues from the perspective of our spiritual values and spiritual experience.

We should remind ourselves that the principle of the separation of church and state, which is essentially an American constitutional principle but one with which most of us would agree, ought not to mean the separation of public people from religious conviction or the separation of religious and spiritual values from considerations of public policy.

I was therefore pleased to hear the justice minister refer openly to his Roman Catholic faith and upbringing, to hear him read from the catechism of his church entitled "Life in Christ" and hear him try to link the principle of this bill to the teachings of Christ. The Minister of Justice perhaps better than anyone in this House knows that any extension of freedom, including freedom from discrimination, is subject, as our Constitution says, to such reasonable limits

prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The reasonable limit to any freedom, including freedom from discrimination, is the point at which that freedom impinges upon other freedoms guaranteed by the charter. Those of us who in addition to believing in freedom from discrimination also believe in freedom of conscience and religion want to be assured that the enactment of this bill will not infringe upon the freedom of any religious group to express or teach their beliefs the morality or immorality of any sexual activity or relationship, heterosexual or homosexual. That is the function of religion in society. If there is error in religious teaching that should be subject to correction, but subject to the great corrective action of freedom of speech.

The fact that the minister and the majority of his colleagues voted down amendments affirming that including sexual orientation will not affect freedom of religion, expression and association as guaranteed by the charter of rights and freedoms gives members who take these religious freedoms and values seriously another substantive reason for voting against the bill.

In the final analysis I do not believe that the root cause of prejudice in the human heart can be exorcized through legislation, caucus rules or admonitions by leaders. That requires a change of heart which is beyond the reach of this Parliament.

As the justice minister saw fit to conclude his remarks by quoting from his church's catechism and the "Life of Christ", perhaps I could close by quoting from another great authority on the life of Christ, the Apostle Paul, a man who first practised and then worked against the bitter racial and systemic prejudices of his day.

He stated the ideal in these terms: In the Kingdom of Christ there would be neither Greek nor Hebrew, neither racial distinction nor discrimination based on race or religion, neither male nor female, neither bond nor free, but all would be one. The Christian ideal is not only the complete eradication of prejudice and discrimination but the elimination of the very conceptualizations and categorizations, the end of categories, upon which prejudice feeds.

This of course is an ideal which cannot be fully achieved in this world but we can decide whether we press toward it or go in the other direction. This bill in my judgment does not press in that direction and provides another substantive reason for voting against it.

I therefore advise members of the House to defeat this bill on the grounds that it is based on the special status approach to reducing discrimination which does not work well, that it provides inadequate support for the family and freedom of religion and does not further the vision of genuine equality to which the vast majority of Canadians aspire.

[The Senate, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the 19th century concept of the Senate but we are talking about the Senate in the 21st century.

I also appreciate the tribute to my late father but we ought to remember his famous comment on the Senate, that its three priorities are alcohol, protocol and Geritol. That is why it ought to be reformed.

It took Brian Mulroney nine months but at least he eventually recognized the democratic will of Albertans and appointed Stan Waters to the Senate.

The Prime Minister does not need a constitutional amendment to do the right thing. Why has the Prime Minister changed his tune on Senate elections? Is he prepared to break the promise made by him and his party in 1992 to provide an elected Senate?