[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, May 1, 1996
[English]
The Chair: Order.
As we await the arrival of the Minister of Justice, I'll just review the decisions that were taken today in light of the order I will have the clerk read.
Mr. Clerk, read the order of the day, please.
The Clerk of the Committee: The order of reference, dated May 1, 1996, is that Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, be referred to the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Ladies and gentlemen, the decisions taken this morning indicate we will have the pleasure of the presence of the minister for the opening discussions on the bill, followed by three witnesses tonight. Tonight it will be between 30 and 45 minutes per witness. The decision is that everyone is equal around this table in the course of the discussions with the witnesses. You will all have 5 minutes each, as you wish, until the 30-minute, or in the case of tonight, 45-minute, period is completed. On completion of the time allotted, that will be the end of the interview with the witness.
For tomorrow, at this moment we have been in contact with 32 witnesses.
[Translation]
As a Quebecer, I have as much of an interest in this matter as you, Sir. We have been in contact with these people, and I have yet to receive answers, but that will come.
[English]
So tomorrow it is 5 minutes each and 30 minutes per witness. Those of you who have very special questions, please feel free to ask them as you will.
You have a report. You know the witnesses who are appearing tonight, EGALE and the Coalition for Equality. I do believe there was one other party, an individual who was coming in from Calgary. Whether they arrived or not I don't know. That we will know in due course.
Mr. Minister, welcome to this committee. This is our first real piece of business, although I can inform you we have some very exciting round tables we have started and they are looking at the questions of new technology and their impact on human rights, which will be of interest to you at a later time. For tonight I would appreciate it if you would be good enough to share some opening remarks with us. Then the members of the committee have some questions they would like to pose to you. When you're finished we will start with the members of the Bloc.
[Translation]
Welcome, Mr. Minister.
The Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice): I am very pleased to be appearing before the committee. I would like, at the outset, to say that I am here this evening to present Bill C-33 as it pertains to sexual orientation as a ground for discrimination under Section 3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
I do however plan on tabling later this spring a second bill amending the Canadian Human Rights Act as it pertains to the handicapped, as well as various other changes we discussed last year.
I had intended to include all of these amendments in the same bill, but we decided to present the changes you have before you in a separate bill, given that our consultations regarding the other changes are still ongoing. I will therefore hopefully be coming back to meet with you in the coming weeks to present the other changes to you.
[English]
The Chair: I can tell you, Mr. Minister, we'll be very pleased. This committee worked very hard on the three reports on the disabled, and in fact we're awaiting a response from you, which I hope will be in here by May 10. We anticipate those promises with respect to the changes for the handicapped, so I'm glad that you've brought that to our attention.
[Translation]
Mr. Rock: Allow me to outline for you Bill C-33 and to deal briefly with its principal elements.
As you know Madam Chair, the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) applies to the federal government and to federally regulated businesses like banks, railways, airlines and telecommunications companies, and covers principally employment and the provision of goods and services in each of those sectors. It covers about 10 per cent of the workforce.
[English]
Today we're keeping a commitment that the government made to the Canadian people during the last election campaign. We're delivering on a promise made by successive governments since 1986.
In doing so, we are in a sense federally just catching up to provincial and territorial jurisdictions, eight of which have already amended their human rights legislation to include sexual orientation.
[Translation]
We are today reaffirming the determination of the Liberal Party of Canada to put an end to discrimination in all its forms. The Liberal Party of Canada has been aiming for these changes for the past 20 years. As recently as last weekend, the Party renewed its commitment in this area.
[English]
We had a policy convention in Windsor at which just this resolution passed overwhelmingly.
In assessing this proposal, it is terribly important to focus on what the amendment does and to distinguish it from what the amendment does not do. Yesterday, when I spoke in the House of Commons on second reading debate, I made an effort to draw that distinction and to elaborate in some detail on several aspects of what the bill does not do.
Perhaps in the course of questioning tonight we'll have an opportunity to get back to some of those subjects.
What the amendment does is deal with discrimination. It's about fairness and equality for all Canadians. It's about treating our fellow citizens with dignity and with respect. In a country that prides itself for fairness and tolerance, it's a proposal that is intended to bring equal rights, not special rights to anyone.
I mentioned that we take pride in our country as tolerant and fair, and justly so. We have a record that is the envy of the world. But it didn't happen by accident. It happened because we inculcated and spread values of tolerance and respect and we reflected those values in our legislation.
Our human rights legislation is a lesson for all the world, and many countries have copied it. If we're to maintain the tolerant and civil society of which we are proud, we can never waver in our collective responsibility to one another, and particularly to those in our society who are vulnerable and for whom discrimination is, sadly, a fact of life.
In bringing forward this amendment, I suggest that we are acting on those fundamental values. We're acting on the need to foster them and we have in mind those who are vulnerable and who are subject to discrimination.
So I commend this legislation to the committee. I know there are concerns, and I'm delighted to have an opportunity to address them squarely.
Before doing that, may I identify those from the department who have been of enormous help to me in preparing the bill and for this evening, knowledgeable lawyers and members of the Human Rights Division of the Department of Justice. They're here tonight to assist, and no doubt I'll need their help: John Scratch, , Steven Sharzer, Jim Hendry....
Would you care to stand up so that the committee can know who you are?
The Chair: They can even join you if you wish, Mr. Minister. I always believe everyone should be at the table.
Mr. Rock: Lisette Lafontaine is here as well.
I'll be delighted to take questions if the committee has some.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.
I can only tell you that for me, having been very concerned about this since we did section 15 of the Canadian charter, along with Mr. Svend Robinson and others, this was an area about which we had very serious concerns. Discrimination in any form against anyone who is considered a citizen of Canada was certainly not something we wanted to perpetrate. So I'm very pleased that it has come forward. We've fought long and hard for this to be considered.
[Translation]
The first questioner will be Mr. Bernier.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic - Compton - Stanstead): It's because of my age.
The Chair: Indeed. One must always be respectful of grey hair.
Mr. Bernier: I would like to start off by thanking the minister for having accepted to come and answer our questions. I would like to say, at the outset, that the Official opposition, as he was able to see just a few minutes ago, is very pleased, all of its members having supported the government's bill at second reading. I am proud to be a member of a party that makes no compromises concerning the need to show tolerance in our society.
As was said during the course of the week, the Official opposition had been awaiting this bill for some time and we are thrilled that we are finally able, as members of Parliament, to make a decision on this extremely important issue.
I will let my colleague, Mr. Ménard, deal with certain sections of the bill or specific views. I myself wish to ask you two different types of questions.
I would like you to explain to us - you did it in the House on several occasions, but I believe that it is essential that your explanations be repeated here, especially for the benefit of those who are still against the bill - the precise scope of the bill regarding further moves, aimed, for example at affirmative action and employment equity programs.
Colleagues and others have said that after having adopted the bill, we will be forced to reach certain quotas to ensure a certain level of representation for the homosexual community in the workplace.
Also, what answer do you give those who say that these changes will be such that the government and federally chartered companies will be forced to grant benefits to homosexual couples? I would like this matter to be cleared up once and for all so that we might move on to something else.
You explained this in the House this week, but I would ask you to state once more why you found it important to allude to families in the preamble. You spoke about your own family last week in the House. What is your perception of the family in 1996? In your mind, is the term ``family'' synonymous with a man and a woman who are married and who have children? Why is it necessary to mention this in the preamble?
[English]
Mr. Rock: First I'd like to thank Mr. Bernier for his opening words and tell him how much I appreciated the support of his caucus in the vote at second reading.
Let me deal with each of the questions you've asked in turn. First, as to scope, the Human Rights Act itself governs only the federal government itself, as employer, and undertakings that are within the jurisdiction of the federal government to regulate; that is to say, enterprises with a national scope, such as banks, trust companies, airlines. It is limited in its application to employment or the workplace and the provision of goods and services. It is not applied to any other aspect of that regulation.
The section in question here, the section that identifies the grounds on which discrimination is prohibited, does just that: it prohibits discrimination. It says these are the bases on which it is impermissible in federally regulated workplaces to discriminate against a person in relation to another because these characteristics are irrelevant to the worth of the individual.
So when you ask what the scope of the bill is, the scope of the bill is to add sexual orientation as a personal characteristic identified as irrelevant in determining the worth of a person for the purpose of a regulation of an enterprise within the federal jurisdiction for the purposes of employment or the provision of goods and services. I think in essence that is what we're discussing.
Do concepts of affirmative action, employment equity, or quotas arise? Most assuredly not. Affirmative action, to the extent to which it's dealt with at all in the human rights legislation, is provided for in section 16, where a program of special initiatives is contemplated to help either to educate or to provide information to overcome discriminatory practices. But this bill does not deal with section 16, in contradistinction, for example, to that which was put forward by Senator Kinsella in S-2.
As to employment equity, employment equity is a subject dealt with by separate legislation. Indeed, in this Parliament and just last year I believe this committee had occasion to deal extensively with that subject. You will recall from the excellent work the committee did in that regard, although principles of equity are set out therein, they do not deal, directly or indirectly, with sexual orientation. That subject is irrelevant to this bill and to the human rights legislation.
Finally, there's no suggestion, no hint, no reference, no possibility, that any quotas would be involved once this bill is adopted and in place. Quotas are entirely irrelevant to human rights legislation and they are completely irrelevant to this piece of legislation. That is the simple fact.
On the last part of your first question, I'll deal with the issue of benefits. I'll begin by saying benefits are now an issue in the federal workplace. Litigation is pending before the Human Rights Tribunal and before courts that calls into question the entitlement of claimants to benefits under everything from bereavement leave to medical coverage and pension rights. Those claims have been based not only on sexual orientation but on various grounds, sexual orientation among them. If the government did nothing, if this bill had not been brought forward, if this issue had not arisen, those cases would still be pending. Tribunals and courts would still decide.
This bill, as you can see from its face, does not deal with benefits. It does not confer benefits. It does not speak to the issue of benefits. It does, however, prohibit discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation. So some will argue that because we've added these words, that will buttress the argument of a claimant seeking benefits. That's for the tribunals to determine. But this bill does not confer benefits.
In that regard, I know there is a concern that by taking this step, by adding sexual orientation, we might be opening the floodgates and giving rise to a massive change in the situation in relation to benefits for those who are gay or lesbian. I suggest the experience elsewhere in this country where similar legislation has been adopted does not support that concern. Au contraire.
Mr. Bernier: Right.
Mr. Rock: It was ten years ago now that the Ontario legislature was engaged in a debate very similar to the one we've had in Parliament the last couple of days. Indeed, in preparing to present the bill I read, as a matter of interest, the Hansard from the Ontario legislature, the debates from 1985-86, when Ian Scott put forward his bill. It won't surprise you to learn that many of the themes of debate were very familiar.
If you look at the history of the Ontario workplace over the last ten years, you find the question of the entitlement to benefits is still very much an issue. The mere addition of the words ``sexual orientation'' to the human rights act in Ontario did not resolve all those issues. Those issues are still before tribunals and courts.
I dare say that's exactly what's going to happen at the federal level. We haven't amended pension statutes. We've not reopened the Income Tax Act, nor do we intend to. We have simply stated a principle, that discrimination is impermissible based on this irrelevant ground.
Let me turn to the second question asked by Mr. Bernier.
Mr. McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Excuse me, Madam Chair. I was of the impression that we were going to five-minute rounds.
The Chair: In the first round each head, including you, has ten minutes. Subsequently all will be five minutes. That is only for the minister. Other hearings will be five minutes for everybody and you're all equal. It's just like this bill, everybody's equal, except the minister.
Will the committee give the minister the right to complete this if the ten minutes is completed?
Thank you. Please go ahead.
Mr. Rock: I won't take too much time, but I wanted to give a full response to the first question because I thought it might come up from others as well.
The second question had to do with family and why it was included in the preamble. The purpose of a preamble, at least in my respectful view, is to provide a context in which the legislation should be read. We provided the context here by reaffirming that what we're after is discrimination in the workplace and in the provision of goods and services. We do reaffirm the importance the government puts on family. We wanted that in the preamble because, frankly, there are concerns that we identify that principle, that we reaffirm it. In order to deal with that concern - many members of my caucus expressed it to me - we included that statement.
About how I conceive of family, family I think is sometimes something that is in the eye of the beholder. I can only tell you from my personal experience that my family involves a person to whom I've been married for thirteen years, and three children. I don't say that's the unique definition of family, but that's my family.
There could be other.... People speak about ``the traditional family''. What is the traditional family? Many people are single parents, living with children and without another spouse. There are people who divorce and then remarry and sometimes have two families, because they have children from the first marriage and children from the second. There are some people who adopt children and have a family.
So I don't think you can be hard and fast in saying there is a traditional family or that the family must be defined in a certain way. We added the preamble to provide a context, and I hope we've achieved this by doing so.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. McClelland: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Minister, I accept the fact that this bill is going to go forward and will become law, so I would like to confine the questions I would put to you with a view to the fact that eventually these proceedings may well be considered by the Supreme Court in future deliberations of law.
It's in this context I would like to ask a couple of specific questions. First, will the government accept amendments to define that which you have already said, which would limit the scope of this to what is, as I accept your word, to be intended?
Mr. Rock: Do you mean that it applies only in the federal workplace and to goods and services by federally regulated companies?
Mr. McClelland: No. I mean by saying, for instance, in section 16, that as far as affirmative action is concerned it would specifically state that nothing in this should be notwithstanding the preamble in section 2 of the act, and for purposes of greater clarity, the special programs referred to in subsection 16(1) shall not be permitted with respect to persons perceived to be disadvantaged on or related to sexual orientation.
Mr. Rock: But is that necessary if sexual orientation is not mentioned in section 17?
Mr. McClelland: I think there are very many people who are concerned about this bill who would not be concerned about the bill if they were absolutely assured the only purpose, the only intent and the only scope of this bill was the prevention of discrimination. I believe virtually all Canadians share this. It's the notion of affirmative action that raises the concerns of many of the people we are here to represent.
Mr. Rock: Perhaps, Madam Chair, I could better answer the question if I had a greater understanding of the nature of the concern. Perhaps Mr. McClelland would be good enough to tell me what is the nature of the concern with section 16.
Mr. McClelland: The nature of the concern is about amending the Human Rights Act to include the words ``sexual orientation'' without having defined sexual orientation. It doesn't matter whether the people who are in favour of this bill think it's foolish or not. There are many Canadians who are greatly and rightly concerned. And their concern has value. It has standing. If this bill could be amended to allay those concerns....
Mr. Rock: What is the concern, though? I haven't heard you say what the concern is.
Mr. McClelland: The concern is that amending the Human Rights Act to include the words sexual orientation will give it the imprimatur of the state. This will then lead to the recognition of same-sex marriages, and to benefits being extended to same-sex couples when these benefits were intended for heterosexual couples in the enlightened self-interest of the state to nourish families and children. That's what people are concerned about.
Mr. Rock: Section 16 deals with special programs. How would an amendment to section 16 answer those concerns?
Mr. McClelland: All I'm suggesting is that section 16 could be amended. By adding the words sexual orientation to the bill, it's clearly understood that section 16, the affirmative action aspect, does not cover sexual orientation.
Mr. Rock: First of all, even if we were going to try through legislation to meet the concerns my honourable friend has mentioned, I really don't believe section 16 is the place to do it. Section 16 deals with a very narrow subject. This subject is the organization and presentation of special programs, which are basically intended to deal with systemic discrimination.
Mr. McClelland: Without going into section 16 or any section, would the government be receptive to further defining this bill?
I recognize it's being pushed through with dispatch for a whole host of reasons. But what if we are able to make this bill better so Canadians with valid concerns who do not share the majority of the concerns of the people at this table, Canadians who are represented by two against everybody here, have these concerns addressed? But their concerns are valid, and if their concerns may be put to rest, then we would be creating better legislation.
Mr. Rock: First of all, let me say I don't think it's a matter of counting the heads at the table, or even counting heads in the House of Commons. Yesterday when I spoke to this bill I acknowledged there were such concerns, and I also said I don't pretend that anybody has the moral high ground in relation to these subjects, or that someone is better than somebody else because they have one position or the other on these issues.
Mr. McClelland: I accept that.
Mr. Rock: So I don't want you to think you're in a numerical minority and therefore no one has any respect for these views. That's just not the case.
But coming to your question, I think legislation should be changed if it's to meet concerns that can be met through legislative change, but I don't think we ought to add words or provisions for the sake of it, or where they won't really help; and I think we're in that situation here.
For those who contend that adding sexual orientation to section 2 is going to result in same-sex marriages, or is going to lead to adoptions or is going to lead to various other things, the thing to do is to analyse those concerns rationally, look at the evidence, look at what the effect of this section and the act is, and then see whether that conclusion is supportable. In my respectful view, those conclusions are not supportable. Those arguments are not persuasive.
I don't say the concerns aren't legitimate. If somebody feels them, they're honest, and that's the situation.
The federal government doesn't even deal with the solemnization of marriage, so it can't have that effect.
The Chair: Thank you. Mrs. Hayes.
Mrs. Hayes (Port Moody - Coquitlam): Thank you for coming.
On this very topic.... Actually, I'm taking it out of the paper. In citing the reasons for the decision in the Brian Mossop case, Justice Antonio Lamer wrote that ``...the refusal of the benefit...could not be condemned on the basis of `family status'...''.
He goes on to say:
- Indeed,...if Parliament had decided to include sexual orientation in the list of prohibited
grounds of discrimination, my interpretation of the phrase `family status' might have been
entirely different...
- Then it says:
- Max Yalden, former head of the Human Rights Commission, contradicts Rock's view of Bill
C-33 that it won't change the legal definition of family.
Mr. Rock: I do. Let me take them in reverse order.
Max Yalden testified recently before the Senate on Bill S-2, and he made it clear that at no time has he said the Human Rights Commission is going to get into the business of redefining ``spouse'' or ``family'' or any of that. As to what a marriage is and what the legal definition of marriage is, he made it clear that's not for him. He has spoken about benefits, and that's a different matter. But he has said he's not going to get into redefining those terms legally.
Let me come to Mossop, and I think this is an important point, because starting today -
Mrs. Hayes: Can we just go back? You actually said it wouldn't affect benefits, though - did you not? - and you've just said Max Yalden said it would. Do you agree with him? Just clarify, talking specifically about spousal benefits.
Mr. Rock: Benefits are different. Benefits he is on the record as saying, I think before this committee in 1994 -
Mrs. Hayes: Yes.
Mr. Rock: - that in the view of the commission - he was speaking for the commission - they might take a different position on benefits. You know, he's entitled to his view.
Mrs. Hayes: Does the public know that, and have you expressed that to the public?
Mr. Rock: He expressed it publicly. Now, he is the commissioner, and it's the tribunal that makes the decisions. But I want to make clear that when you suggested in your remarks that he was going to redefine marriage, or the status of marriage, or spouses, that is something he has expressly said he is not going to do.
Let me come to Mossop, because Mossop is a very important point. It came up today because it was mentioned in some newspapers and some people have expressed concern.
I took the opportunity to reread the Mossop judgment in the Supreme Court of Canada, and sure enough, the words attributed to the chief justice are found in the judgment at page 582. But if you read the whole judgment the following becomes clear.
First of all, it was a court composed of seven judges. By a majority decision they turned down the claim by the applicant to bereavement leave in a same-sex couple, saying family status did not include same-sex couples.
Second, the chief justice was writing on behalf of himself and two other judges - three out of seven, not a majority - when he expressed his reasons for decision. The comment he made at page 582 was not necessary to his decision and was beside the point, and therefore was technically called obiter dictum, with no jurisprudential effect.
What's more important - and I intend to write a letter to that fellow who wrote the story today in the newspaper, because he got it all wrong - from a legal point of view is that when you read the majority judgment on the principal point, you find Mr. Justice LaForest, who was with the majority, speaking to the very point at issue, in this passage at page 586 of the judgment.
I'm reading here, Madam Chair, from the judgment of Mr. Justice LaForest:
- No one denies (and my colleague L'Heureux-Dubé J. concedes this)
- - she dissented -
- that the dominant conception of family is the traditional family. ... I recognize, however, that
particularly in recent years the word is loosely used to cover other relationships. The appellant
here argues that ``family status'' should cover a relationship dependent on a same-sex living
arrangement. While some may refer to such as a ``family'', I do not think it has yet reached that
status in the ordinary use of language.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.
Ms Augustine, please.
Ms Augustine (Etobicoke - Lakeshore): Thank you, Madame Chair.
Mr. Minister, I've been looking at several pieces of information as they pertain to the discussion we've been having, not only among my colleagues but also with constituents.
Could you take us through the charter, the CHRA, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights that we have some signatory or some obligations to, and any amendments that need to be made in light of this present regulation or this present....
The Chair: Change.
Mr. Rock: To begin with, the charter is, as you know, a constitutional document. It's the supreme law of the land. It takes precedence over all other laws, and any law that's passed that is inconsistent with the charter is to that extent invalid.
The charter sets out fundamental rights, among them for present purposes section 15, which prohibits discrimination. There are certain grounds that are listed in that section. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that those grounds are not exclusive, that others can be read in to achieve the purpose of the charter. Indeed, as recently as earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed that sexual orientation must be read into section 15.
But the charter and the human rights legislation perform different functions in our society. The charter as the constitutional document is the measure against which we determine the validity of federal and other legislation, and other acts of government. On the other hand, the Human Rights Act, which is itself subject to the charter, governs, as I said earlier, employment and the provision of goods and services by federally regulated companies.
As to how one relates to the other, I guess what I would have to say is if I were working at a bank and I was fired because the employer found out I was gay or lesbian, my complaint would not be under the charter, because it would not be a government action that would be involved. It would be a private right, and therefore I would turn to the Human Rights Act if sexual orientation were included and avail myself of the opportunities to complain to the commission, which might direct a hearing before a tribunal, which might provide remedies that are set out in the statute.
I guess what we're doing in this legislation is bringing the human rights legislation in line with the charter, and we are ensuring that the same standards of conduct apply to government and legislation as apply to the employer and the provider of services in the federally regulated workplace. I think this is consistent with our international obligations with respect to human rights, and that's the basis of the government's policy.
Ms Augustine: The second part of my question was regarding amendments - any amendments as a result of Bill C-33 and any amendments to any other federal government legislation?
Mr. Rock: No, we don't intend any amendments to other federal legislation.
There was some suggestion in some material I read last week that if we do this it's going to be necessary to amend forty or fifty other federal statutes. That's not the case.
The Chair: I wonder, Mr. Minister, if you wouldn't mind -
Ms Augustine: I will share my time with my colleagues.
The Chair: Yes.
Could we hitchhike, for the clarification and edification of myself anyway, and perhaps others, what the relationship or impact then would be on provincial legislation?
Mr. Rock: None. The provincial legislation governs the provincially regulated workplace and the provision of goods and services in the province. Every province and territory has human rights legislation.
Eight provinces and territories in fact include sexual orientation as a ground on which discrimination is prohibited, but apart from an exemplary function, which is now a little late since we're behind eight out of ten, there is no effect.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Scott, I gather you want to share that time. You have six minutes.
Mr. Scott (Fredericton - York - Sunbury): Thank you very much, Madame Chair. I may not need the six minutes.
Thank you very much, Minister, for your appearance, and I appreciate your being here tonight. It occurs to me - it's been my experience since I came here a couple of years ago - that very often in legislation we spend an awful lot of time trying to talk about all the things the legislation doesn't do in terms of, I guess, fears people have in terms of what these things mean. I'd like for a moment to remember just what it is we're trying to do, or what the legislation is intending to do.
Because everybody seems to agree, when they actually talk about.... You know, we all agree on that. We want to do that. We want to prevent discrimination against people based on this particular characteristic. I'd like to establish that I think that's the case.
So the question then becomes - and I'd like you to speak to the question - the prevalence of that discrimination, and therefore the need for the bill, on the basis of the grounds we all agree on.
Mr. Rock: You invite me to go back to the first principles. I'll respond by saying that in the most basic terms this bill is intended to make it the law of Canada that in the federally regulated workplace people cannot be fired or refused a promotion because they're gay or lesbian, that when you're dealing with a federally regulated company that provides goods or services you cannot be refused them because you're gay or lesbian.
Yesterday in the House in the course of my speech, I described the effect of the operative provisions of part I of the act, the way it deals with hiring and providing services and membership in employee organizations, and hate messages and harassment. That's what this bill is about. It's intended to prohibit that kind of conduct. What we're saying here is that you cannot do that based on someone's race, religion or national origin, and now we're adding sexual orientation.
As to the incidence of this problem, the record before the Human Rights Commission is replete with complaints brought by people who suffered just this form of discrimination. My mail in recent weeks provides examples of people who have suffered such discrimination and who wish to have redress.
Let me say that since 1992 the courts have read sexual orientation into the act, so impatient were they that Parliament had not completed the statute by the amendment that's now before the committee. Some say, well, if the courts have already read it in, why are you bothering with a piece of legislation? You're creating all this controversy for no good reason.
But the fact is, two things. First, we shouldn't rely upon the courts to make public policy in matters of this kind. That's up to the legislators, and we should have the courage to do it.
Second, it's a very imperfect instrument, using the courts for such purposes. We had the Ontario decision in 1992, which was very helpful, but then last year we had a decision in Alberta, Vriend, which went the other way. Now there's some doubt, between these two senior appellate courts in the country, which interpretation is to be preferred. Well, the rights of people shouldn't depend on reconciling inconsistent appellate court judgments. The rights of people should be plainly spelt out in statute.
Let me say one other thing before I stop, Madam Chair, because I think I have to in response to the question, why is this necessary, what does it do? In some ways it's a very narrow amendment. It applies only to federal companies, only in the workplace, and so on and so forth. In other ways it's enormously important as an act of moral leadership and as an example.
We distributed a little booklet of questions and answers when I tabled the legislation on Monday. In answering this question in the booklet, we point out that one of the underestimated consequences of discrimination against gays and lesbians in our society is the elevated suicide rate, and particularly among adolescents. All the evidence in Canada - and I think you may be hearing some of this evidence in the course of your work as a committee - is that among adolescents in particular the rate of suicide is directly affected by the kids who find at a certain point in their development they are either gay or lesbian. Society is so unwelcoming, so hostile, stereotypes are so deeply entrenched, the atmosphere is so threatening and discouraging, that kids are killing themselves because they find out they're gay or lesbian and can't go on.
You said earlier everybody accepts you can't discriminate. Well, do we, and do we in everything we do? If we do, why are kids killing themselves? Something is going on here that has to be addressed. I hope this bill, which as I say is very narrow in scope, is a modest step such that somewhere some kid might see the federal government is putting this in writing, stepping up to the plate and taking on the debate, facing it down, and some kid might think, well, maybe in the fullness of time things will change to the point where I don't have to be so discouraged and distressed and in such despair that I consider ending my life.
I don't want to be overdramatic, but I think there is a connection and I think it's worth considering.
Mr. Scott: That's the purpose of the question. It has to do with the fact that it's easy to adopt the notion in a general way, but actions need to be attached to the attitude, unless one assumes there isn't the prevalence of the attitude that leads to discrimination and then that gives some purpose to the exercise. That was the reason I was trying to provoke a response on how prevalent that is.
Mr. Rock: In fact, in 1985 the all-party committee did work on this subject, and they found.... My office had a copy of the report. In 1985 members of Parliament, maybe some who are here - I don't know if they were -
An hon. member: The chair of the committee and I myself were both there.
Mr. Rock: You were members. So you know in 1985 in the report you wrote at that time -
The Chair: No, he wrote that part, and we approved.
Mr. Rock: Well, you may have written it, but we read it. I remember reading a summary of what you found. There was no doubt the discrimination was there, it was very hurtful, it was very real, and it was very much affecting the quality of the lives of human beings in this country.
The Chair: Mr. Minister, just for your edification, could I tell you there wasn't a city, town, or village we visited over a period of three to four months where we did not meet families, men and women and children, who came to testify about the very negative and disastrous impact on their lives. At that time, I'd like you to know as well, the armed forces and the police forces were not open either, and we had many closed-door meetings for senior executives and people of substance in this society who acknowledged that they were homosexuals, either lesbians or gays, but could not come out in public and had married to hide that fact so they could continue their careers.
I can tell you the impact was very devastating on our committee. Patrick Boyer, the chair, who I think started out with a different attitude...that whole committee could not but support the implications of this absence in our bill and the need for this amendment.
Was someone asking a question here?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve): Madam Chair, that is a question that I myself could have asked. I am proud of you.
Mr. Minister, I would like to begin by saying that I am truly thrilled by the actions you have taken and there is every reason for us to rejoice over the debate this has brought about in the House of Commons.
Leaving aside partisan politics, the members of this committee are proud to have been able to count upon your determination. I also hope that we are not forgetting that as a committee we will have the majority. I am convinced that you agree with my analysis of the situation and that this bill will be carried at third reading.
All kinds of people worked on this. I would remind you that our next witnesses are representatives of a national organization called EGALE. This group carried out a country-wide campaign, from Prince Edward Island to British Columbia, in support of the bill. I do hope you will invite them to have a beer with you, because we really owe them a lot.
Mr. Minister, I have three questions.
First of all, what works against us when we speak about this issue is the question brought up by Andy Scott. It is the feeling of some elected representatives and of a certain number of Canadians that discrimination in the workplace is a thing of the past. In actual fact, the revised act will be aimed at workplaces that come under federal jurisdiction as well as at the supply of services.
Would you agree, if it is at all possible, to table with us the documents supplied to you by government officials that give recent examples of discrimination in the workplace, in order for us all to be well equipped to convince those who aren't yet, be they colleagues from the Reform Party or other colleagues, that this discrimination does exist?
Let us not forget that it is the Haig case, the most blatant example of discrimination in the army, that led the Ontario Court of Appeal to declare unconstitutional the act that you are revising with your bill. If we could have concrete and recent examples of discrimination, we would be able to act together in a common cause and to help our more refractory colleagues.
Secondly, I understand the rationale that you have given and I did listen in to the press conference you gave. All members belong to a family, obviously, but they don't all use the same definition of family.
I've noted that you derive some pride from the fact that you have been married 13 years, and I do congratulate you, but would you be prepared to accept amendments dealing with the family ``in its multiple forms''? My fear is that if the term ``family'' is not defined in the preamble, judges will be able to hand down very restrictive judgements.
We know that this is inevitable. Sooner or later, we will get there, because the family is evolving. Sooner or later, we will move towards recognition of same-sex couples. But that is not the aim of this bill. We must be very clear and you have been very clear in the past. Do you not believe that if we talk of the family only as the foundation of our society, judges will be able to make restrictive interpretations? Would you be open to an amendment that would prevent this from happening?
Thirdly, I am aware that you will be tabling other amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Some witnesses have said that they would like to see some revision of the appeal mechanisms as well as of the composition of human rights tribunals.
Do you plan on tabling amendments that would change the way in which human rights tribunals are constituted?
Those are my three questions.
Mr. Rock: I would be pleased to give the committee all of the documentation we have prepared and used in the Justice Department as far as examples of discrimination are concerned. I would ask my officials to prepare all of that for you for tomorrow or Friday of this week.
[English]
The second issue has to do with the rationale of family. When we were preparing the preamble we looked at a variety of forms of words. The question was whether you could say traditional family or other kinds of family or define family.
But it seems to me the conclusion to which we came was that on balance there's no need to define family. Secondly, the wording ``traditional family'' might be very offensive to people who, for example, have divorced and remarried, to single mothers or single fathers, widowers or divorcees.
Instead of defining family, let's focus on what this is really about. We referred to family and the principle of the importance of family only to furnish a context. But what this is really about is discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace and in providing goods and services. It's about equality and it's about fairness.
So I'd rather not distract the committee or the House by entering into the process of trying to define families. And by the way, if families are threatened in Canada today, and I think to some extent they are, it's not because we're banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. If families are threatened in Canada today it's because they're facing economic uncertainty. It's because sometimes there is abuse or there are drugs being used -
Mr. Robinson (Burnaby - Kingsway): Or there are cuts to transfer payments.
Mr. Rock: Well, there are all kinds of things going on that are highly controversial.
I think if we are really worried about families and children and making sure people are looked after, I don't know that we ought to spend our energy trying to redefine terms in human rights legislation. I think we're better off spending our energy trying to improve the economy and doing some of the wise things the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry are talking about. We have to work better with other levels of government to serve people in need. I think that's where families are best strengthened.
The third question had to do with the balance of the amendments we proposed.
[Translation]
As I have already stated this evening, I plan on tabling in the House a draft report on amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act as it pertains to the handicapped, and more specifically on the obligation of the tribunal to make reasonable accommodation, as per your suggestion.
The Chair: And you will be including that with the other documents?
Mr. Rock: Yes.
The Chair: Fantastic.
Mr. Rock: We plan on suggesting that the tribunal be smaller and more specialized, and we also have a few other amendments aimed at improving the Canadian Human Rights Act and bringing it up to date.
Mr. Ménard: Do not forget that I am inviting you to consider... My belief is that no one is able to define what a family is. My idea would be to say: shouldn't we do something so as to prevent an eventual restrictive interpretation which might again open the door to discrimination based upon sexual orientation? In essence, that is the issue.
And if you and your officials have the feeling that by maintaining the family...
The Chair: Dear friend, we have time. We have lots of time.
Mr. Ménard: I know that the Reform Party wants to talk about that. Forgive me, madam Chair.
The Chair: Do not worry. We are here to obtain clarification on all these issues.
Mr. Ménard: Forgive me. Sorry, colleagues. I will go back to my seat.
[English]
Mrs. Hayes: I have three questions. I'll say them very quickly and hopefully give you as much time as you can to answer them.
The first one is something I was referring to earlier. Why have you not spoken publicly that this will likely affect spousal benefits, which is what you said in the last round?
The second question is this. Our party's definition of the family is those related by blood, marriage, and adoption, where marriage is the union of a man and woman as defined under law. Certainly all the examples you gave would be included in our definition. Would you personally concur with our definition?
Third, I would agree with you; we support equal rights and freedom from discrimination for all Canadians. What I feel, particularly with spousal benefits, is that those are entitlements of specified groups. You're a lawyer and I'm not. Are equal rights the same as equal entitlement?
Mr. Rock: First, let me make clear that in the last round of questions I was responding in relation to what Max Yalden has said. He's already proven for many years he's quite able to speak for himself. I'll let him speak for himself. You had attributed words to him which I don't think he said and which I think when he testified before the Senate committee he made clear he didn't say. So I think we'll leave Max Yalden aside.
I've spelled out the position of the government on these questions and answers very clearly. This bill doesn't deal with benefits. It's as simple as that.
Mrs. Hayes: The bill doesn't. But again, as a lawyer, as someone in the legal profession, knowing what has happened in the past, it would appear Max Yalden feels this would indeed lead to spousal benefits.
Mr. Rock: He'll have to speak for himself.
Mrs. Hayes: Would you agree with that personally?
Mr. Rock: He'll have to speak for himself.
Mrs. Hayes: I'm asking you for your legal opinion as a lawyer.
Mr. Rock: The fact is that this bill doesn't deal with benefits. Spousal benefits are being argued for in tribunals and in courts right now, with or without this amendment. This bill is not going to determine those questions.
Mrs. Hayes: But what would your legal opinion be?
Mr. Rock: On what question?
Mrs. Hayes: Whether this will lead to spousal benefits.
Mr. Rock: I think the answer is we'll have to see what the courts and tribunals decide. That depends on which benefits are being spoken of, in what case, under what circumstances.
These issues are for the courts and tribunals to determine, because Parliament has not done so. This legislation is not going to resolve those issues. It's just not going to resolve them. It doesn't deal with them directly and it doesn't settle the question of benefits. So we're going to be tomorrow as we were yesterday. The day after this bill becomes law we're still going to have parties in front of courts and tribunals claiming benefits and we're still going to have to wait to see what the courts and tribunals say in their decisions.
Mrs. Hayes: In your opinion, is that more likely or does it have the same likelihood with this bill?
Mr. Rock: That very much depends on the approach taken by the courts and tribunals, and also on the benefit being sought.
I'm not trying to be evasive with you. What we're doing is we're boxing with shadows here. We're saying on the one hand we're all in favour of equal rights, but we don't want you to prohibit discrimination because this bogeyman might come out of the shadows and award benefits to everybody. I'm saying the logic doesn't connect -
Mrs. Hayes: Then we're not getting an answer to that one.
Mr. Rock: You're getting an answer you don't like.
Mrs. Hayes: No, I'm just not getting the answer on your opinion, as was my question.
The second question was whether you would agree with our definition of family.
Mr. Rock: I've already said I don't think anything is to be gained by defining ``family''. I don't think that helps us. We're talking about prohibiting discrimination, not defining family. If we're worried about families, let's do something to make them better off, let's do something to help their kids, let's do something about the extent of child poverty and child abuse in this country. If we're worried about families, let's support them by passing laws that will make it more likely people can get jobs, by working with governments to assist the people most in need. If we're worried about families, let's concentrate on that and not have arid discussions about the definition of who is related by blood, because that doesn't get us anywhere.
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, but I'll take the prerogative of the chair. There's been a question. Would you please restate your definition of family inasmuch as in Quebec, for instance, a large proportion of people have children and live in common-law relationships? Is that a family? I'd like to know your definition, please.
Mrs. Hayes: Yes, it is. We say it is the union of a man and a woman as defined in law, and in our common law it is defined in law. So that would be part of our definition.
The third question, then, if I could go on to that -
Mr. Rock: Forgive me for interrupting you. What about if a woman were living alone with three children? Would that be a family?
Mrs. Hayes: That certainly would be. It's those related by blood, marriage, or adoption. That mother certainly would be related to the children she has, or through adoption -
The Chair: If she were living with another woman, would that be okay too?
Mrs. Hayes: No, we say the union of a man and a woman -
The Chair: I see. So she has these three children. They belong to her, but she lives with another woman, therefore that's not right.
Mrs. Hayes: I don't believe I'm the witness here.
The Chair: I just wanted to understand what you were saying.
Mrs. Hayes: I've given you the definition. You can do with it as you will.
The third question I have is this. Are equal rights the same as equal entitlements? Is it discrimination to say someone is not entitled to something someone else is entitled to?
Mr. Rock: I'm not sure I know what you mean. All we're trying to achieve here is that whether you're gay or lesbian, you're to be treated the same as anybody else in the federal workplace and for the purposes of goods and services provided by companies under federal regulation. That's equality.
Mrs. Hayes: Yes; and entitlements in those areas?
Mr. Rock: What do you mean by ``entitlements''?
Mrs. Hayes: Benefits.
Mr. Rock: Now we're back to the benefits question.
Mrs. Hayes: Yes.
Mr. Rock: You don't like my answer on that, so is there any point in going through it again? My answer is this bill doesn't deal with benefits -
Mrs. Hayes: No, this question is about equal rights. Are equal rights the same as equal entitlements?
Mr. Rock: Apparently not, because in Ontario, for example, where there was some equality of freedom from discrimination after the human rights legislation was amended to add sexual orientation in 1986, the issue of whether benefits applied still arose in the courts and tribunals of that province. So I guess the answer to that is no.
The Chair: Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Robinson: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank the minister again for appearing before the committee, and also to acknowledge the role the chair played in that equality rights committee in 1985. She played a very key and decisive role in that committee and the ultimate outcome of the committee. While I may have had something to do with the authorship, I know the chair was instrumental in the final outcome, and I want to acknowledge that for the record and thank her for her leadership on that issue.
I have a question supplementary to the one that was just asked, and then two other questions.
The chair, Mrs. Finestone, just asked about a lesbian couple with three children as a family. We have people in this room who are in families. Brent Hawkes is in a family with his partner, John. They've been together for fourteen years. Michelle Douglas is in a family with her partner, Rose. They've been together for seven years. I want to get clarification from the minister. When the government is recognizing and affirming the importance of family, are these families included by the government?
Mr. Rock: We didn't define family for the very reason that we don't want to get into discussing who is and who isn't included. As I said earlier, this bill is about discrimination, so that's been the focus of our work. I really wonder whether it's not an idle inquiry to discuss whether this or that person is in a family for the purposes of the preamble.
Mr. Robinson: I'm just seeking clarification. It's not idle to gay and lesbian people, Mr. Minister, to know whether our families are included in this legislation.
Is it the intent of the minister - and that's what the purpose of the minister's appearance before this committee is to clarify - that gay and lesbian families also are included in the families that are affirmed in this bill?
Mr. Rock: The intent of the minister is to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. That's what the operative provisions of the bill achieve.
Mr. Robinson: And do the families that are being affirmed in this bill include lesbian and gay families?
Mr. Rock: The families that are referred to in the preamble are Canadian families. So....
I don't think -
Mr. Robinson: Do they include lesbian and gay families?
Mr. Rock: I'm not going to get into the question of who is included and who is excluded. I don't think it's helpful to define family, because there are many definitions of family. It's difficult to find common ground as to what that definition is, and it's not necessary for the purposes of -
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Chairman, it's necessary for gay and lesbian people, who are reading this legislation, who look at the preamble and see that the government wants to recognize and affirm the importance of family, to know whether the government is reaffirming the importance of gay and lesbian families as well.
I'll ask the minister again - are the families of Michelle Douglas, Brent Hawkes, Jim Egan, and the lesbian couple with the three children the chair referred to, being affirmed in this legislation? Is that the intent of the minister?
Mr. Rock: The intent of the legislation is to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and that's what it does. I was asked earlier this afternoon about the legal implications of family or family status, and I was able to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Mr. Robinson: I'm not asking about that.
Mr. Rock: But I'm responding -
Mr. Robinson: The minister is not responding, with respect.
Mr. Rock: I am responding.
Mr. Robinson: Are these families included in the definition of family or not? Gay and lesbian people who are involved in committed, loving relationships in families - are they included in the affirmation by this government?
Mr. Rock: We expressly declined to define family. I'm not here to define family. I'm here to tell you -
Mr. Robinson: So the minister is not prepared to affirm that gay and lesbian families are included in the definition of family in this bill.
Mr. Rock: I'm telling you I'm not here to define family. That's not the purpose of this legislation.
Mr. Robinson: And you're not prepared -
Mr. Rock: The purpose of this legislation, Madam Chair, is to prohibit discrimination.
Mr. Robinson: The minister has refused to confirm to gay and lesbian people that our families are included in this legislation.
I want to ask the minister a question with respect to benefits. The minister has referred to the Mossop decision. The minister knows that subsequent to that decision the Supreme Court of Canada spoke on this issue in another case - Egan and Nesbit. I assume the minister is familiar with that decision, and is aware that a majority in that court, five of the nine judges, affirmed that discrimination against same-sex partners, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, includes a differential treatment of persons of the same sex who represent themselves as a common-law couple, as opposed to persons of the opposite sex who do so.
Mr. Rock: I am.
Mr. Robinson: I assume the minister is aware that discrimination based on sexual orientation, according to a majority in the Supreme Court of Canada - Sopinka was decisive on this - also includes discrimination in the extension of benefits to same-sex couples.
Mr. Rock: Indeed, and they also invoked section 1, as I recall.
Mr. Robinson: Yes, but it does include the extension of benefits, and the minister has acknowledged that and is familiar with the decision. I take it as well that -
Mr. Rock: But I think -
Mr. Robinson: No, the minister's right, so I want to move on -
Mr. Rock: - that case was about whether a particular claimant was entitled to specific benefits, and the court decided, notwithstanding everything said -
Mr. Robinson: In that particular case.
Mr. Rock: - that because of section 1 -
Mr. Robinson: Exactly.
Mr. Rock: - in that case it was permissible to deny the benefits.
Mr. Robinson: Exactly. But the court also ruled, by a majority, that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation includes discrimination against same-sex partners.
Mr. Rock: And they went on to say that it's up to Parliament to determine the pace at which social change will occur. We're going to wait and see what Parliament does as these matters progress.
Mr. Robinson: That is correct. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that discrimination -
The Chair: Mr. Robinson, I hate to bother you, but you have about two seconds.
Mr. Robinson: Then I'll put my question.
The minister has confirmed that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation includes the extension of benefits, and that it's up to the courts to determine. My final question is with respect to what's meant by sexual orientation. For decades transgendered people have been victims of discrimination in Canadian society, as the minister knows. Will the minister confirm that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation includes transgendered people?
Mr. Rock: The Federal Court of Appeal had occasion to define sexual orientation for the purposes of a case not long ago, and it approached the question of orientation on the basis of heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality. Based on that and other cases that have dealt with sexual orientation, I think that is the approach the courts would take. I think that's what we can expect to see as a definition of sexual orientation for these purposes.
Let me come back to Egan and Nesbit for a moment, because it ties into a point that arose earlier in this hearing - the question of whether adding sexual orientation will automatically lead to benefits. The reality is that in Egan and Nesbit the court found that sexual orientation should be read into section 15 of the charter. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not permissible in federal legislation and government action, but based upon the facts of the case before them they denied benefits to the claimants, demonstrating that it's possible both to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and to find that benefits are not extended to a gay or lesbian couple. For those who contend that it follows automatically -
Mr. Robinson: It's not automatic.
Mr. Rock: That's right, it's not automatic.
The Chair: Mr. Robinson, I have given you great latitude. I'm allowing the minister to answer your questions. It's called swhig shteel.
Mr. Rock: He finished my sentence.
The Chair: He did? All right, fine.
Russell MacLellan.
Mr. MacLellan (Cape Breton - The Sydneys): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Minister, for coming here this evening. I appreciate your comment that studies have shown that homosexual youths are two or three times more likely to attempt suicide than non-homosexual youths.
I want to get to another area. In recent years we've seen the establishment of bias crime units within many of our police departments. The Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service developed a police bias crime unit in January 1993, due to the unfortunate reality that crimes are being committed against people in this city because of characteristics such as race and sexual orientation. What do you say to people who claim that discrimination against others because of their sexual orientation is not a problem in our society?
Mr. Rock: We pressed upon these subjects earlier in answer to the question from Mr. Scott, but it's evident to everybody that it is a problem. Your reference to the hate crimes units in Canadian police forces is just one more example of that problem.
The committee may recall that last year we enacted Bill C-41, which dealt with sentencing in the criminal law. Part of that bill was a provision requiring courts to treat as an aggravating circumstance in determining the appropriate penalty for a crime, whether the offender had been motivated by hatred, prejudice or bias toward the victim. The discussion in committee, in part at least, was on the question whether there was a need for that provision. Sadly, the evidence was abundant.
Police forces across the country not only have created hate crimes units, they've reported that one of the most common and fastest-growing categories of hate-motivated crime is that motivated by prejudice, bias or hatred toward gays and lesbians. So the evidence is abundant, and the provision in this bill is a modest step in an important effort that has to continue.
Mr. MacLellan: I'd like to share my time with Mr. Maloney.
The Chair: I'm going to give Mr. Maloney your time, then.
I'd like to ask a question, if you don't mind. The question of hate and the propagation of hateful attitudes toward homosexuals is not covered in this bill with respect to the Internet and all of the new communications mechanisms.
Mr. Rock: Hate messages in general are covered by section 13, which provides that if you disseminate hatred toward persons who are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, then the commission can take jurisdiction. If it was alleged that such messages were being disseminated against someone on the grounds of sexual orientation, which is a prohibited ground of discrimination, then the commission would have jurisdiction.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Maloney (Erie): I would like a clarification on the exchange between you and Mr. Robinson on the Egan and Nesbit case. In that case there was a denial of benefits. Reference was made to the term ``not automatic''. Under what circumstances - or does the case refer to circumstances - where it would be considered?
Mr. Rock: Automatic?
Mr. Maloney: No, where it would be considered at all. If it's not automatic, when would it be considered? Did the case make reference to that?
Mr. Rock: It did in the sense that having found that discrimination is impermissible on that basis, having found that on its face this particular pension plan did discriminate, the question became, since it's invalid for that reason, does section 1 save it? Section 1 permits departure from the principles in the charter only to the extent and in circumstances reasonably justified in a free and democratic society.
So the court undertook that analysis and concluded by majority that it was permissible in a free and democratic society. They referred to societal conditions and considerations. They concluded it was up to Parliament to decide when and to what extent to extend such pension benefits to same-sex couples.
I don't know if I'm responding to your question. But there was an analysis that took this direction and covered this ground.
Mr. Maloney: I'm satisfied. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Minister, I have a request for a question from each of the three opposition parties. I know essentially your time will be up in five minutes. Would you agree to take the three questions?
Mr. Rock: Sure.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier, go ahead.
Mr. Bernier: Mr. Minister, I would like to come back to the issue of the family. To my mind, this is crucial. Since you refuse to define the family in the preamble, since you also refuse to recognize, in answer to the questions of my colleague, Mr. Robinson, the fact that a family in which both partners are homosexuals constitutes a family within the meaning of what is set out in the bill's preamble, then I must come back to your intentions.
If I were a judge and if I had to render a decision in a given case, since you haven't defined what family means, I would have to base my judgement on your intent, as legislator. Since you have not said that you recognize as a family a relationship in which both partners are homosexuals, I would like to know if that corresponds to your intent.
Secondly, if you answer yes to that question, why not simply remove any reference whatsoever to the family given that, as you yourself said, this has nothing to do with the rest of the bill?
[English]
Mr. Rock: The word is there, not as part of the operative section of the bill but as part of the preamble, which is intended only to furnish context. I declined Mr. Robinson's invitation to define family because I don't think it's useful and I don't think it's necessary.
Mr. Robinson: A point of order, if I may. I did not ask the minister to define family. I asked if certain families were included.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Rock: For my part, I'll have to say that at least in my mind, responding to Mr. Robinson's question would have required me to define family. I don't think this is necessary or useful.
As to interpretation, I think what would probably be determined in the interpretation of this bill if it came before the court are the words of the bill itself - namely, sexual orientation in the context of prohibition against discrimination. I don't know that family is going to be interpreted because of the enactment of this bill.
I remind you, if I may, that since 1983 the federal Human Rights Act has included reference to family status, and this has been the subject of interpretation. I've already read from a judgment from the Supreme Court of Canada, which in 1993 held that family status, according to the majority judgment for which Mr. Justice LaForest wrote, does not include same-sex couples. We have the interpretation of the court to that extent on this question.
[Translation]
The Chair: Have you finished, Mr. Bernier?
[English]
Mr. McClelland.
Mr. McClelland: For the purposes of greater clarity, Mr. Minister, there have been representations made by people in various religious groups in broadcasting who fear that by their religious precepts against the practice of homosexuality, that by broadcasting the fact that in their opinion homosexuality is wrong and immoral, they would be subject to sanction. Further, people have raised the concern that certain religions that are opposed to homosexuality on moral grounds, by stating such in their churches, would be subject to sanctions. Would you speak to that, please?
Mr. Rock: This bill and the Human Rights Act do not deal with broadcasting; and to the extent to which churches are regulated, that's a provincial, not a federal matter.
Which religions are you referring to, if I may ask?
Mr. McClelland: Any religion that would consider on a morality basis that homosexuality is wrong. If someone were to be broadcasting - which is federally regulated - would they be subject to sanction if during a broadcast they were to say that homosexuality was immoral?
Mr. Rock: Not under the Human Rights Act, as I read it. Broadcasting is federally regulated, but the Human Rights Act deals with the federal workplace or the federally regulated workplace, matters of employment, and the provision of goods and services. Discriminatory practices or discrimination in that context is prohibited.
But if statements were made, I think their lawfulness would fall to be judged by either the hate messages provisions...I assume you're not talking about messages of hate, inciting hatred.
Mr. McClelland: No, I'm saying very clearly that -
Mr. Rock: I understand what you're saying, and I say to you in response that the lawfulness of anything said would be judged by the criminal law and by the hate message section, and in terms of civil liability, by the laws of defamation if they were talking about an individual.
The Chair: Does that clarify that?
Mr. McClelland: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Robinson: Thank you, Madame Chair. I have a couple of brief questions.
I take it the minister would agree that the very important principles of the Canadian Human Rights Act should apply here on Parliament Hill, to the House of Commons, the Senate and the Library of Parliament as well.
Mr. Rock: We should surely be the first to live them. Wasn't that matter before this committee a little while ago?
Mr. Robinson: I'm not sure that it was, but it certainly was before the Board of Internal Economy, and I'm pleased to hear the minister confirm that we should be respecting those.
I want to ask two other questions. I'll perhaps put both questions, then the minister can respond.
The first is this. As the minister knows, there has been some concern expressed by people within the gay and lesbian community, including EGALE, about the possibility that in the subsequent round of amendments the minister intends to bring to the Human Rights Act, there may be an attempt to include something similar to what is now section 1 of the Charter of Rights in the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that could have the effect of significantly weakening the import of the amendments the minister is now bringing before the House, as well as other provisions of the legislation. I would like the minister to comment on whether it is his intention to proceed with that kind of amendment.
Secondly, could the minister clarify the relationship as he sees it, as the Attorney General of Canada and Minister of Justice, between the Canadian Human Rights Act on the one hand and other federal legislation, including the Income Tax Act and legislation dealing with pensions, on the other, and the extent to which the Canadian Human Rights Act is in fact an act that has primacy over other federal legislation, and where conflicts exist that indeed it would be the Canadian Human Rights Act that would have primacy?
Mr. Rock: There's nothing in the act at present that establishes expressly that it has primacy over other federal legislation, and I don't know that one can assess the validity of provisions in the Income Tax Act, for example, as against the Human Rights Act and declare the Income Tax Act invalid. It's certainly argued in tribunals, as you know, commonly, that practices, working conditions, or benefits that are affected by federal legislation should be extended notwithstanding legislative limitations, because the limitations are inconsistent with the Human Rights Act, and sometimes the courts agree with that. But there's nothing in the act at present that provides that it is paramount.
But that's under consideration. We have a package of amendments we're going to bring forward, as I mentioned earlier this evening. Among other things, it had been our original intention to include in those amendments a section 1-style defence for the Human Rights Act so that if anyone were to allege that the Human Rights Act was not being respected, the court or tribunal would be empowered to determine, notwithstanding what was on its face a departure from the act, whether the departure was consistent with a free, democratic society, that sort of approach.
Indeed, I believe when we formed the intention to include that proposal, that enjoyed the support of the equality-seeking groups in Canada. In fact, I know it did. In the period since those proposals were prepared, I think the views of a lot of people have changed on that question. It may have been Egan and Nesbit who changed their views. But in any event, several equality-seeking groups, or representatives of them, have approached me to say that they no longer support a section 1-style defence.
So we're looking at the matter again and trying to perfect our understanding of their concerns, and we haven't come to a final conclusion. Indeed, one of the reasons we haven't tabled the balance of the bill with this one is that we still haven't finished those consultations.
We're looking at that question, and if Mr. Robinson has a view on that point, I'd be pleased to discuss it with him at some other time and have the benefit of his views.
Mr. Robinson: I'll take the minister up on that and make it very clear that I believe that kind of defence should have no place in the Canadian Human Rights Act, that there are other adequate provisions, bona fide occupational requirement and other provisions, that I think adequately address the concern.
Mr. Rock: This would take the place of those bona fide -
Mr. Robinson: I think there's deep concern about that possibility, and I would hope the minister would reconsider.
Mr. Rock: Well, we are. That's what I just said. We'll talk to you about it.
Mr. Robinson: Thank you, Madame Chair.
The Chair: That being said, ladies and gentlemen, we've had the pleasure of having the minister beyond the time promised, which I appreciate.
Mr. Rock: The pleasure is mine, Madame Chair.
The Chair: I want to make sure no one feels they have left a question or a stone unturned so that you all feel comfortable with the decisions you are taking.
Mr. Minister, thank you for your clarity.
Mrs. Hayes: I could ask another question, but I won't.
The Chair: I want to thank you very much for the clarity of your explanations and the will to ensure that this is a society with citizens of equals. I think many of the questions that have perhaps bugged people have been answered with the eloquence of your own discourse, and for this we thank you very much.
Mr. Rock: Thank you, Madame Chair.
Members of the committee, merci bien.
The Chair: I'll adjourn the sitting for a few moments while we change witnesses.
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, it's our pleasure to welcome the group of representatives from EGALE.
You certainly have brought to the interest and attention of the population at large, coast to coast to coast, the concerns of people who have a different orientation - homosexuals, heterosexuals, and lesbians and gays in general - and we're looking forward to your observations with respect to this bill and any of the recommendations you might have.
Would you be good enough, first of all, to identify yourselves?
Mr. John Fisher (Executive Director, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere): My name is John Fisher, executive director of EGALE. I'm very pleased to be joined tonight by Michelle Douglas, Reverend Brent Hawkes, and Madame Carmen Paquette.
First, we're very pleased to be here tonight, and we're very pleased and proud to congratulate the government on bringing forward these amendments to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. As many people in this room and many across the country know, these amendments are long overdue. The lesbian and gay communities have been looking to our government to protect us from discrimination for many years, and we're delighted that we seem to be on the threshold of achieving that goal.
I think it's important to acknowledge that lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered people in Canada have faced a history of discrimination, that just over 25 years ago there were provisions in the Criminal Code whereby we could be put in prison for the crime of loving another human being of the same sex. Even once those provisions were appealed, homosexuality was a ground on which immigrants could be denied entry into Canada, and if a person was successful in coming into Canada as an immigrant and was discovered to be homosexual or lesbian or gay, they could be expelled from the country.
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the federal government itself conducted extensive inquiries to ascertain which of its employees might be lesbian or gay, with the purpose of expelling lesbian and gay employees from the federal public service. Pursuant to those inquiries, in which the RCMP actively participated, many hundreds of lesbians and gay men were expelled from the federal service. Until very recently, the military maintained an explicit policy prohibiting the participation in the military and the armed forces of lesbians and gays.
The Chair: [Inaudible - Editor]
Mr. Fisher: Exactly.
As recently as yesterday, we heard at least one of our elected representatives stating that, in his opinion, it should be lawful to dismiss a person simply on the grounds of their homosexuality. It is very clear to us that discrimination is a very real problem we face as part of our daily lives in Canada.
The Minister of Justice correctly referred to the terrifying incidence of youth suicide. In surveys relating to this matter, we're aware that one gay man in Nova Scotia, for example, had had written on his mail, which was delivered to his home - written, presumably, by an employee of the postal services - the words, ``faggot mail.'' A lesbian couple on a train travelling interprovincially were simply holding hands and were asked to stop doing so or be expelled from the train.
A gay man, whom I'm aware of, had been working very well as a building superintendent for many years, was well liked by the tenants of the building and was doing a fine job, but the board of directors of the corporation, when they discovered he was gay, assumed that he therefore must have HIV - in fact, they were wrong in that assumption - and ordered him to leave his caretaker's apartment and dismissed him from his job, and said explicitly that it was because he was gay and because they presumed he was HIV-positive.
There are many instances like this. Discrimination is very much a part of our lives and our reality, and we very much urge this committee and the government to take action to ensure that the Canadian Human Rights Act explicitly states what the courts have implicitly ruled, that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is simply unacceptable and has no place in Canadian society.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Fisher.
Do I understand that each one of you will make a statement first?
Ms Michelle Douglas (Representative, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere): Yes, Madam Chair, and thank you.
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to explain, first-hand, the discrimination I suffered at the hands of the federal government. I was dismissed from the Canadian Armed Forces in 1989 solely on the basis of my sexual orientation.
The Chair: In 1989?
Ms Douglas: Yes. I joined the military in 1986, as an officer -
The Chair: I'm curious about the timing and the date. I'm very interested in what you have to say. We were given to understand that this had been cleared up in 1987.
It was 1987-88, Mr. Robinson, when evidently that -
Mr. Robinson: No, a moratorium was put on it, Sheila.
The Chair: That's all? So it was a moratorium. And they still are doing the chasse aux sorcières?
Mr. Robinson: They were at that time.
Ms Douglas: In fact, in my career from 1986 through to 1989, once it became known to the military, after some rather humiliating interrogations, that I was lesbian, I was dismissed from the Canadian Armed Forces in 1989. Although honourably discharged, my discharge documents state very clearly that I was not advantageously employable due to admitted homosexual activities.
My career in the Canadian Armed Forces was in fact quite distinguished. I was acknowledged as the top candidate when I graduated from basic training. A general for whom I went to work ranked me as one of the top 5% of officers he had ever had the occasion to work with in his 28-year military career. He is now a major general.
Despite my career accolades, I was released from the military solely on the basis of my sexual orientation. Today I still work for the federal government. I understand first-hand what it's like to be discriminated against solely on the basis of sexual orientation. I've been fired by the government for that reason.
So I certainly am concerned that in my current employment I have no specific protection. For example, if I was prohibited from advancement in a particular place solely on that basis, I have no specific protection. I feel concerned and I feel vulnerable without it, and I think I come by it honestly. If you've been fired for that very reason, I think that fear is valid and true. Including sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act would give great comfort and a feeling of protection to gays and lesbians from this very real situation. In my opinion it is certainly a matter of justice and equality to be prohibited from being fired simply on the basis of your sexual orientation.
Those are my remarks, Madam Chair. Thank you.
The Chair: Very moving. Thank you for your story.
Ms Douglas: Thank you.
The Reverend Brent Hawkes (Representative, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere): My name is Brent Hawkes, and I'm the senior pastor at the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto. Clergy are not known for being brief, but I'll do my best. I can talk fast, so hopefully I can get it all in.
I want to address specifically the response of the religious community to the issues before us. It's obvious there's deep division within the religious community. We have the extremism, usually imported from the United States, and a magazine called The Torch, a revolutionary newspaper of white Christianity that calls for the extermination of gays and lesbians.
Two years ago we had death threats at our church. The police advised that the threats were serious and that I should wear a bulletproof vest to do a worship service on Pride Day. Simply to be able to do a worship service I had to wear a bulletproof vest, and the facility had to be searched by guard dogs twice before we were able to hold the service.
We don't take this lightly. We've had 17 of our churches burned to the ground throughout the world, and 31 people have died in the fires, so threats and intimidation are not something we quickly dismiss.
We compare this with the Scriptures, which call on us to be involved with love, justice and mercy and to love our neighbour as ourselves. We contrast that call for love in religious communities with a very vicious society that says you can be fired simply because of who you are and who you love. I would ask, what kind of a message are we giving our kids to be able to say that we condone that kind of discrimination? To allow discrimination seems to be at odds with fair-minded people of faith.
I have before me faxes, which I hope you've received. One is from the moderator of the United Church of Canada, the largest Protestant denomination in Canada, saying that this bill is long overdue, that discrimination is wrong, and that they believe Canadian society can do better, as this legislation will help us to do.
I have before me a fax from the Anglican Church of Canada saying that as early as 1979 the Anglican Church of Canada requested this legislation, and reiterated it in 1995. Given these statements of the church, I would like to encourage your government in its endeavour to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation on the protected list.
I have before me a little less clear statement from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. I would like to quote one part of their document:
- The church does have a duty to oppose discrimination in all circumstances where a person's
sexual orientation or activity cannot reasonably be regarded as relevant.
A question has been raised about religious broadcasters. I have no problem with religious broadcasters saying they believe homosexuality is immoral. I think it's poor theology and bad scriptural interpretation, but if they want to say that, they can say that. I do have a problem, though, when a Jerry Falwell says they have no problem napalming gay and lesbian demonstrations at the White House. I think that's hatred, and that shouldn't be condoned in our society.
I do not believe this legislation is an attack on families in any way. This Sunday I will fly back to my church. It happens to be Family Sunday in my church. Although our church is 90% gay and lesbian, that particular Sunday we'll have lots of moms and dads and brothers and sisters and sons and daughters who will come, with their family members, to worship as a family in our church.
It's not that gays and lesbians are on the outside and we're demanding to be included in the definition of family; we're already there. We just want acknowledgement that we're there and it's valid for us to be there. I'm going to be talking about family values in my sermon this Sunday, and I believe those families present would say one of their values is protection against discrimination.
So if you stand for family values, you stand for inclusion, you stand for love, you stand for the right of people to have a job, irrespective of who they love. It is not a family value to support discrimination. It is not a family value to condone hatred. It is not a family value to hide behind religion and speak bigotry.
So I would hope this committee would hear the call of the Scriptures to love and justice and mercy, and hear the call of the Scriptures to love your neighbour and to do what's right, to listen to, in fact, the majority of Canadians who support this kind of legislation from various religious traditions.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that very moving presentation.
[Translation]
Madam Paquette, go ahead please.
Ms Carmen Paquette (Representative, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere): Good evening. I will be speaking to you in French.
I will begin my remarks by saying that I sat for three years as a commissioner for human rights in Ontario. I therefore know what it's like to live under a provincial regime where sexual orientation is included in the act. If you have questions on that issue, I will gladly answer them.
We have nevertheless come here today to tell you that the Canadian population supports us. All of the polls of the past ten years show that Canadians are opposed to discrimination against gays and lesbians. It is true that the polls show that recognition for homosexual relationships is on the rise; year after year, support keeps growing. For the past ten years, Canadians have been speaking out strongly against discrimination.
As far as the recognition of homosexual relationships is concerned, we believe that thanks to community education we are starting to win this war and much progress has been made in this area.
Canadians, therefore, support an end to this form of discrimination. Eight provinces and territories already grant this protection, and my province is among them. The courts, in the Haig case, have already said that the Charter must be interpreted as including sexual orientation. A Conservative senator even took the initiative in this area.
The only thing we have to say is that Canada is waiting for you. We are waiting for you and we expect you to adopt this bill.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, madam Paquette.
Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Ménard: I have already said this, but I believe it is useful to repeat it. It is obvious that if a bill such as this one is before Parliament today, it is thanks to organizations such as EGALE. Everyone must recognize the excellent work that you have been doing for several years now and we should take the time to thank you and to tell you that, though we are grateful to the minister for having corrected a situation that everyone recognizes as discriminatory, recognition must also be given to the volunteer work that you have been doing for all these years. I therefore wish to take this opportunity to thank you.
I have two questions. Obviously, we aren't going to discuss sexual orientation, because we know that you would like to see it included in the act as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Would you like us to work on defining the family or would you recommend that we retain the status quo in that area and that we adopt the bill without attempting to define «family»?
You followed the discussion between myself and the minister. My colleague Mr. Bernier, as well as Svend Robinson, also got involved. What would you suggest the committee do regarding the family concept?
[English]
Mr. Fisher: We note, as many committee members have identified, that there is a reference to family in the preamble to this bill. We would prefer, of course, that this reference explicitly identify the reality that there are many different family forms in Canadian society. As we have heard, it is clear to us that we too have family relationships. We have our mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers, our partners and our partners' families - all form part of what we understand by the concept of family.
I understood the minister to say that family is in the eye of the beholder, and that the government had specifically refrained from defining family in order to allow these questions to continue to be addressed by the courts, so as not to either explicitly or implicitly enlarge or limit the court's ability to interpret these questions as they develop in Canadian society.
As far as I'm concerned, my partner is a part of my family. I was pleased recently to have spent Easter with his parents and his brother and sister, and to feel part of their family as we celebrated Easter. We feel that in an ideal world there might be an explicit reference to that. We understand this bill does not address, either in an inclusive or exclusive fashion, who is encompassed by family, and while it's not ideal we are willing to support it, given the minister's remarks.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: You therefore agree that in our final report we should not recommend that there be changes to the definition of family. We are in agreement on that.
Secondly, you have, especially you, John, a wealth of experience and you have travelled all across Canada.
Could you give us current up-to-date examples of discrimination that is still taking place in the workplace? Would you like to make the committee aware of particularly shocking situations? We of course heard your colleagues' comments. For example, the armed forces put out a communique, last year, in which they committed themselves to no longer discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Since the publication of this communique in 1995, have you had any indication that the armed forces or other federal agencies are continuing to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?
[English]
Mr. Fisher: It's clear that there is much discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in each province of this country. I encounter it regularly in my work. Before taking on my role as executive director of EGALE I worked with Mr. Philip MacAdam, the lawyer who argued the Haig decision. He has a largely lesbian and gay clientele, and we experienced some shocking instances of discrimination. At my office I regularly get calls from lesbian and gay people across the country, many of whom are too terrified to even give their name for fear they might be identified. Some of them are contemplating suicide.
Frustrating though it is to not yet be able to assure them that they have federal government recognition that they're entitled to equality, I do my best to assure them that there is not monolithic opposition to this in Canadian society, that all the opinion polls, as Madam Paquette said, clearly indicate strong support for this.
There hasn't been a comprehensive survey of discrimination across the country because the questions just haven't been asked by governments in the census in any moderated form. So it's hard to give statistics, but I know there are many people who experience this.
I see that Brent wishes to respond.
Rev. Hawkes: I think we have two issues to deal with here. One is the issue of discrimination that can be documented. But the additional information that is probably more pervasive and damaging to our society is the fear people have that they'll be found out and lose their job.
For example, my spouse and I have been together for 15 years. We recently had a celebration of our relationship. My Dad, my brother, my sister and her husband, the twins, my cousins, my nephews and my nieces, all came up from New Brunswick for that celebration. I'm a bit of a public figure. I'm around a lot and in the media a lot, and my spouse, John, is very shy and quiet. Every once in awhile the cameras catch him standing beside me or near me. He works for a bank, and a week and a half ago there were rumours going around that John was gay, and he was worried about his job.
He came home and said there were all these rumours. He's never worn a button, never been flamboyant, never told anyone he's gay. He's simply been beside me when I needed him. The cameras happened to have caught him, and he's afraid for his job.
So we have cases of discrimination, but we also have the fear people live under that they might somehow be found out to be gay. So it's important to document cases, but it's also important to recognize the fear.
[Translation]
The Chair: Madam Paquette.
Ms Paquette: I would like to speak about the experiences of the provincial human rights commissions that have been in place for 20 years in Quebec and for ten years in Ontario. In these two provinces, 2 per cent of the complaints that have been made relate to cases of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The gays and lesbians who file complaints are terrified of even simply writing their name on the form. They prefer to go to the office at night; they don't want to go to the commission during the day. That proves that there is a tremendous amount of homophobia within our society. Even in those two provinces,Ontario and Quebec, that have had commissions for ten and 20 years respectively, people are afraid of exercising their right to speak out against discrimination.
People find it very difficult to sign their name because they say that all this paperwork will circulate within the government and that all sorts of people will know that they are gay or lesbian. This is one of the reasons why people hesitate to file complaints. This is proof that the act, though necessary, is not sufficient, on its own, to eliminate discrimination.
[English]
The Chair: So it requires education and evolution.
[Translation]
Ms Paquette: Precisely.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. McClelland: Madam Chair, I'd like to make a couple of acknowledgements first.
First, John, I was wrong, and you were surprised.
I was trying to enlist John's aid in an alternate approach to resolving some of these some time ago. At that time I said there's not a snowball's chance that this is ever going to come up, because it's just too politically explosive. So I was wrong, and you were surprised.
Second, and I think this is of extreme importance....
First of all, I acknowledge everything all four of you have said. I have had personal experience...and I've talked to people who have confirmed many concerns similar to those you've raised.
But most importantly, John, in response to something you said in your opening comments that had to do with Mr. Ringma, I was assured by Bob not more than a couple of hours ago...because he explicitly asked me whether I thought he was homophobic. I said no.
I want you to know that, because the context in which he made his remarks was that it didn't matter if someone were homosexual or black - and I think it's important for you to know this - that it was their job.
The way it came out and everything he did, I acknowledge, was absolutely wrong - and I'm not trying to defend it - but I want you to know that I would not be a member of a caucus that would harbour that. There isn't room for both of us in such a caucus. I think it's wrong for you to exist in a country thinking that a political party countenances such behaviour at a time when there's so much else going on. I say this most sincerely.
Having said that, I would like to share my time with my colleagues. I have one quick question.
My concern in this is the prevention of discrimination. I've talked with people who have said that the bigger concern now, particularly in the United States, is the backlash based on reverse discrimination based on affirmative action - not necessarily directed through the gay and lesbian community, but the backlash resulting from affirmative action in the United States.
John, every poll shows that the younger people are, the more accepting they are. What will be the natural evolution of these changes? Do you foresee that the gay community will continue to press for more recognition - the recognition of gay marriage, for instance, which really has a lot of people up in arms - or will you allow it to evolve?
Mr. Fisher: First of all, I'm pleased to learn that Mr. Ringma's comments were quoted out of context. I understand that today he said he supports equality for all Canadians. If that is accurate then I look forward to him voting in favour of this legislation.
An hon. member: You can always believe in conversion.
Mr. Fisher: Yes, he said it was time to affirm his commitment at final vote.
In terms of where we go from here, I think we should be very clear. This legislation is not the federal government moving way out ahead, this is the federal government catching up to where most of the provinces and the country have been for years - Quebec almost 20 years and Ontario for 10 years. The courts have ruled on this and the Senate has no problem with it. Canadian society is ready for it.
Society is already addressing the issue of relationships. Many large private corporations are already extending equal benefits to lesbian and gay employees on an equal basis with heterosexual employees. The federal government itself, toward the end last year, extended some same-sex benefits to lesbian and gay employees.
I believe lesbians and gays are entitled to equality in all aspects of our lives, including in the context of our relationships. I would be very pleased if the legislation we're looking at today did what Bill 167 did in Ontario, and rewrote every statute that discriminated against lesbian and gays in same-sex relationships.
It does not do that, but I believe in full equality for lesbians and gays, and I don't find convincing the argument that if we start recognizing lesbians and gays as equal here, some day we might have to treat them equally in all aspects of their lives. Frankly, I hope that day comes. We shall see whether it does, but we shall be continuing our efforts in that regard.
Mr. McClelland: Thanks, John.
Ms Paquette: I've had that backlash argument three times in my short life. I had it as a Franco-Ontarian with French language rights, as a woman, and now as a lesbian. Please stop protecting me. I want to stand up. I'm an adult. I want to be recognized. Don't fear that removing discrimination will unleash a backlash. I want to stand up and be a total human being.
The Chair: Andy.
Mr. Scott: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for your testimony. It's been quite helpful. I think one of the ways it can be particularly helpful is to speak to the question that Madam Paquette spoke to. I don't want to give you the wrong impression. I think you trade off the educational side against the statutory side. In law we have to recognize what we as a country believe in, and I think this is a movement in that direction.
At the same time, I think it's important that we frame the debate in such a fashion that the debate itself is inclusive, to try to bring along those people who can buy into the anti-discrimination message.
You see, I'm not qualifying this at all. I'm profoundly supportive of this. What I'm saying as well - and I think Madam Paquette said it very well - is that we operate in this way in our daily lives as well, and there are all kinds of places in which we operate where laws cannot protect us.
Therefore, it's really quite helpful to this debate to hear as often as we can about the incidence of discrimination. The need to deal with that is very often somehow made secondary to a whole bunch of other things out here, which Mr. Rock and others have referred to, that are outside that.
We can find a considerable amount of common ground on the discrimination issue, and I very much appreciate your bringing it forward that way. I also appreciate your patience.
I'm not sure that requires a response as much as I'm trying to express my appreciation for the way you framed your comments. It makes it a more inclusive discussion. It certainly makes it helpful to me back home in terms of being able to talk about this in such a way that most people are going to be very supportive.
Rev. Hawkes: The challenge we face in attempting to bring people along.... I spent an hour on TV with Roseanne Skoke today, trying to bring her along, trying to talk and reason, and so on -
A voice: Oh, oh.
Mr. Ménard: Congratulations.
Rev. Hawkes: In the end she said to me she doesn't feel Jews should be protected, or Catholics should be protected, or women should be protected. She thinks all those categories should be removed from the human rights legislation. Her bottom line is that there should not be human rights legislation.
The Chair: I don't think the Holocaust should have taken place, either.
Rev. Hawkes: That's her opinion. She does that based on an extreme paranoia about what is coming.
The difficulty we face in terms of trying to reason with people is....if we could just keep it narrowly defined as the issue and bill is before us. As I read it, that's not the issue. The issue is when we start bringing up all these fears about all these other issues -
A voice: That's right.
Rev. Hawkes: - and hide behind them. That's where it's difficult to reason with people.
When people start talking about paedophilia, when people start talking about special rights, when people start talking about the definition of marriage and all these other issues, that's where the fear comes in. I just wish that the folks who are opposed to this legislation would not keep using the kind of inflammatory language and bringing in the other issues that are frankly scaring the hell out of a lot of people who don't need to be scared about this legislation.
As legislators we have a responsibility to lead, not to bring in fear. We have a responsibility to lead, to keep the issue narrowly defined as the issue really is, and not try to inflame the public.
I really appreciated the empathy with which you spoke a moment ago, about your hearing us, but the proof is in the pudding.
Your party says it represents the constituents. We know the public opinion polls, and not a single member stood up today to support the legislation. That's not about fairness in supporting your constituents; there's something else going on here.
Ms Augustine: As my opening, I was going to say precisely what you said, Reverend Hawkes. Listening to the discussion today, in discussions with colleagues and others through the last few weeks, this whole business of opening the floodgates.... That expression kept coming up all of the time: you do this, you open the floodgates.
Could you just spend a few minutes talking about what could be considered as fears, and address a whole series of arguments that come up, the whole business? I know the minister did, and I know there was a whole series of discussions around adoptions - I'm not going to get back into the family discussion; you've heard that - the issue of paedophilia, and the issue of incest, although there's very little stress on incest.
We hear all the negatives that can enter society as a result of this piece of legislation. If we were to take all the speeches we were to hear in the House, especially today from the members of the Reform Party, and you put it all together - hell and damnation and God and criminal activities - a whole series of things would enter this society with the passing of this amendment.
So maybe if we could address some of those things that would come in through the floodgates, it might be to my benefit.
Rev. Hawkes: When you look at some of the language used, there are very strong ties to some of the old stereotypes about gays and lesbians. When you hear language about infiltrating the schools, imposing our lifestyle on the youth, paedophelia, those kinds of images, they are the old stereotypes we've had to deal with and fight again and again.
The words people say betray their feelings. A lot of folks are still living with those stereotypes, and we still have a lot of education to do. One of the very interesting things about public opinion polls is that besides the religious right - and let's forget them for a moment as we...it would be a wonderful exercise if we could just do that for a moment or two - the other folks who oppose this kind of legislation are predominantly people who don't know someone who is gay or lesbian. That's predominantly the case. These are people who don't have a friend or family member who is gay or lesbian. That's what the public opinion polls say. There are exceptions to the case.
So those stereotypes are allowed to flourish; people are allowed to continue those kinds of beliefs about us.
Mr. Fisher: Perhaps I could add that in my experience there are some people who are so extremely opposed to this that there is nothing we can say or do that will change their point of view. There are some people who are so comfortable and familiar with these issues that they really don't need any education or discussion.
Most everybody else is in the middle, which I think is the majority of the public. Some of them have grown up with inaccurate myths and stereotypes of what homosexuality is, and what it means to be lesbian or gay. Some of them have received early education from whatever source, their families, their schools, their churches, that homosexuality is some kind of an abomination that will lead to the destruction of the family or the destruction of society, that we're all child molesters. You name it, there are countless myths and stereotypes that we could go through, one by one, but we have limited time.
As Brent says, as they get to know lesbian and gay people, most of those people realize that in fact the truth is a lot more mundane. We're ordinary people, we're ordinary Canadians like anybody else, we're part of their families as their parents, their brothers or sisters, neighbours' children, or colleagues in the workplace, people who clean the stairs of their apartment building, or work on their teeth.
Our lives are very ordinary lives like anybody else's. As most people come to know us and inform themselves about the issues, they recognize that the myths and stereotypes are just that, and gradually they begin to understand and accept that we are entitled to the same equality as everybody else.
Ms Augustine: I'd like to tell you about a wonderful discussion I had today -
The Chair: Finish it off with this.
Ms Augustine: Yes.
Maybe I can ask you to address it. That is the whole business of flaunting, and the issue of the gay rights parade, when the mother of all flauntings takes place. Could you speak to the community -
The Chair: The mother-in-law's flaunting: is that what you said?
Ms Augustine: The mother of all flaunting.
Voices: Oh, oh.
The Chair: Oh, okay.
Ms Augustine: You know what I mean.
Rev. Hawkes: There's a great deal of diversity within our community, and on Pride Day that diversity comes out. Much of that diversity is celebrated, but not all that diversity is celebrated.
Frankly, I had a fight within our church about participating in Pride Day. Members of our church felt there were things about Pride Day they didn't like. I say, we need to be there. Gay fathers need to be there. Parents and friends of lesbians and gays need to be there. The diversity of our community needs to be there so people can see we're not all or the other extreme, but that diversity is there.
I just want to pay tribute, because I think one of the major things in this country that has helped us to fight the stereotypes, that has been crucially effective, has been the fact that Svend and Réal have been able to be open and honest. They've told their stories, and people have seen their lives and seen the respect they have as legislators.
Gay youth across this country, lesbian and gay kids, see you on TV, hear your stories, watch you in action, and say, hey, maybe it's okay, maybe it's worth hanging on. And parents see you.
So if this is flaunting it, just keep doing it. I really want to pay tribute to you for being open and honest with your lives.
Ms Paquette: You know, after Gay Pride Day, The Ottawa Sun likes to put on its cover the two or three men who are dressed like.... I wasn't even dressed...in the 70s, because I'm not interesting, I look like somebody's mother-in-law, right?
Voices: Oh, oh.
Ms Paquette: So it's not adventurous to people who want to promote hate against us, to show the kind of people you have around this table, so there is a deliberate selection of our images to really promote hate toward us. It is deliberate because if there are 8,000 people.... How many people do you think are walking around on high heels? I mean, gay pride is about people like us, ordinary Canadians.
Mr. Fisher: I have one final comment, Madam Chair. If you saw the world from our perspective, heterosexuals flaunt their sexuality without cessation. Every day we see heterosexuals flaunting their sexuality. When they do it, it's seen as living their lives. When we do it -
The Chair: It sells music and films, eh?
Voices: Oh, oh.
Mr. Fisher: Exactly. Whereas if we simply tell the truth about who we are and live our lives as the people we are, we're accused of flaunting it. This is just us being honest, as the people we are, and wanting to live our lives with the same openness and honesty as you do.
Mrs. Hayes: First, I want to categorically deny some of the labelling the member opposite put on what our party said today. I challenge her to come up with any of those words in the context of Hansard tomorrow. That's the kind of labelling we see far too often.
You've said some very moving things today, and I know you're people, you have lives, and you have relationships, and I honour those things. Just to bring this into context, today I was on a radio show, and there was a gay man and myself. It was interesting because we have the same last name, which is just a coincidence.
When the announcer said, ``Oh, I wonder if you're related'', the gay man said, ``For goodness' sake, we're not related''. He made that statement. I'm used to it.
Actually, he wasn't nice when he said it; it was with a tone in his voice. So when I said, ``Well, I would have no problem being related to you; would you have a problem being related to me?'' he said he certainly would.
Now those are the kinds of things.... It is not always you folks, and just you, who might feel this prejudice. So I put that...everything is not always as you have stated.
Related to this, there was a pamphlet put out by the Canadian AIDS Society that was describing homophobia. This is certainly a word that is used more and more, and I noticed it applies to more and more things. I was called homophobic today, too. All I'm doing is trying to set out the boundaries. That pamphlet said that someone is homophobic if he does not agree to benefits for gays and lesbians, including spousal benefits. That is the definition.
Now, as one of your own members said a short while ago, the majority of Canadians do not agree right now with full benefits. There is no poll to indicate the majority do agree with it.
Mr. Fisher: That is not correct. There are polls that go either way.
Mrs. Hayes: With spousal benefits?
Mr. Fisher: Yes, there are. It all depends how the question is asked. We all know how polls vary on the question. But there are certain polls that indicate majority support for recognition.
Mrs. Hayes: I would take the position that there is a difference in prevention of discrimination and the full recognition - or the protection as unique and to be uniquely identified - of the man-woman, heterosexual marriage.
A voice: Can I ask you a question for clarification?
Mrs. Hayes: Can I just finish this question? Would you call someone who does not agree with spousal benefits homophobic?
Mr. Fisher: I'd like to draw a distinction, which is not easy to do in a brief pamphlet, between the two words homophobia and heterosexism. They may not be words that are familiar to all of you. Homophobia and the language we use, which is becoming quite common now, identify somebody who is violently and extremely anti-gay or lesbian and who promotes prejudice and intolerance as a regular part of his life.
Of a more subtle nature is heterosexism, which is not necessarily overt homophobia but is just a way of looking at the world, an understanding that sees everything from a heterosexual perspective and that requires or seeks to impose that perspective on everybody else, whether or not they share it.
We'd call it heterosexist if somebody was so ingrained in his thinking about family forms that he could not tolerate, could not accept, the possibility that our families, our loves, our lives were possibly entitled to equal respect. Heterosexism is something that is ingrained in the teachings that many of us were inculcated with from birth about the nature of the family - the images we see on television, the books we read about who loves whom, the television ads.
Mrs. Hayes: Excuse me. Could you answer my question?
Mr. Fisher: I am answering your question.
Mrs. Hayes: Maybe just a short answer, then.
Mr. Fisher: It's difficult to put my life into five seconds, but I'll try.
Mrs. Hayes: I'm not asking for your life. Would you call someone who opposes spousal benefits homophobic?
Mr. Fisher: Me, personally, I would draw the distinction between homophobia and heterosexism. I would call it heterosexist.
Mrs. Hayes: You would disagree with the Canadian AIDS Society.
Mr. Fisher: I would say there is a lot of context that is not easy to put into a pamphlet.
Mrs. Hayes: It is very plain in this pamphlet.
Rev. Hawkes: For me, it would depend on why they disagreed, on what their reasons were for disagreeing with spousal benefits. If their reasons were that they hated gays and lesbians, then, yes, I would call them homophobic.
Mrs. Hayes: What if there were economic reasons, or whatever, or if they wanted certain benefits kept to certain kinds of families?
Mr. Fisher: What about terms like racism and sexism? Nobody likes to be called racist or sexist. But if an imposition of discrimination does not have a rational foundation, then we use terms like racist or sexist.
When somebody is against black people, without a rational foundation, then that is racism. When someone is opposed to equal recognition of lesbians and gays without a rational basis, then that is homophobia.
Mrs. Hayes: I have a quick question. Who funds EGALE? Is there government funding, and if so, how much?
Mr. Fisher: I'm not quite sure how that's relevant to the bill we have before us, but I'm happy to answer.
Mrs. Hayes: That tells me where you come from.
Mr. Fisher: The general public supports the work we do. A large part of our funding comes from donations from lesbians, gays, bisexuals and heterosexuals who are committed to equal recognition of lesbians and gays and who support our work.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Robinson.
Mr. Robinson: Thank you very much. I too want to join in thanking the witnesses for appearing before the committee.
I have the privilege of knowing each of them personally. I'd just like to say that I believe each of them has demonstrated great courage and integrity and leadership on behalf of gays and lesbians and bisexuals and transgender people. As a gay man, I just want to say how much that means to me and how valuable it is to have that kind of leadership, both from EGALE as a group and from each of you as individuals.
I just want to deal for one second with the Ringma matter. I wasn't going to, but because of Ian's comment I think he'd understand I want to clarify what we're talking about here.
We're not talking about comments that were taken out of context. The following was said a year and a half ago:
- I'm not in favour of gays trying more and more to make their way of life spread around to other
parts of the straight community, especially when they involve children.
- I would defend the right of an employer to discriminate against homosexuals if he found the
homosexual had a negative effect on his business.
![](/Archives/Images/link.gif)
These statements were made a year and a half ago. If there was any suggestion that Mr. Ringma was misquoted or that they were not put in context, he's had eighteen months to set the record straight. He didn't do that. So that's the record and that's why people are deeply concerned and outraged, Ian, about what has been said. I want the record to be clear.
In terms of my questions - we have five minutes - I want to ask questions in two areas.
The Chair: I'd like you to address the questions to the witnesses, please, and I don't believe anybody else who's sitting on that side is a witness.
Mr. Robertson: I was addressing my questions through Mr. McClelland.
I have two questions, and my first one is with respect to the issue of why we need this legislation. Some people would say that we don't really need this legislation - some members of the Reform Party, for example - that everybody's equal.
I want to give one example of why we need this legislation, and that's hate crimes. One of the most under-reported hate crimes is gay-bashing. Gay and lesbian people and those who are perceived to be gay or lesbian are beaten up and bashed.
Four days ago I was in Red Deer, Alberta, where I spoke at a conference. I met with some people who told me about a man from Red Deer. Three weeks ago, when he was coming out of a gay bar, he was attacked by a gang. He was called a faggot, both of his arms were broken, one of his ears was cut off, and he was left in a coma. He was beaten up solely because he was gay.
One of the greatest tragedies is that too many people who are beaten up and who are gay-bashed are afraid to report to the police that they've been bashed. Why? They're afraid they'll lose their jobs because there isn't human rights protection.
We need that desperately in legislation. In Alberta it doesn't exist. So there are people who are beaten up. If they report it and it becomes public, they're afraid they'll lose their jobs because there is no protection in human rights legislation.
I just wanted to take the opportunity to put on the record that's another reason why this legislation is so tremendously important. People feel that they could actually report crimes. That's what we're talking about - terrible crimes.
There are even still fears about coming out. I feel an enormous sense of privilege to be an out gay man. If I have a bit of an impact on young people, let me tell you it's the greatest privilege of the work I do.
I'm not alone in this Parliament as a gay man. There aren't just two gay members of Parliament. There are a hell of a lot more. But the fact is that because of that discrimination, which is still so widespread and so pervasive, a lot of them are still afraid to be out. That's tragic and that's part of what homophobia is all about as well.
I've got one question for Madam Paquette. I believe you sit on the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
Ms Paquette: I used to.
Mr. Robinson: I'm sorry. You sat on the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
[Translation]
The Chair: Madam Paquette, you may answer in your mother tongue, if you wish.
Ms Paquette: I am a Franco-Ontarian.
Mr. Robinson: You sat on the Ontario Human Rights Commission. In Ontario, there is an act prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Ms Paquette: Yes.
Mr. Robinson: Your commission, and it is important that Mr. Ménard hear this, receives complaints regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation in the context of the Ontario code. Are you aware of any complaints concerning the non-recognition of gay couples and of benefits for same-sex couples?
Ms Paquette: Yes. You must remember the debate two years ago surrounding Bill 167. The Ontario Act, in its definition of family, does not recognize gay couples but it protects homosexuals from discrimination. It is true that several gay couples filed complaints with the Ontario Commission on matters relating to their recognition as gay couples.
Some cases are more well known than others, for example the Leshner case. Couples file complaints to gain recognition for their relationship, and this is the reason why we wanted to see Bill 167 passed. The act wasn't enough. It protected us from discrimination but it did not recognize our relationships. This is why we wanted to have a new act in Ontario.
An hon. member: But some people won.
Mr. Robinson: Yes, indeed.
[English]
Rev. Hawkes: The legislation has been in effect in Ontario for ten years.
The Chair: Would you mind making your wrap-up remarks at this time, please? We're already well over the time. Thank you.
Rev. Hawkes: That legislation has not led to the floodgates of all kinds of other legislation being changed. In fact, I don't of know a single piece of legislation that has been changed in the last ten years because of it.
I come to this as a pastor, and I would ask you, especially those who oppose the legislation, to come with me to the hospitals, to the intensive care units, when one member of a relationship who has been with another person for ten years can't get in to see their lover before they die because the law of Ontario says it's husband and wife. Spousal recognition is not just about, you know, some legislation and some homo-rights movement taking over the world. People being able to get into see their spouses before they die...it's real-life stories we're talking about.
This legislation does not deal with that. This legislation will not open the floodgates to that. But those are also realities.
The Chair: Before you continue with your wrap-up, I have allowed a short question from Mr. McClelland.
Mr. McClelland: A couple of weeks ago, the ethics writer of The Ottawa Citizen reported that the Toronto-area Christian churches had come together and as a compromise suggested the description of same-sex relationships as a civil declaration - I can't remember the exact terms - or a domestic partnership, and the domestic partnership could entail any two people, regardless. Take sex out of it and any two people could be in a registered domestic partnership. It could include a gay couple.
The idea behind that is to remove the pressure to recognize gay unions as marriage, marriage having a long-standing historical and religious significance and a flash point. The ethics writer wrote that it would mean both parties, the gay community and also some of the religious community, putting some water in their wine in order to satisfy this.
I thought it was an area worth pursuing, and I'm sorry to bring it up now, but I would be most interested - and I'm sure the committee would - in your response.
Rev. Hawkes: I would love to have a dialogue with you about the issue. It's very complicated.
Our fears are that by using domestic partner language, which the Conservatives used around the debate of Bill 167 in Ontario, people are talking about something that will never come about. So they're saying to gays and lesbians, now you calm down; we'll do domestic partners so you'll get your rights. But it'll never come about because some domestic partner language severely attacks heterosexual marriages. It says that a brother and a sister are going to be equated to a man and a woman married.
So I would love to have that conversation with you, but that needs to be another time when we have the opportunity to do that in depth. I'm really nervous that I've entered into a debate - and I did part of it - that takes us away from what the legislation is about.
Mr. McClelland: I recognize that.
Rev. Hawkes: The legislation, as we see it, is about someone being able to keep a job irrespective of who they love.
Mr. McClelland: Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any further remarks?
On that note, I really want to thank you, and I want to tell you that I have found to date - certainly it's not that long - the civil exchanges of great interest and great importance, and I appreciate that very much. Thank you for sharing your personal stories and addressing the issues that are before us. Thank you very much.
Mr. McClelland: I'd like to propose a motion, Madame Chair, that no later than 11:30 p.m. on May 2, 1996, the chair shall interrupt any proceedings before the committee and put, without further debate or amendment, all questions necessary for the completion of the committee stage of Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The Chair: Thank you.
Do you want to second that, Maurice?
Mr. Bernier: No.
An hon. member: I second the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Madam Chair, may I ask a question?
We understand the need to move quickly and we had discussions this morning. Could you provide us with a list of the witnesses who have confirmed? Before we talk about scheduling, we must know who is coming, otherwise it is absolutely pointless.
The Chair: One moment.
[English]
The Clerk: They were still talking to witnesses.
The Chair: Do you have some idea of how many are coming? They've been phoning all day, since we -
The Clerk: I believe we had at least 14 when I left my office, but many weren't confirmed, so I don't have a final count.
[Translation]
The Chair: There are at least 14 so far.
[English]
Just remember that the motion has been passed that the testimony from witnesses end at 10 p.m.
[Translation]
We have already carried a motion stating that there will be no further witnesses after 10 p.m. tomorrow. That has already been decided upon. There will be an in-camera vote and no witnesses beyond 10 p.m.
Mr. McClelland has suggested that all the voting in the clause by clause study be wound up by 11:30. That would be the next step after having heard the witnesses.
[English]
Mr. McClelland: Madame Chair, may I request a recorded division?
The Chair: Certainly.
Do I have unanimity?
Some hon. members: No.
The Chair: We'll have a recorded vote, please.
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chair: We will now take a short break.
The Chair: I reconvene the meeting and welcome the Coalition for Equality.
Would you kindly introduce yourselves.
Mr. Randall Pearce (Chair, Coalition for Equality): Good evening, Madam Chair and hon. members.
My name is Randall Pearce, and I am chairman of the Coalition for Equality. I am joined tonight by the president of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Margaret Nosworthy, and another member of the PFFLAG organization, from Kingston, Marion Marks.
The Coalition for Equality is committed to an end to discrimination against lesbians and gays in Canada. Our national advisory board is composed of individuals drawn from the following organizations: Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays; the Anglican Church Ad Hoc Committee; the United Church of Canada; the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Education; the Metropolitan Toronto police force; and representatives from Montreal, Ottawa and Vancouver.
I'll now ask Marg Nosworthy to kick off our brief remarks to you. We will each be making a short statement.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms Margaret Nosworthy (President, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays): As we sit here tonight studying this legislation, parents of lesbians and gays are holding their collective breath, hoping you will end the endless pain, anxiety and fear they have for their children across this country.
My name is Margaret Nosworthy, and I'm pleased to appear here as part of the Coalition for Equality and as the president of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, but first and foremost, I am here tonight as a mother and a proud grandmother.
My daughter is a lesbian. She is a police officer and she is a mother herself. Our story is a little different from other mother-daughter stories in that at Christmas in 1989, my daughter was home for the holidays. I asked her who was in her life, and where her boyfriends were. She said, ``Just leave it alone, Mom.'' I said no, I wanted to know. Then she said, ``Mom, I'm a lesbian.'' That was the beginning of my education.
So I can understand the kinds of concerns and questions and things that go through your minds. My husband and I have had to deal with that.
It didn't stop me from saying stupid and selfish things, such as not to tell her father or it would kill him; his health wasn't very good. As if she needed more guilt. I kept thinking of myself. What did we do wrong? How did this happen? I tried to keep everything under wraps, not telling anyone, crying floods of tears...incredible pain. Then my husband and I went to the cottage, and he wanted to know what was wrong with our relationship. I had to say it wasn't him, it was our daughter - she was a lesbian.
Then I saw a little notice in the paper about PFFLAG and heard the anguish of other mothers and fathers. But what really turned my thinking around was that a mother told the story of her son's suicide. I immediately ran home, picked up the phone, and said, ``Judy, for God's sake, don't kill yourself!'' She said, ``Mom, where have you been? Don't worry, I'm not going to kill myself.'' It was at this point that I realized how selfish I had been as a parent. It hit me like a tonne of bricks. For the first time I had thought of her pain and not about the pain Bob and I were going through.
The thing we realize is that our children have to learn all these things by themselves and then have to teach us. That doesn't seem fair. I look back on those early months and ask why there was such pain. Why would a mother put her own concerns ahead of her child's? Is it ignorance? I hope it was ignorance, certainly not prejudice or bigotry, although some parents do pass those judgments on their children and turf them out on the street - ``throwaway kids'', we call them, growing up alone on downtown city streets.
Like many parents, I didn't know much about homosexuality - certainly nothing that was good. I was taught by society that it was wrong. The single most important accomplishment of this legislation is that it will educate the public. It will educate parents like me. It will educate the young adults who are struggling with their emerging sexuality, and hopefully it will heal families and prevent the tragedy of suicides.
People are searching for the truth. Sexual orientation is not a choice. It couldn't be. Any gay person I have met has told me they felt different from a very young age, my daughter included. She might move, change her career or get a haircut, but she will never cease to be a lesbian. I will never stop loving my daughter, her partner and my grandson.
You know, 500,000 people came out on Pride Day in Toronto last year and clapped and cheered me, and the people in PFFLAG, because I'm a mother of a lesbian daughter. Canada is indeed a strange place if we praise a mother just because she loves her daughter.
So many lesbians and gays are yearning for parental acceptance. We need to be taught differently. Our children had to find out on their own and then help us to understand. People have to confront the truth in their daily lives. I get upset with people - my age and younger - who say they don't mind gay people as long as they know their place; they all live in downtown Toronto, anyway.
It's time people understood that lesbians and gays are our doctors, nurses, teachers, police officers and TV repairmen. Many Canadians deal with lesbians and gays every day; they just don't know it. To presume that we can decide if we will deal with lesbians and gays is like deciding we won't face another winter, but in this case you can't escape to Florida. There are lesbians and gays there, too.
To perpetrate a system where there is no protection for sexual orientation is to perpetrate ignorance. To pretend that lesbians and gays don't exist...like the parents who say, okay, you can be gay, but act straight when you come home. What a ridiculous suggestion. But they do it. So on a long weekend they have a gay child acting straight. It's not funny. It's a lie, and it hurts. The pain is the child's, because she is being denied her identity, her dignity and the support she should expect from her family.
How do we grow as parents and children if we grow apart rather than together? We were taught to be seen and not heard. Past generations of lesbians and gays were taught to hide. This generation will not hide. They will speak out.
This legislation can help. It can help end the needless pain, anxiety and gut-churning fear. You can give our children their dignity. You can put a face on this important issue. You can bring it out of the closet, and all the parents, families and friends of lesbians and gays will follow. You might be surprised how many you meet.
I'd now like to turn the microphone over to Randall Pearce, chairman of the Coalition for Equality.
Mr. Pearce: I had planned to go next, but I think it's more important that you hear from Marion before you hear from me.
Please go ahead, Marion.
Ms Marion Marks (Member, Coalition for Equality): Thank you.
My name is Marion Marks, and my husband and I have been living in Kingston for 35 years now. We came to Canada 40 years ago.
I would like to thank the members of this standing committee for giving me the opportunity to express my feelings today as the mother of a gay son. I have always prided myself on my liberal attitude, and when my nephew came out as a gay man 19 years ago in 1977 on another continent - the two boys were not brought up together - I was fully supportive towards him and my brother and sister-in-law. However, I was concerned, as I knew even politically correct and sophisticated people felt free to ridicule lesbians and gays.
But I was also worried for my own selfish reasons. Ever since our son had been three, I thought he might be gay. Over the years his behaviour reinforced my fears. He had many girlfriends, but he never had a particular girlfriend as he got older. I sometimes thought I should do something to change him, but he was a lovable child, and what right did I have to try to change him?
The characteristics he had that made me think he was gay were integrated into his personality. He was gentle and soft-hearted and sympathetic to people who had problems, from the youngest age. If he lost this, he would no longer be the son we knew and loved. He would be a stranger to us and a stranger even to himself. I did nothing, but I did sit and worry and fear for his future.
Later, when I began reading up on the topic, I learned that one's sexual orientation cannot be altered, even if one should desire to.
One evening in 1983, my husband and I were sitting chatting with our 21-year-old son, who had been avoiding us for the past six months. He was studying at the University of Toronto at the time. He's actually a doctor today.
We were having a frank discussion, and a reconciliation was taking place between us. We were enormously upset because he was avoiding us so much. My husband remarked that we should always speak openly to one another. Evidently, our son could not miss such an opportunity and such an opening, and he said, ``Well, if we're being so honest, I think you should know I'm gay.'' He became quite overwrought as he spoke, and for a moment he broke down. We both jumped up and kissed and hugged him and told him we loved him. We continued chatting for a while and he calmed down. When he left, I heard him whistling as he walked away from the house.
My husband and I, who were not whistling, sat huddled in the proverbial closet. We were tearful and hardly spoke. I felt exhausted and went to bed early and fell asleep immediately. I woke up at 3 a.m. I was wide awake. This situation is forever, I thought; it will last all our lives and all his life. The fact that he is gay will never go away.
After wallowing in self-pity for a couple of months, I began to be concerned about his position in a hostile society. I had always known about gay bashings, but now they took on a new, gut-wrenching horror for me. Our son seemed so relaxed and happy, I worried that he didn't seem to realize the danger we believed he was in. We discussed this issue with him. He replied that I didn't understand how dangerous the situation could be - I didn't understand. Believe me, my antennae are alert and ready for trouble all the time.
I began to take an interest in what type of legal protection was afforded to lesbians and gays. I found that sexual orientation was not included as a prohibited ground of discrimination, either in the Ontario Human Rights Code or federally in the Canadian Human Rights Act. This was a frightening revelation to me. I felt my son did not have the same protection before the law that I took for granted.
I was overjoyed when the Ontario Human Rights Code was amended to include sexual orientation in the winter of 1986-87. I have been waiting ever since for the Canadian Human Rights Act to be amended to include sexual orientation. I strongly believe that people in positions of authority set the standard for the way we behave.
The Government of Canada sends a firm message to the population by not including sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act. The message is loud and clear: lesbians and gays are second-class citizens; they do not deserve the same protection that is given to other minorities who have suffered from discrimination in the past.
According to what we've heard - we know right now too - everyone picks up on this message. It's fine to tell cruel jokes about lesbians and gays and to strip them of their dignity and humanity.
As a Jew who is also often invisible, I can assure you it is a humiliating experience to hear these types of jokes. It is worse to hear them about a beloved child and to know the havoc these cruel words are having on the self-esteem of lesbians and gays. The horrendous suicide rate among young lesbians and gays speaks for itself.
It was heartening to see that sexual orientation was enumerated in the categories listed in the recent anti-hate crimes law. I feel, however, until such time as sexual orientation is included in the Human Rights Act, we give an open invitation to insecure young men to beat gays. This is the greatest fear of mothers and fathers of gay sons.
We need the Prime Minister and the government to bring this amendment to fruition by indicating firmly that the legal protection of lesbians and gays is a human right and is part of the government policy. There should therefore not be a free vote on this issue. Human rights legislation by the federal government educates and sets an example for the public.
As a mother, I cannot understand why some people insist that lesbians and gays are asking for special rights when all they're asking for are the same rights afforded to any group who has been marginalized in the past. Why are lesbians and gays accused of being a threat to families?
I have heard about parents who reject their gay and lesbian children, not the other way around. I have read that many of the street teens found in the cities of Canada are runaway gays and lesbians, escaping from their homes, where they faced verbal and physical abuse. During the run-up to the amendment of the Ontario Human Rights Code, the threat that gays and lesbians posed to the family was bandied about freely.
I will end by quoting the words of a gay man, aged 22, who spoke to me at that time. ``Why do they say we hate families? We all come from families. We love our families.'' Thank you.
Mr. Pearce: Thank you, Marion, and thank you, Marg.
I find it hard to follow these women. I take my courage from them and from my own mother and father, who have been so terribly supportive. But now I need to point out some of the political realities you are facing in Bill C-33.
Marg is correct. People are searching for the truth. Some members of this House have claimed that there is no discrimination. That's not true. I've felt it, shared it and watched it. They've claimed this legislation will lead to gay marriage and adoption. Not true. This legislation will mean an end to discrimination, nothing more, nothing less.
Some have claimed this legislation will protect pedophilia as a sexual orientation. Wrong. Pedophilia is a crime. It is not a sexual orientation. Others have claimed this is a moral question, and it's not. It's a matter of human rights and dignity. Still others have suggested this is radical gay rights legislation. Wrong again.
The decision to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was read into the Canadian Human Rights Act by the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1991. The truth of the matter is that the government is following, not leading, the people of Canada.
A majority of Canadians have told pollsters consistently over time that they oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In October 1994 the Angus Reid Group released a poll on behalf of Southam News that showed 81% of Canadians opposed discrimination in the workplace.
Last weekend the Angus Reid Group released a second poll that found a clear majority of Canadians favoured passage of these amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act, even in the midst of what I consider to be one of the most unprecedented misinformation campaigns this country has ever seen.
Some critics have tried to use this issue to divide the country, to claim that some regions of the country are less tolerant than others. In fact, poll results can help to unite Canada. Majority support across English Canada is relatively even at roughly 60%. But in the province of Quebec support for these amendments climbs to 73%. Certainly that is a value we share together as a nation.
[Translation]
An hon. member: What a wonderful country this is, madam!
The Chair: No. What a wonderful people! What a wonderful province! That is rather distinct.
[English]
Mr. Pearce: Others have insinuated that this issue is only important to people who live in Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto. Where do you think we came from? Were we hatched on St. Catherine, on Davey Street, at the corner of Church and Wellesley? No. We have parents. We have families in small towns, like Almonte, Ontario, and in cities all across Canada. In fact, the 1994 Angus Reid poll revealed that one in two Canadians, 50%, know someone who is lesbian or gay. That's 34% as friends, 24% as co-workers and 12% as family members they know of. Those are multiple responses.
So this issue is important in all ridings of the country. However, people might not feel as comfortable discussing it in rural Alberta or rural Quebec or, goodness knows, in rural Ontario, as they are in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver.
A small intolerant faction of the government caucus nearly prevented the introduction of this legislation by claiming that it may hurt them in the next federal election. This is more misinformation.
Evidence from the United States shows that legislators who support the equality of lesbians and gays fare well in the polls. In 1994 the U.S. Congress dealt with a pro-gay piece of legislation called the employment non-discrimination act. In the elections that followed that November, all 13 Senate sponsors of the legislation were re-elected; of the 120 House co-sponsors, 110 were re-elected.
In Ontario, in the elections that followed the defeat of Bill-167, all 17 NDP members who were re-elected voted for the legislation, including eight MPPs from northern Ontario.
While human rights legislation may not itself be a ballot box issue, it is an indicator of the fair-mindedness of politicians. In a democracy, a society and its leaders are judged by how the majority treats the minority. Minority rights do not detract from the rights of the majority. Human rights protect those immutable characteristics that define us as individuals. As a country, Canada's human rights record speaks volumes about who we are as a people.
This legislation, if passed, will protect our minorities, strengthen all of us and uphold Canada's fine reputation internationally. There are other concrete benefits in passing this legislation. The Canadian Human Rights Act will be brought in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The public education mandate of the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be activated to combat homophobia.
A clear statement from Parliament might help young gay males accept their sexuality and reduce the alarmingly high rate of suicide, estimated by U.S. research to be three times that of heterosexual males. Human rights protections might constrain the intentional and unintentional discrimination that occurs on our streets and in our workplaces every day.
In the absence of these amendments, the courts will continue to set government policy and lesbians and gays will get on with their lives. But it doesn't have to be this way. Parliamentary democracy requires that members of Parliament act in the public or the national interest. The problem we currently face is the inevitable result when individual members of Parliament put their personal interests ahead of those of the public.
Spectacular in his viciousness, the member for Nanaimo - Cowichan has placed his own prejudice, hatred, bigotry and racism ahead of the interests of Canadians. He invokes the language of equality but betrays his prejudice when he says ``I have to put a black person in the same category as I put a gay or any other minority''.
This man wants to discriminate against everyone who's different from him. He has disgraced himself, he has disgraced his party. He's paid the price with his position as whip, and he deserves to pay the price with his seat.
These kinds of people view human rights as a zero sum game. It isn't. Tolerance is won by teaching people that their neighbours' differences pose no harm to the values they treasure.
Canada is renowned for its diversity. In the next century, as in the last, many people will come here to make their homes and there'll be room for everyone who shares our values. We can ensure hatred isn't one of them. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Chair: I think that goes for all of the witnesses. It's been a very moving time. If you were sitting in this seat and looking at this room, I think the attention that was accorded you, through deep interest, was reflected.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier.
Mr. Bernier: I would first of all like to thank the representatives of the Coalition for having accepted our invitation to come and meet with us. I fully support everything you have said.
I was particularly moved by the remarks made by Ms Nosworthy and Ms Marks. Their accounts deserve all our praise.
Your testimony goes to the very foundations of the bill. In truth, it only affects a small number of people. You spoke in your testimony of the very substance of the bill and that is what myself and other colleagues stated in the House. That is the message that we will be sending the Canadian population when we vote for or against the bill.
You say that given that we've been waiting for this bill for some time now, Canadians perhaps believe that the Canadian government tolerated intolerance vis-à-vis a certain segment of its population. By adopting this bill, we will put an end to that situation. It is good that you underlined this and I do hope that the bill will be carried unanimously for that very reason: to send out a clear message to the entire population, for the reasons you mentioned.
You mentioned something that made me jump several times this week and I've been wanting to discuss it with our friends from EGALE. When Mr. Pearce mentioned pedophilia, I heard several colleagues, from both the Liberal Party and the Reform Party, draw a link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Some even say that they would be in total agreement with a bill that would abolish discrimination if we defined sexual orientation and established that pedophilia is a sexual orientation.
I reacted by saying that this type of remark is to my mind gay-bashing. To make that type of association it is to place the blame for all sorts of things on gays and lesbians. The inference is that pedophilia exists only in the gay community, but the truth is very different.
I don't have any questions for you. Naturally, we support the bill along with you and all of the members of the Official opposition. Once again, thank you for your testimony.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bernier.
[English]
Mr. McClelland: I too wish to thank you for your appearance here, and for your very moving comments.
The question of pedophilia has come up from time to time. I acknowledge the fact that heterosexual or homosexual, pedophilia is pedophilia. It's against the law and in my view it is not a sexual orientation. That view is not universally shared, but that's the perception I'm bringing to it.
Whether we like it or not, there are people who feel very threatened by this. In order to make this bill less threatening and therefore be more palatable in the evolution of this, if the bill defined sexual orientation to be homosexual, bisexual, transsexual and heterosexual, would that strengthen or weaken the bill?
Mr. Pearce: You've heard a lot of talk tonight about defining sexual orientation. I would not support a definition of defining sexual orientation. Mr. Justice John Sopinka said what else do you need to know?
If what you are doing is focusing on pedophilia, which is a serious and heinous crime in this country, then focus your fears on the 98% of pedophilia cases that are committed by the male heterosexual partner of the mother. That is where pedophilia comes from. It is not from the gay community. These people are deviant anyway. I certainly do not embrace them as part of my community, and I'm not sure you embrace them as part of your community. You're talking about 2% of cases that get blown out of proportion because of the media interest in that heinous crime.
It's important that you define the crime, but it's not important that you have to define sexual orientation for law-abiding citizens. Let's define the criminal. Let's go after the criminal and let's go after the root cause of this abhorrent behaviour in this society.
Mr. McClelland: I accept that. Are those factual numbers?
Mr. Pearce: Yes.
Mr. Robinson: I have a study by the American Academy of Pediatrics in the journal Pediatricians. I'd be glad to make that available to members of the committee.
The Chair: That would be very helpful. Thank you.
Mr. McClelland: I have another observation that has to do with gay bashing. I know of a situation where a person was beaten to within an inch of his life because people thought he was gay. It had nothing to do with whether he was gay or not. It was because people thought he was gay.
This came up at great length in the hate crimes legislation. On the hate crimes legislation, if I heard you correctly.... You said it's wrong to beat up anybody for any reason, and that we should be addressing violence in our society in a way that goes to the root cause. I think where we got off the rail with the hate crimes legislation, and where I had a problem with it, was that it defined beating up someone from an identifiable group, including homosexuals, as worse than beating up anybody else. To me that seemed illogical. It is the violence in our society, and people being beat up, period.
Ms Nosworthy: I think the reason it's worse is that gay society doesn't feel it's protected. If a straight son was beat up the father would say we'll get those SOBs. If it was his homosexual son, he would stop and think -
Mr. McClelland: Really?
Ms Nosworthy: - what are the implications here? I can associate with that, because we have a very intelligent couple who have a cottage across the river from us. Even though they know I have a lesbian daughter, they have never once divulged that their son is gay. Two years ago he was badly beaten in Toronto, to the point of death. I asked what he was going to do. Nothing.
Mr. Pearce: Maybe I could speak to this.
I've been bashed. There's a scar on my right eyebrow. I'm not looking for sympathy, but I'll tell you how it happened. I was working in Ottawa. At about 9:30 p.m. I was walking through the market. Just near the Rideau Centre there are some areas where you have to walk to some apartment buildings that are deserted. I'm walking along, dressed similar to the way I am today. I was not saying anything or doing anything. I was just walking home with a briefcase. I looked like a businessman walking home at night. There was a teachers strike on in Ottawa and a bunch of kids came around and said ``faggot, faggot, faggot, faggot, faggot''. They keep screaming at you and spinning you around. I ended up getting a cowboy boot in the head.
This is different from assault. There are laws that cover people who just get beaten up. They are called assault laws. The reason you have hate laws is to protect people who are being singled out, rightly or wrongly, for special treatment because they are identified with a group. As a society, we decided that deserves a stiffer punishment.
Mr. McClelland: With respect, I could be walking home tonight in exactly the same circumstance and be beaten up in exactly the same circumstance. How do you differentiate between you or me in terms of our sexual orientation?
Mr. Pearce: If they mistook you for a gay man and repeatedly yelled ``faggot, faggot, faggot'' at you, you could claim that was a crime motivated by hate and ask for a more severe punishment.
The issue here is not that you need to set a level playing field; what you have a responsibility to do as a legislator is to help correct the distortions that occur over time. That is the purpose of hate crime legislation. That's the purpose of human rights legislation.
Mr. McClelland: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott: Again, your testimony is appreciated. I think it puts a very personal and recognizable Canadian face on the issue, and it's important that we try to use the occasion to reassert the values behind the amendment, values that I think the broad group of Canadians support. It's an opportunity to have everybody reflect on that and reaffirm their commitment to those values. Your testimony will help do that. Thank you.
The Chair: Ms Augustine.
Ms Augustine: I too was tremendously moved by your presentations, your honesty and the fact that you can speak openly about your own experience.
You said something about confronting the truth, or bringing it out of the closet. When we talk about confronting the truth, couldn't we apply that to people who refuse to confront the truth as it faces them, not only the individual who is homosexual or lesbian or the family confronting this...? It seems to me that a lot of the discussion could be called denial, not hearing, not listening. We could become so wrapped up in our own interpretation of what we think we're safeguarding and protecting that maybe we're not going through the barrier to confront and hear the truth.
Each and every one of us, if we were to confront the truth, share some experiences and really listen with love and the realization of what this society's all about, we will realize that.... For me it's quite clear - this is really a justice, a fairness, a right, a discrimination, the right of an individual to live, to work, to have goods and services provided freely.
Whether we pass this bill today, tomorrow, the next day or the next day, it's just the beginning of the recognition that has to be given to people with that lifestyle. By that I mean the education that has to take place so that we can feel like you feel, we can be open as you are open, and we can confront the truth.
When I say ``we'' I'm talking about society as a whole, so that we can recognize not only the lesbian or gay person, but also those who are part of the caring and sharing and that family situation.
Maybe I also want to ask how we can assist. What did you feel as parents that was the one thing that created that sense or understanding in your son and daughter? Was there the one word, the few words, or was it the understanding? What was that recognition?
Ms Nosworthy: Well, my daughter gave up on me after six months of trying to educate me. I still said I really wish you'd find some nice young man, get married and have children and get rid of all of this nonsense. She said, Mom, you'll never get it, and she walked out the door.
So here again, it's different for us because we're forced to confront what is happening, the same as when they said they wanted to have a child. My husband said it's bad enough the way it is and now they're going to bring a child into this. I said that's none of our business. This baby was born, a beautiful little boy. He's two years old now, and he's the sweetest wee thing. I'm supposed to be babysitting him tomorrow at 7 a.m. Anyway....
Mr. Pearce: If anyone has a private plane....
Ms Nosworthy: Of course my husband is saying oh, my goodness, because he has a more difficult time. I guess I'm more outgoing. Anyway, I said to him, Bob, you know, this little fellow is only going to have one grandfather. Are you going to be the kind of grandfather about whom he's going say, boy, I can remember when I was a little fellow, my grandfather...? Or are you going to be the kind of a grandfather where he'll say, I don't even know who he was. That shook him, and you know, this little fellow now, at two years old, gets on the phone and says Grandpa Bob, are you happy? The love is the bottom line. Do you love your children? You're talking about families.
The things you do to our children, you do to us, you do to other brothers and sisters. How can you divide a family and say this child has benefits and that child doesn't? What are you doing to us? What is society doing to us? How can I say that's not a family. Those are two girls, and that baby...they are a family. They have more love for that little fellow and more time than any other couple I know. That's their whole life, that wee little fellow.
When you see the love that the gay community gives to children because they are so precious to them...there are so few. Brent Hawkes was sitting here; our daughter goes to the church there, and it is marvellous to see how this child is loved in that congregation.
So when you're talking about families, we have to rethink. I had to rethink everything, so I know exactly what you're going through. I never in my wildest dreams ever imagined I'd be sitting there with...and my husband, of course, says he wanted a fellow to talk to; he said, you girls, you all get together. So I said, well, phone your son.
But you see all of these things that come out in our minds because we've never talked about these things. What did we talk about when we were young? We were told to keep quiet and stay in the corner, and nobody discussed anything. I don't know what people talked about. They didn't have TV, so they didn't have an excuse. But they didn't talk about anything.
Ms Marks: I would like to say something, because you mentioned, how do you get people to talk amongst themselves and to be more accepting? Well, you pass this bill, and you'll be amazed at the affect it has.
Since the Ontario law was changed and sexual orientation was included, everywhere you go, when they list where they will no longer tolerate discrimination, even at Queen's University, they now mention sexual orientation.
Before the Ontario Human Rights Code was changed, it was never mentioned. I noticed it; it was important to me. Now it's a big thing. You suddenly read in the Queen's newspaper that it's there. It's been there for years, since that winter of 1986 when it was passed, but not before, never. Then the professors see this, and then they stop the students from talking. In the same way in the big institutions they hear this, and the people who run the banks, everybody, starts being careful, and it goes right down through society. There's no doubt. I've seen it myself happening at the university and everywhere you go. It was unheard of ten years back to mention sexual orientation in a human rights code and to mention it, that you didn't discriminate on that basis. Now it's taken for granted.
The Chair: I wonder if you would pick up on that in a few moments, please, because it's late and our committee has to run from nine in the morning until late tomorrow night.
Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I am very happy to have heard your testimony, because I am convinced that we won't be hearing another quite like it. You have shown us your personal commitment towards a better understanding of the issue.
You have told us that for things to change ,concrete examples had to given. We have before us mothers. You could even be my mother. My mother had the same reaction as you when I told her that I was a homosexual. It makes no difference to her whether she serves tourtière to a man or to a woman. What worried her was the fact that I might one day be unhappy or the victim of intolerance. The only way to change that is through laws and education. Tonight, you are calling upon us to do both.
In your opinion, how might your testimony have a multiplier effect? It would be fantastic if you met with reporters in the next few days. Over the past three days, each one of us has given a lot of interviews. We talked about the legal aspect, the technical aspect, but we never really told personal stories. It would be very interesting if you were to meet with reporters. There are about a dozen of them here on the Hill who have been following this issue very closely.
How do you think we should go about convincing the Reform Party to vote in favour of this bill?
[English]
Mr. Pearce: In response to your first question -
The Chair: I believe the question was put to Ms Nosworthy.
Mr. Pearce: I'm sorry.
Ms Nosworthy: I don't think you can change people overnight -
Ms Marks: Or change people who are really bigoted. I don't see it. I think education is your big answer - if the government can come forward, through the Human Rights Commission and in the schools, and educate the children to be tolerant of one another and not be so cruel to one another, from the youngest possible age. They pick that up in the homes.
The biggest tragedy is attitudes, people's attitudes. I feel for you, Margaret, because this is how we felt. We were afraid for him.
Ms Nosworthy: The positive part is that we are getting so many requests now from high school students who are doing papers. The unfortunate part of that is that they can't read them out and they can't discuss them because the boards of education won't allow that. But at least they are writting the papers and other kids in the classes are asking questions. So the information is getting out there.
Universities and colleges are also doing papers. But most of this is on an individual teacher. So it is still an individual who has to put a face on an individual. We have to get to the boards of education.
Here again, we could open up a whole can of worms because people say they don't want to know, they want to stay ignorant and be the way they are. That's fine if they do. But it's not going to happen because this generation of kids asks and they want to know. This is of real interest to them. It's the last barrier we have in discrimination and it won't stand too long.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: My mother is 60 years old.
[English]
A voice: I'm 65, but it's going to go. I tell you it's going to go.
Mr. Pearce: All I was going to offer was that we have copies of these remarks. At least, we have Marg's and we could get Marion's to you.
The Chair: That's good, because I want to use them in my speech in the House. That's great. I'm going to quote you.
Ms Nosworthy: Call on us. That's what we do.
Ms Marks: Absolutely, it would be wonderful. Just mention our names so we can help people.
Mr. Pearce: The other thing I might mention is that on Tuesday, May 7, we will be bringing12 parents from the Toronto area and half a dozen from Montreal, as well as about 10 Anglicans to the Hill. Telephone calls have been made and letters have been sent to all of your offices. Certainly, if you are interested in having your colleagues meet with some of our people, we would be very happy to comply with the request.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Randall. Sharon.
Mrs. Hayes: It was interesting just listening to your story. It reminded me so much of a story that was related to me in my office by someone who lives in my constituency. It's very similar. It was about a son who was beaten and hospitalized. He told his mother not to press charges because he was afraid. Then he was beaten again by the same group. Unforuntely, this is too common in our society and there are a lot of parents who are very afraid for their children. This individual was not gay.
There was another one in my constituency who was curbed at 2 a.m. by four young offenders - dead for no particular reason, except that he'd offered them a ride home. These things really affect all of us when we see that. We know the feelings of parents when they are afraid for their children. You've expressed that very well.
I want to follow up on the theme of confronting the truth. Even earlier tonight we had a justice minister here who would not confront the truth of what he was doing. At least that's my interpretation. He would not define family. He would not say if this means spousal benefits or whatever. He did not say the whole truth nor has he said the whole truth to the public.
The Chair: Excuse me, the chair takes exception to that. I believe he made it eminently clear that your truth and his truth were just two different truths. So let's quote it correctly and accurately, please.
Mrs. Hayes: Okay. He would not define these things. He would not say what it was. What is your opinion of that? What do you think would be your definition of family? Do you feel spousal benefits should be part of this? More specifically, what do you feel about a justice minister who will not address those two things?
A voice: I'd would like to say because that's what I didn't hear.
Mr. Pearce: What disturbs me about your line of questioning - and I've been here all night listening to it - is that you are focusing on who should be included, who should be excluded.
A voice: No.
Mr. Pearce: I'm sorry. You are a policy-maker. When you make policy, you don't talk about who's in and who's out. You talk about the purpose of the family in society, how it serves the interests of society to talk about family. If you look at the purpose of family, it's to support one another emotionally and physically, and it's to provide financial dependence.
Then you look at the outcomes of those purposes. It is increased life expectancy and it is decreased reliance on the state in terms of social programs. If you came at the objectives and you developed public policy rather than playing politics with our lives, we'd feel more comfortable in responding to your questions.
Mrs. Hayes: I'm not playing politics with your lives. I'm asking you if you want family expressly in the legislation. Do you want it to say whether - do you feel spousal benefits are part of this? That's what I'm asking.
Mr. Pearce: The legislation achieves an objective, which is an end to discrimination, nothing more, nothing less. We are perfectly satisfied with the legislation as it is currently written. We would not support any further changes to this legislation. It should be passed as is.
The Chair: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.
We will meet at 9 a.m., in Room 371, West Block.