EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 2, 1996

.0914

[English]

The Chair: Order.

Good morning. I'm sorry to have delayed you. I appreciate everyone's on-time arrival,

[Translation]

especially the Reform Party and the Bloc Québécois. I am very pleased to see you, Ms Arsenault. I know we had scheduled a meeting in my office and we had to cancel it, but I am very pleased to meet with you around this table.

.0915

[English]

A quorum being declared, we have before us, from the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, Diane Richler, Angelo Nikias and Francine Arsenault, who will introduce the delegation and then have you introduce yourselves.

You have thirty minutes. You can decide how you wish to use your time. You can use it all in your presentation or you can make a shorter presentation. You can each speak.

Our procedure here is that each member has five minutes to ask questions. We try to leave it with enough latitude so questions are answered.

Please begin.

Dr. Raffath Sayeed (First Vice-President, Canadian Association for Community Living): Madam Chairperson, my name is Raffath Sayeed. I'm the first vice-president of the Canadian Association for Community Living. I'm pleased to be here to present along with my colleagues, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, whom you have already introduced.

I will introduce the executive vice-president of our association, Diane Richler.

The Chair: I'm sorry about that.

Dr. Sayeed: No problem. I knew you were getting caught up.

The Chair: Yes.

Dr. Sayeed: I'm a new Canadian of 22 years, I'm a physician, I'm a parent of a child with a disability, and I was a community advocate when I started off 20 years ago in a small community in western Canada.

Our association is well known, and I'm not going to belabour the point. You've been in touch with us and you've heard about our association. It is a federation of 10 provincial and 2 territorial associations made up of 400 local associations. We have about 40,000 members who have been labelled as having a mental handicap. They include parents, professionals and advocates.

Our goal as an association is to create a society that is not simply making a place for a group that has been identified as different but has also been transformed and values diversity as one of the sources of strength.

The shift our association took in moving from a model of supporting people who have a disability through fixing the person to a human rights model has forced us to invest most of our resources in improving systems and changing society. While our focus was on changing the individual, we tried to develop and improve special and segregated services, relying on charity, pity, sympathy and special consideration.

A human rights approach means we cannot be promoting the human rights of persons who have a disability at the expense of others. It means changing society so it will not only be welcoming to people who have a disability but will not exclude people for other reasons. We ourselves cannot fight for justice, equality and inclusion for people with a disability and for a society that accepts diversity without recognizing the need to fight for equality based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, gender and sexual orientation or political belief.

The amendments before you are mainly technical in nature and address only discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We urge you to view them and the forthcoming comprehensive amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a symbol of our commitment to the protection of human rights as a whole.

We are upset and repulsed as a society by bigoted statements like some of the ones we have heard in the last several days. We've also heard some of these statements by so-called leaders in our own communities. Yet we do not understand how the systems and structures we have created in this country, including the workplace, are designed to exclude people who are different.

The policies and legislation we have in place were designed in an era where family and the roles of family members were clearly defined. The reality today is that the composition of families and the roles we all play are very complex. While we hear a great deal of lamenting of the fact that the traditional family is disintegrating, we must acknowledge that many of those changes have benefited women, children and society at large.

The reason we value family as a constructive force is it plays a significant role in the moral and social fabric of our society. But if that role is best played by a diversity of family structures and make-ups, then what do we have to fear? If policies and legislation that affect families are designed to support all forms of family, not giving preferential treatment to one form or another, then what do we have to fear?

.0920

We are not talking about special rights here. We're talking about the right to live in a home, eat in a restaurant, hold a job, and walk on the streets without fear. People who do not know this call these special rights. Is it asking too much to be able to hold your job or to keep your apartment?

After reflecting on the debates I have been listening to over the past couple of days, I am struck by the fact that there continues to be people in our country who are fundamentally afraid of difference. That they would have blacks banished to the back of the store or would fire gays and lesbians is evidence that we need legislation to protect the rights of those who are different. These people are the reason we need legislation like the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I'm also here as a Canadian who understands the experience of discrimination from a number of perspectives, as I identified earlier. My son was labelled as having a disability and was initially denied such basic services as speech therapy. He was also about to be placed in a segregated classroom and warehoused there without the benefit of a normal, equitable education.

As chief commissioner of the Alberta Human Rights Commission, I would just give you a simple example. This is a true story. I have met this lady and interacted with her. After several years in a heterosexual marriage, a woman came to the realization that she was a lesbian. Her husband gave her an ultimatum to renounce all her rights to her young daughter or he would fight her through the courts and reveal her sexual preference to her employer, the Government of Alberta. She had a successful career in a department that involved legal issues and felt that such a disclosure would negate any chance for advancement, and possibly would mean dismissal.

This woman ultimately was able to get agreement for supervised access to her child, but without any legal obligation. She eventually left her chosen field of work because she was in constant fear of exposure and felt there was little understanding in the department. She pursued education and employment in another field that would be less hostile to a lesbian.

I have scores of examples, but I won't belabour the point.

As a physician in Canada today, I know the bias toward our seniors. I experience it perhaps more frequently than some of my colleagues may care to admit.

All of this is in the name of getting the best bang for the buck. In these days when "fiscal restraint" is the jargon, I feel terrified at the society we're creating.

While you may want to disregard these experiences of exclusion as distinct from the issue at hand, that is, the rights of people who are gay and lesbian, I'm here to tell you that the basis for exclusion is the same.

I don't want sympathy, pity or charity for my son. I want him to live in a country where his rights and the rights of all of my children are respected and protected, regardless of their differences. I have always thought that country was Canada.

Through the Canadian Association for Community Living I've been involved in a number of international initiatives. I am continuously impressed by the reputation Canada has for the protection and promotion of human rights in the rest of the world. We're sought out as experts in this area. Increasingly, international agencies such as the Inter-American Development Bank and the Organization of American States are recognizing that economic development requires a democratic base, a value base, to ensure sustainability. Equity, in fact, is a prerequisite to democracy and to economic and social development.

The human rights perspective and experience Canada has to offer is of great value to organizations and countries seeking sustainable reform. While we have a great deal to be proud of in our record of human rights, I am not so naive as to think those rights will not be challenged by some people or some groups of people. I do believe mechanisms like the Human Rights Act can be used to protect these rights.

By the grace of God - and my parents - I am a privileged person. I am not economically or socially disadvantaged. I am not going to lose my job because of my colour, my gender, my age, my nationality, disability, or sexual orientation, yet some of your colleagues in leadership positions, such as premiers of provinces, call me a special interest group member.

.0925

If being interested in equity for all people makes me a special interest, then I'm proud to be labelled as such, but on the contrary, I believe such comments show a profound lack of empathy for people who are vulnerable and are denied their citizenship in a free and democratic society, in the greatest country in the world.

I hope you will reaffirm what I believe to be a defining feature of this country - our respect for diversity, our protection of the weak, our protection of human rights - by passing these basically technical amendments and moving forward with a more comprehensive package of amendments to the Human Rights Act.

Finally, I urge you to do what you think is right. If you do that, it will be the right thing to do in a country that gave to the world the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights approximately 50 years ago.

Diane Richler has a few comments as well. Thank you.

The Chair: Before Diane takes the microphone, that was a very moving presentation,Dr. Sayeed. I think your contribution in this field on both a personal and public level is deeply appreciated by all.

I thought it would be only fair to share with all four of you the fact that the minister was here last night and indicated that this package of amendments would be in here by the middle or end of May 1996. So it should be interesting to see the additions that come through.

Go ahead, Diane.

Ms Diane Richler (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Association for Community Living): You pre-empted one of our recommendations, but we'll get to that.

The Chair: Oh, that's good. It was the minister who did it.

Ms Richler: That's wonderful news.

Our association has appeared before this committee on numerous issues. We've always tried to be constructive and to be very specific in our proposals about the provision of supports and services to people with a disability. But the matter about which we are appearing before you today is much more fundamental. We do not believe this bill is about homosexuality. This bill is about human rights and our fundamental beliefs as Canadians.

Our association has recounted many personal stories to this committee. Usually I've tried, as a staff person, to be very objective in those presentations, but I hope today you'll allow me to abandon my usual attempt at objectivity and speak from my own personal experience.

Last week marked the anniversary of the Holocaust, which is painfully remembered by Jews and non-Jews around the world. As a Jew growing up in Canada, in Mrs. Finestone's riding, right after the Second World War, I was constantly reminded of the extremes to which human rights abuses can lead. I'm still reminded of that reality silently every day, when I meet with my friends who have no parents, whose children have no grandparents, who have lost sisters, brothers, cousins, aunts and uncles, all because of human rights abuses.

In thinking about the Holocaust, I remember, too, that the Nazis did not target only the Jews. There were two other groups that were prime targets - gays and lesbians, and people with a disability. So I come to you today with a very profound feeling of the linkage between the human rights of all groups that are threatened.

I'm very proud to be part of an organization that recognizes that human rights for one group are hollow if other people are in jeopardy. If we do not protect all persons from discrimination, we are all at risk and we are also all guilty.

Many times I've cited this committee for praise because of your ability in the past to transcend party politics and defend broad principles and values. I hope you will continue that tradition.

I submit to you four recommendations on behalf of our association:

1. That the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities recommend the speedy passage of the bill to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation;

2. That the Prime Minister reverse his decision to have a free vote on this matter, and in third reading demonstrate his government's commitment to the human rights of all Canadians, both for this bill and for all future bills dealing with human rights;

.0930

I think you've assured us of this next one.

3. That the Minister of Justice confirm to this committee, to Parliament and to the people of Canada his commitment to proceed without delay to introduce the full package of amendments with respect to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

4. In particular, that the Government of Canada, in responding to the last report of this committee, confirm its commitment to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include provisions for duty to accommodate on the basis of disability during this sitting of Parliament.

Those are our recommendations, and I pass the mike over to CCD.

Ms Francine Arsenault (Chairperson, Council of Canadians with Disabilities): Thank you very much.

My job at CCD has always been to put a human face to the issues that we're putting on the table. I think it would be helpful for you to know that my expertise in disability comes from having polio since I was eight months old and a heart condition since I was eight. Because of those things, I think I've used every system available for Canadians in one way or another. I've gone from braces to crutches to wheelchairs and back again. I've had to be integrated into school. I've been kept in special classes and sent to regular classes and gone through that gamut.

I have a fairly clear view of discrimination against disabled persons, but I have to say that because of the family I came from, and because of the community I came from, I rarely suffered discrimination in Canada. I like to think this is because Canadians as a whole look to people who are disadvantaged and try to make an equal society. I think the step that the Canadian government is taking now with the amendments for sexual orientation is a part of that struggle for equal rights.

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities has been working for more than twenty years to to give disabled persons the opportunity to be contributors to communities instead of a burden on them.

My family always said to me that there were things I could not do, but there were many things I could do. They also said that if they could work with the community, they would put in place the steps that would make it possible for me to do as much or more than anybody else. I'd like to feel that's happened.

When I've travelled to other countries as an advocate for disabled persons - I work at Queen's University, so I go to Asia and the Caribbean - people always say to me that Canadian people work very hard to help disadvantaged groups participate in communities. I say to them that we do have a commendable record, but it didn't happen without an effort on the part of the people concerned.

I think you're to be commended for passing this legislation - well, we're recommending that you pass the recommendations that have come forward on sexual orientation - but I know there has been an effort on the part of the community to make that happen. I want to say that the more speedily you pass it, the better.

In the community that I come from, people tend to figure that we're asexual and that there is a very... People don't like to think of the fact that you have a sexual life if you're disabled. But we have gay and lesbian people in our community, and we have heterosexual people. We're the same as any other community. Many people in our community have fought hard to have these recommendations to the human rights code amended and to have these recommendations put through. I would highly recommend it, and I would applaud it if this section goes through. I would also say that in doing so, the package that comes forward with the other recommendations should be brought forward very speedily. I'm glad to hear Mrs. Finestone say that it should come before the House before May. I would ask -

The Chair: It's not before May, but the end of May, hopefully.

Ms Arsenault: Before the end of May.

I would encourage that it go as quickly as possible. We've been working for more than ten years. In 1986 we started this campaign to have this code amended.

I don't think I can say much more than our colleagues have said. I would like to ask our past chair from our human rights committee, though, to emphasize some of the issues on duty to accommodate, because this is the area that disabled persons are particularly keen on in the next package.

So, Angelo, I turn it over to you.

.0935

The Chair: Certainly, Angelo, we would like to hear from you. The only caveat I would like to add at this particular moment is that you have a 30-minute period, which I am prepared to extend by a few minutes. On the other hand, there may be members of the House of Commons who would like to ask some questions, and we are focusing on the addition of a non-discriminatory aspect that is fundamental. The other issues that you wish to address are also very important, but they are not matters on the table at this given moment.

Mr. Nikias, please.

Mr. Angelo Nikias (Past Chair, Human Rights Committee, Council of Canadian with Disabilities): Heeding your advice, Madam Chair, I'm going to be very brief.

First of all, I want to join my colleagues in expressing my pleasure and support for the amendments that are before you today. Indeed, we consider protection on the basis of sexual orientation a fundamental human right and an equality issue.

I am also very glad to hear you reporting that the Minister of Justice has pre-empted us. This is the best news I have heard today, because this commitment to have the duty to accommodate included in the Canadian Human Rights Act has been made for 10 years now, including by the present Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister. Because we have been waiting for it for so long, perhaps you understand that we have some doubts as to whether -

The Chair: Let's wait and see what comes and then we can deal with the doubts or approbations at that time. I'd like you to deal with the question of sexual orientation and any view that you might have of concern with respect to that amendment today.

Mr. Nikias: There are two points. First, on the issue of the duty to accommodate, I want to refer you to a brief that we submitted on May 24, 1994. With respect to the question that you raised, sexual orientation, there is nothing else that I can add. We are fully in support of it.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier, please.

Mr. Bernier (Mégantic - Compton - Stanstead): Madam Chair, I know that time flies and that other colleagues will want to comment or ask questions. I will try to be as brief as possible. I would first like to thank our witnesses for presenting their views on Bill C-33.

I will make a short general comment. You are correct in saying that it is important to support human rights in general, regardless of their nature. If you look at how humanity works on this planet, you will see that both human rights and democratic rights are quite fragile and that they should not be taken for granted. This isn't a matter that can be settled once and for all. You always have to hark back to it, and that will be the case for as long as there are human beings on this planet.

I would like to stress one statement you made about human rights. Of course we would like to give everyone equal status, including gays and lesbians, but the real issue with this bill is human rights. The purpose of the bill is to ensure every individual in our society is treated fairly.

There was talk about the upcoming changes the minister spoke about yesterday. We will follow those developments very closely. You know I have a personal interest in anything pertaining to the disabled.

This brings me back to the question of family. You referred to it, Dr. Sayeed. Do you think the preamble to the bill should refer to that notion of family? You said there were various types of families nowadays. Do you think that we, as legislators, should define the notion of family?

.0940

Ms Richler: Our association has no problem with including that reference in the bill. We feel the family is very important and recognizing family diversity is also very important. We have often seen how difficult it is for a family to accept a member's handicap or homosexuality. We therefore feel the family is a social structure and that its diversity ought to be recognized, as we do for our community.

[English]

Dr. Sayeed: Anything you can do to assist that diversity of family would clear out the misunderstandings we have in society today. We cannot turn the clock back. We are living today. It's like saying let's go back to the horse and buggy. Society has changed and families have changed. There are different kinds of families.

The Chair: Ms Augustine.

I note the Reform Party has left.

Dr. Sayeed: The member apologized to me privately. He said he wasn't leaving because of our presentation. He had a prior commitment.

The Chair: Yes, I believe he will return. I just got a note that the other member has a media obligation.

Ms Augustine (Etobicoke - Lakeshore): Good morning.

I'm so very pleased. Dr. Sayeed, every time I hear you I think we should have you at the top of the highest hill, shouting this and giving your speech on a daily basis, because this is what and who we are as Canadians. This is the kind of message we need to give, not only to ourselves but to the rest of the world. You sum up so very well the notion of who we are as Canadians and the important role we have to play.

I want to ask two brief questions. One is this. What do you see as the merits of splitting sexual orientation from the rest of the amendments? What advantages or disadvantages do you see in that?

Secondly, I want to take you back to the whole issue we seem to grappling with in our speeches, the issue of special rights; that we don't need to do anything, because everybody has equal rights within the charter and when you begin to identify you get into special rights.

For the committee, I just want you to speak on those two issues.

Mr. Nikias: What matters to us is complete human rights protection. We did not choose to split. It was news to us. We have always supported a number of human rights measures. I don't know what else I can say about that.

About special interests, we have addressed this. It's a matter of equality. It's a matter of a fundamental principle in Canadian society. Certainly we don't view it as special treatment or anything like that.

Dr. Sayeed: The biggest lie in our society today is that granting something to another group of people, a vulnerable group of people, is a special right and is going to take something away from somebody else. Unfortunately that has been perpetuated by the media. The media don't do a good enough job of stopping that lie, and our leaders perpetuate that lie as well.

.0945

We're not talking special rights. I have stories galore, true stories, and I'm not going to belabour the point, but I have seen and heard and met people who have been kicked out of restaurants. And this is not even homosexual people. Two women holding hands were kicked out because the owner said, I think you're lesbian - out. There was no recourse, nothing they could do. So it's not a special right. We're talking about the right to sit and live and eat and talk with all of you.

Again, I am not a special interest group, but I don't mind being labelled -

The Chair: You're a special person.

Yes, Andy.

Mr. Scott (Fredericton - York - Sunbury): I have to take advantage of the opportunity to acknowledge the presence of Noël Kinsella, who has a particular interest in this as well. We share a common neighbourhood and I believe a common vision in regard to these issues, so I thought I should bring up the fact that he is here.

It also speaks to the question of why I think it's important. In going through the list of witnesses to appear before our committee, I think it was important for all of us to be challenged to view this issue holistically. There are some fundamentals here that transcend the particular grounds on which people are discriminated against. In fact, if we could come up with a way to identify everybody on some grounds so that they could be included in this, I think we may have it beat; we could make everybody recognized. Fundamentally, everybody at some point is probably vulnerable on something. There are very quotable passages that come immediately to mind to make me think of that.

In any case, I want to add to Jean and others who have thanked you for bringing the human face to the issue. I am familiar with the presentations you've made. I think it makes our job easier because it puts a human face on a lot of issues that need a human face applied. I'm sure the vast majority of Canadians exposed to the stories that were told to us last night and are going to be told to us today would buy into this. It's only when we start talking about these ghosts that are going to invade us if we do these things that somehow we lose sight of that.

There may not be a place for a response to that, but I appreciate very much your being here.

I acknowledge that the chair is equally attentive to the presence of Mr. Kinsella.

The Chair: I felt it would be important that he have the list of interveners for the day. As you were going to be talking about him, I thought duplication wasn't necessary.

Mr. Scott: I think you all understand what this means, and the chair is back.

The Chair: Sorry. Andy is really in the chair. I said this was a very informal, different kind of committee hearing.

Did you leave a question in the air?

Mr. Scott: No, I think we brought closure to my little ramble.

The Chair: Do any other colleagues at the table have a question?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: Then I thank you very much. Do you have any closing remarks to make?

Dr. Sayeed: I am very offended by the term "special interest group". Two weekends ago a group of about 75 people took out an ad in the Calgary Herald in response to an amendment in the legislature of Alberta. The ad clearly said that there is a province in Canada where human rights are being ignored and that is Alberta. The list included the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, the United Way, the branch of the Canadian Labour Congress there, and ordinary Canadians. Yet our leaders called us special interest groups and called us not the normal Albertan. If the Calgary Chamber of Commerce is not the normal Albertan, I don't know who is.

.0950

I would urge you as leaders to challenge this lie, when they say "special rights" or "special interests". We're interested in a society that is loving, caring, gentle and kind -

The Chair: And equal.

Dr. Sayeed: - and equal.

The Chair: With rights.

Dr. Sayeed: Exactly, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. McClelland indicated to you that he was going to have to leave, and he has returned.

Colleague, you had been looking to the question of the potential for linkage between clause 16 and the amendment. I was going to ask that question for you, but perhaps you would like to ask it yourself.

Mr. McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would preface this by saying there are Canadians concerned that this bill may have unintended effects, and their concerns have worth and should be considered. It falls on me to represent that perspective.

One of the concerns that has been voiced is that amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation will inevitably lead to affirmative action. While the vast majority of Canadians are absolutely against the notion of discrimination of any kind, many Canadians are equally against the notion of affirmative action. In general terms, would you speak to the notion of the linkage between affirmative action and inclusion of sexual orientation?

Ms Richler: Our understanding is that one of the reasons for moving ahead with the sexual orientation provision, ahead of many of the other proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act, is that jurisprudence in Canada has already suggested that sexual orientation should be read into the act. So what the Parliament of Canada is being asked to do is to bring its laws up to the standard of jurisprudence in Canada. The change is not going to affect the current status of people in Canada; it's simply going to reaffirm it in the act so that people don't always have to be going back to the courts but can clearly point out the issue in the act.

I think it's mistaken to suggest that the legal protection is not already there. It's just very cumbersome right now to have to go to court rather than being able to turn to the act to point it out. People may not like the jurisprudence, but that is the law in Canada.

Mr. McClelland: With respect, there is a very big difference between legal protection and the potential, albeit slim, that at a future census a question will be on sexual orientation for the purpose of determining whether or not a federally regulated employer has a sufficient number of persons employed based on sexual orientation.

The Chair: Mr. McClelland, I think the minister dealt with that hypothetical case very clearly, very strongly and unequivocally. Again, it's a prejudice that seems to be unrelated to the reality of this bill. You can continue to ask that question, but it has been reaffirmed to you by witnesses who are part of a group, not just the minister, on a couple of occasions now that there is not that linkage nor is there potential for that linkage under the present construction of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Now you've moved to Stats Canada.

.0955

Mr. McClelland: With respect, Madam Chairman, I asked the witnesses if they would speak to that because there are people concerned about it. The witnesses before us are capable of answering, and if they choose not to answer that question I will understand.

Dr. Sayeed: I don't mind answering, Madam Chairperson.

First of all, affirmative action is an American term that for some reason has found prevalence in Canada. We don't use affirmative action. In Canada we use employment equity. But I would prefer another term, which is employment opportunity.

Nothing that this act does, in my opinion, is going to stop the best person from being hired for the job. What it's going to do is make sure that the best person hired for the job is going to be hired, regardless of whether he or she has a disability or is of a different sexual orientation. Nothing stops employers from seeking out the best person for the job. I think again that this is a bogeyman being spread by people who are unaware of what is the true intent of the bill.

I think Angelo wanted to say something.

Mr. Nikias: I don't know what the minister said, unfortunately, but my understanding of this amendment is that it is intended to protect against discrimination. I think that is entirely appropriate.

If you are referring to affirmative action in terms of employment, in the case of disabled people and others we know that the record and the statistics show that there have been injustices in the past. As a society we have chosen to employ employment equity to correct some of these past disadvantages. That is our policy option, the way we are trying to do that.

In terms of unintended effects, I cannot speculate. But I do support the principle that people should not be discriminated against in the area of employment or anywhere else because of one of their characteristics. That's what we are dealing with, I think.

Dr. Sayeed: Thank you again for the opportunity to be before you. It is something that we welcome. I appreciate the questions that showed us that you were interested and wanted to assist us. We have nothing more to add.

The Chair: I thank you for clarifying.

I'm sorry if I interrupted a trend of thought, Mr. McClelland. Were you satisfied with the answer? Did you get the fulsomeness of the answer that you required?

Mr. McClelland: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

.1000

I welcome the National Association of Women and the Law, Shelagh Day and Terry Drummond. Go ahead.

Ms Terry Drummond (Spokesperson, National Association of Women and the Law): The National Association of Women and the Law, NAWL, is extremely pleased about the government's plan to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. This promise has been made by a succession of governments, Liberals included, since the late 1970s. It is a credit to the current government that this pledge will finally come to fruition now for us all, and especially for the vast number of lesbians and gay men who experience discrimination every day of their lives.

The National Association of Women and the Law, NAWL, is a national non-profit organization dedicated to advancing the rights of women through legal education, research, and law reform advocacy. NAWL has been actively urging the government to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation since 1977. Eight of the provinces and territories have already brought this prohibited ground into their codes. Quebec, Manitoba, Yukon, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Ontario all have human rights legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. By bringing in this legislation the federal government sets an important example for all the remaining provinces that have not yet ensured protection for their citizens in provincial spheres of responsibility.

It's equally essential that the federal government ensure that no Canadian citizens experience discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the areas of employment, accommodation, and access to services where the federal government has jurisdiction. This can be done only by ensuring the addition of this ground to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Sexual orientation has been held to be one of the grounds on which discrimination is prohibited by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This was the unanimous finding of the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1995 case of Egan and Nesbit and the Queen. Even though it is currently silent on this ground, the Canadian Human Rights Act itself has been interpreted as protecting against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the Ontario Court of Appeal case of Haig v. Canada. Thus, the addition of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act will not effect any substantive change in the state of law on the issue.

.1005

However, its addition to the list of prohibited grounds will make a strong statement to Canadians and others that Canadians believe that all persons should enjoy the same human rights and that these rights should not be available to only a certain segment of the population.

Moreover, it importantly furthers the rule of law principle that it should be apparent on the face of a law what its actual substantive import is.

Our government has repeatedly emphasized the importance of universality of human rights in its dealings in international fora. Universality means that all human beings' rights must be equally protected against discrimination, that all Canadians must be accorded equal respect and dignity by our nation's laws. It's time for Canadian human rights legislation to reflect this belief.

Official Liberal Party policy has been to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation since 1978, when the party passed a resolution urging that the Constitution prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. This issue as it pertains to the Canadian Human Rights Act was also one of the planks of Mr. Chrétien's platform during the last federal election.

Finally, in October 1994 an Angus Reid poll showed that 81% of Canadians believe that discrimination against gays and lesbians is wrong. It is important that we stand up against historic discrimination and recognize in law ordinary Canadians' fundamental belief in basic human rights for all.

In sum, the Liberal Party, the Canadian government, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, all Canadian equality-seeking rights groups, and the vast majority of the population are supporting the government on this welcome and overdue legislative reform.

This will finally bring Canadian statute law into conformity with the principles of international law, case law, and human decency, and NAWL intend to endeavour in whatever way we can to ensure the safe passage of this important amendment to ensure the universality of human rights protection in Canada.

Thank you.

Ms Shelagh Day (Spokesperson, National Association of Women and the Law): We're here this morning to talk about an issue of principle, an issue about basic human rights and the fact that they belong to all people.

It's almost 50 years ago that we had the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and that declaration says that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. The Vienna declaration of just a couple of years ago says everyone is entitled to human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction of any kind, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Canada is a signatory, says that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the protection of the law without discrimination.

Those are standards to which Canada has committed itself for years in many different international forums, and standards that it has tried to uphold in domestic law as well. We have obligations, both constitutional obligations and international obligations now, to meet that standard, and we can do it only by extending protection to lesbians and gay men in Canada.

I want to recall, as Diane Richler has earlier, the history of the human rights movement over the last 50 years. It was because of the holocaust during the Second World War that we began a process of trying to set standards and recognize human rights for all people. In that holocaust, as Diane said earlier, it was Jews. Also, it was lesbians and gay men, people with disabilities, communists, gypsies, and people of minority ethnic origins who were imprisoned and murdered by the Nazis. They went through a process, however, of being gradually disenfranchised, of being isolated, of losing their jobs, of having public services cut off to them, of being isolated into ghettos and finally, of disappearing and being slaughtered.

.1010

I think that's a lesson we can never forget about how this process works and the danger there is in turning some group of people into "other, not us", a group that can be stigmatized, can be divided from us, can be set into a different area, can have a different standard of rights apply to them in the society. Unfortunately, with respect to lesbians and gay men, still in federal jurisdiction that's the situation we're in until in fact we bring the Human Rights Act into compliance with our Constitution and the commitments we've made internationally.

Courts in Canada have taken judicial notice of the fact that gays and lesbians are subject to various forms of oppression and discrimination in this country. That cannot be in question here. It's a fact. The protection, therefore, is badly needed and something in fact we should have provided a long time ago.

There can be no justification for not providing protection because a group is stigmatized or disliked or feared. In fact, that's the very reason why such a group needs that protection so very badly.

I also want to talk to you a little bit about women's sexual autonomy. It's very important that we see this issue also from women's perspective.

At the fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing last September, the issue of women's sexual rights was a very important issue. There was a great deal of controversy and a lot of talk about this. It's interesting that this issue should be such an important one for discussion among countries from around the world.

The countries, when they came to the final conclusion in the platform for action, adopted very new language, language that says now the human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination or violence. I think it's important to understand how recent it is in our history that women have been seen as autonomous human beings.

It's only in this century that women have been seen as having legal personhood, have been seen as having rights to be independent human beings, to work independently, to own property, to vote, to participate in public life. A very threshold foundation for that autonomy for women is the right to control our own sexuality.

Women's sexuality has been seen as property. It's been seen as belonging to men. It's been seen as not women's own to control. The right of women to make decisions about our own sexuality and our own reproduction is a bottom line for women's equality. That means women must have the ability to choose to live and have sex with men or not, to live and have sex with women or not. That's what the right to sexual autonomy means. It means the right to have free choice about one's sexuality, as the platform for action now says - free from coercion, discrimination or violence. Consequently, this is a very important question in front of you about the equality of women in Canada, and it needs to be seen in that light.

.1015

I also want to echo some comments that were made by the Canadian Association for Community Living. I am very sorry to see that in the preamble to this amendment there is a reference to the importance of family as the foundation of Canadian society. The reason that is disturbing is that it seems as though in fact what we have here is a particular model of family in mind, and the diversity of families needs to be recognized. We do not need a hierarchy of family that is based on a form of bigotry about how families live.

The Chair: Ms Day, I think you have misread the intent and the direction. I would suggest you reread it.

Mr. Robinson (Burnaby - Kingsway): A point of order. With the greatest respect to the chair, I would say the chair may differ with the position of the witness, but the witness may put her evidence before the committee and then it's up to the committee to assess it.

Ms Day: I want to repeat that. I do think there's a question here not just in my personal mind but in the minds of many people about the extent to which this is a commitment to the equality of lesbians and gay men. If what we're doing is saying we give on the one hand but we have reservations on the other hand because we are still endorsing the traditional family...and "the traditional family" is the term used not in the preamble to the legislation but in the fact book the government has put out explaining this legislation. "The traditional family" we understand to mean a heterosexual family with children.

If we are honest about this, if we really do believe in the equality of lesbians and gay men, then we cannot have a hierarchy of which family is the best in the society. We have to have genuine respect for all forms of family and we have to be honest that in Canada today there are many forms of family and people are looking after each other in many different kinds of circumstances.

In addition, there seems to be some qualification in the material that's been put out about the benefits question. Again, if we are honest in saying there will be equality for lesbians and gay men in Canada, then we have to be clear about taking on the issue of how benefits are distributed in our society.

It does not make any sense to distribute benefits on the basis of who people have sex with. There are genuine reasons for distributing benefits: because people have children who are dependent on them; because they have other people who are dependent on them, such as parents or older people; because they've made contributions to a certain benefit scheme. But to make a benefit scheme based on whether or not one has a sexual relationship with someone else is surely, at this time, not a very rational basis for government-supported benefit schemes.

It's unfortunate, in our view, that the government continues to take the position in court that benefit schemes ought not to be provided to lesbians and gay men and that distributing them on the basis of a heterosexual relationship is the government's position. Consequently I'm encouraging you to take the thrust of this amendment seriously and not to give with one hand and take back with the other. We have to think genuinely about what it means for lesbians and gay men to be equal in our society, be honest about it, and not give qualified support here.

There has been an atmosphere about this amendment that is particularly difficult. It doesn't make me, as a lesbian coming here to talk to you, feel as though there is a completely happy endorsement of this amendment when I see some of the material that's been put out by the government, when I see the Prime Minister decide there will be a free vote in Parliament, and when I see the position taken by the Reform Party of Canada.

.1020

We have very contradictory positions being taken here. On the one hand, the Reform Party,Mr. Ringma, makes a statement that is blatantly discriminatory. Then he apologizes and says that's wrong. But his party goes on to vote unanimously in favour of the position he originally took, which is to allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to thrive.

The Liberal Party, which has brought forward this amendment - and we're very grateful for it - has made, however, some statements that in fact seem not to be completely endorsing it and now has decided to send it to a free vote, which gives the message to people in Canada that is unavoidable, that in fact this is still not a matter of rights but a matter of conscience everyone can make their own decision about. Canadians will feel free to do the same. They will think the rights in the Canadian Human Rights Act that have to do with sexual orientation, while there, are something they can either believe in or not believe in, live up to or not live up to. This is not a good message to be sending. Like those who came before us, we ask that you rescind the decision about the free vote.

The Chair: I have to advise you that you have seven minutes left for questions from the members.

Ms Day: Finally, I would just like to give you the recommendations we would like to make. First, we hope you will recommend that the amendment be passed. I would like to say that in fact sexual orientation should be added to the affirmative action clause, which was in the Senate bill brought forward by Senator Kinsella. There's a good reason for that.

We think the free vote should be rescinded.

We recommend that the diversity of Canadian families be recognized and respected by government in its policies, and think this is a matter this committee should take up as a question of human rights.

The basis on which we distribute benefits should in fact be looked into very seriously.Mr. Rock, some time in the past, did say that was something he wanted to do. It has not been done and it merits attention.

Finally, when the new package of amendments comes along there should be a consultation again with equality-seeking groups. It's five years since that package was introduced, and a lot needs to be looked at again, very carefully, before amendments go through.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve): I am very encouraged by your confidence in the parliamentary system and your knowledge of it. I would first like to say that I agree with you that a vote on an issue of this type should be a party vote. The Bloc Québécois voted unanimously for this bill.

A few weeks ago, I tabled a bill to amend about 60 federal acts to include a homosexist definition. The purpose of the bill was to amend the definition in the Income Tax Act, the Bankruptcy Act, etc.

There are three things I would like to understand in your brief. You would like to see a new section, similar to that suggested by Senator Kinsella, who was with us just a few moments ago. I don't know if he has left. You seem clear on the need for specific provisions on promoting certain social and educational programs. Could you expand on that please?

I wasn't clear on your position. It is another matter this committee must resolve. Should the preamble contain a definition of family? I asked the minister yesterday. At first I thought there would have to be a paragraph of some sort with reference to the various types of family, or some legal expression that would clearly imply that the family is a multi-faceted unit, and not the traditional univocal reality.

I would like you to tell us very clearly what your position is on that.

.1025

As for the need to review the allocation of various social benefits, could you tell us exactly how that should be expressed in the bill.

Obviously, we subscribe to that principle. As I was saying, I tabled a bill that was defeated, but despite that, the federal government recognizes how many laws have a heterosexist definition and what the scope of each of those laws is. It is evident in a wide range of areas, including the Criminal Code, taxes, the Bankruptcy Act, etc.

[English]

Ms Day: Let me start at the beginning. The reason I suggest that in fact we should follow Senator Kinsella's bill, which includes sexual orientation in clause 16, is that the principle of employment equity, or the principle of clause 16, is essentially to recognize that there is a kind of discrimination often entrenched in systems, and steps need to be taken to remove that kind of entrenched discrimination.

This clause is not dealing, then, simply with a question of individual rights to make complaints, but with the kind of entrenched barriers there can be in employment systems, for example. It's clear those kinds of barriers exist in Canadian workplaces with respect to sexual orientation.

Mr. McClelland asked about whether or not we would have Statistics Canada out doing surveys and counting numbers of gays and lesbians to see whether or not there was a reflection in workforces. I think that's a less likely scenario, because it's not something lesbians and gay men have in fact been asking for. The issue is not a question of representation in workforces but a question of the kind of climate that exists in workforces and a question of benefit schemes and whether or not they're provided to lesbians and gay men on an equal basis.

There are a lot of things that could be done positively inside Canadian workplaces to make lesbians and gay men feel as though it would be a comfortable place for them. Were this put into clause 16, it would make it clear that steps of that kind, which would provide a positive atmosphere in a workplace on questions of sexual orientation, were endorsed by the bill. I think that's something we should be doing. It seems to me a common sense recognition of how discrimination works and what kind of steps might be taken to counteract it.

The second question, about the wording of the preamble to recognize the diversity of families, I would agree with entirely. It seems to me without that, as I say, this preamble seems to in fact endorse family as a code for heterosexual family, and therefore to be at odds with the content of this amendment, not recognizing the forms of family that in fact exist in Canada. It's not simply a matter of whether it's gays' and lesbians' families; it's many other forms of family. There are many configurations.

I think that's a very important thing to do here. This is in fact a bill whose intent is to remove discrimination, is designed to further our understanding of how discrimination occurs in Canada. I think the preamble deserves some attention here.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: To my mind, you are referring to the gist of our upcoming discussions. I believe you are a lawyer, and I congratulate you on that.

Has your association thought of a precise wording which, according to the jurisprudence that was brought to your attention or given the experts you have working for you, could protect us from any sort of restrictive interpretation?

I know there are two schools of thought. On the one hand, there are those who say that when something is clearly defined, it imposes some limits, and on the other hand, there are those who say that if it is not defined, we are leaving ourselves open to discriminatory practices in the future. We have to find the correct expression.

.1030

Have you had the chance to look at that with other lawyers, people who are perhaps more familiar with the terms used in jurisprudence? Would you have anything in particular to suggest to us?

[English]

Ms Day: I don't have specific wording this minute, but I'm prepared to consult with some others and provide you with some very quickly.

We know that courts will look to language like this to help them interpret what the meaning of the right is, and consequently it is important. There is a definitional exercise going on here. It does matter. So I think that some attention should be paid to this and that the principle of diversity needs badly to be in here.

On your third point, which was about the question of benefits, again I think it's important - and I would consider whether or not it goes in the preamble or in the text of the amendment itself - that it be clear that this amendment of course does apply to benefits. It's already applying to benefits, because those cases are already in the court, but I think we should be perfectly clear in the amendment that those are part of the rights, as public services, and as part of employment, of lesbians and gay men.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: You say that is part of the benefits.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, excuse me. You have had nearly seven and a half minutes...

Mr. Ménard: But that is the best question I have asked, Madam Chair!

The Chair: Fine, go ahead, but don't forget you owe me one.

Mr. Ménard: I owe you a Cherry Blossom. When you say it is already included, you mean that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has already heard complaints based on sexual orientation and that some of this country's courts have handed down rulings that forced employers, municipalities or public organizations to give benefits to gays and lesbians who were victims of discrimination. That is why you are saying it is already included. I hope my colleague, Mr. Robinson, agrees with what I am saying.

The Chair: I will ask Mr. Robinson to go after you. If there are clarifications to be made, he will be able to make them himself.

Mr. Ménard: Yes, he's a lawyer.

The Chair: Have I helped you?

Mr. Ménard: You always help me, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Svend, actually I'm going to ask you to follow him.

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Robinson, help me, please.

Mr. Robinson: I just want to seek clarification on basically two of the same points.

The Chair: Please follow up on his points.

Mr. Robinson: That's what I'm saying, yes.

There are just two points on which I want clarification.

One is with respect to the preamble and the affirmation, the government recognizing and affirming the importance of family as the foundation of Canadian society. Yesterday, when the Minister of Justice appeared before the committee, I urged him in the strongest possible terms to confirm that the government's recognition and affirmation included gay and lesbian families. He declined to accept that invitation. He didn't say that it didn't include gay and lesbian families, but he was not prepared to affirm that it did. So let me just be very clear -

The Chair: He was not prepared, if I understood it, Mr. Robinson, to define "family", period. He acknowledged all shapes and forms of family. Is that an accurate -

Mr. Robinson: That's what I was hoping he would do, but in fact he didn't do that. It wasn't just a question of definition. I invited him not to define "family" but just to be clear that "family" included gay and lesbian families.

The Chair: Yes, that's true.

Mr. Robinson: In fact, I even gave the example the chair gave of a lesbian couple with three children, but he did not accept the invitation to include that.

So let me be very clear that ideally, certainly, I believe that, in order to avoid any ambiguity, it would be desirable to be clear that "family" includes gay and lesbian families.

The concern I have is a political one as well, which is that at this point it is open. "Family" is not in any way restricted. For example, some suggested that we should add the word "traditional". I certainly hope that my colleagues on the Liberal side would reject that attempt to narrow the definition. I would be deeply concerned if that were added.

In the absence of that, the concern I would have, I guess, is that if an amendment were to be proposed to expand and say, yes, "family" explicitly includes gay and lesbian families, while this could be interpreted to include that, if that amendment were rejected, then courts could look to that rejection as a signal from this committee - I see Ms Day nodding in agreement - because courts will look to the record of both parliamentary committees and Parliament itself. Courts could look to the rejection of an amendment of that nature and say, well, Parliament was invited to include gay and lesbian families explicitly and did not do so.

.1035

So I flag that. Obviously I agree completely that families should include...but there is a very real political consideration that I trust all members of the committee, including my good friendMr. Ménard, recognizes we have to take into consideration.

The other point on benefits, if I follow up on the chair's admonition about benefits, was...and I'd like Ms Day to confirm my understanding of the law in this area. I haven't practised for a long time. In the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Egan and Nesbit case, my understanding is that the Supreme Court of Canada by a majority, a five to four majority, with Sopinka as the decisive vote, on this specific issue said discrimination based on sexual orientation includes discrimination against gay or lesbian couples on the basis of their relationship. He went on to find in that particular instance that the specific statute that was being challenged was discriminatory. He used section 1. I take it that adding sexual orientation in here as a ground of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act explicitly, you would agree with both me and Max Yalden, the chair of the commission, places the onus squarely on those who are attempting to justify discrimination or the denial of same-sex benefits.

Ms Day: Yes, I do agree, and I agree with you about where the state of the law is. What I'm concerned about is the message I think is being given in the materials the government has given out, and indeed in its own actions, that this is a question on which maybe we're not quite ready, which of course is the kind of decision we get from Mr. Sopinka and the Supreme Court of Canada. It's wrong, in my view, for the government to be taking that kind of line when it's bringing in an amendment supposedly to provide equality for lesbians and gay men in Canada. That's the point I want to make.

I'd also like to make a clarification. Although people often think I'm a lawyer, I am not.

The Chair: I'm afraid I will have to rule one question from the government side, if that's fair and you'll accept that, please, because we've really run way over time.

Mr. MacLellan (Cape Breton - The Sydneys): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to welcome the witnesses, and I'd particularly like to welcome Shelagh Day. I've had the opportunity to speak to her on many occasions and to correspond with her on human rights. She may not be a lawyer, Madam Chair, but you'd never know it unless she told you. I think she's one of the most eloquent and competent spokesmen for human rights in this country. I always enjoy conversations with her, because she knows and feels the subject so well.

I want just to mention a few things she's mentioned. One is on the free vote. Initially I felt as she did, that perhaps there shouldn't be a free vote, that this wasn't the way to go. However, on reflection I must say I changed my mind to a certain extent, because it's important for people to stand up on their own and be counted. I personally want to see where people stand on this, among my colleagues and in the House of Commons. I think I get a better assessment of that on the free vote than otherwise.

Let me go to the family. As has been said by Mr. Robinson and the chairperson, the minister did not define "family". He will not define "family". The literature may say certain things, but the fact is that the minister here, on this bill - which I think is important and certainly from a legal point of view has much more weight than some publication from the department - has actually said he is not going to define "family".

That's important to mention, because in this situation on human rights and sexual orientation and discrimination there has to be a certain amount of feeling and proper spirit. I think Ms Day also talked very eloquently and very correctly about intolerance in the past, yet we really don't have a definition of intolerance.

.1040

The fact of the matter is that we have to evolve. I think the fact that this amendment is going through is a major evolution. As has been mentioned, previous governments brought it forward, but didn't bring it forward. They took it to a certain level and didn't take it any further. Frankly, I think this has been brought through in a very thoughtful way. It's opened up a lot of questions that I think we can deal with and consider, perhaps in the next stage, which the chair has said will be brought forward by the end of the month.

With respect to benefits, the minister also said that this is ongoing, that this amendment will not affect benefits and that the legislation will not be changed in any way. The court cases and the jurisprudence will continue - as has been the case - and I think that's important.

I ask the witness to comment on any of the things I'm saying, but I also ask her for background and information in one area. It's something the minister said that was brought up by the Reform Party yesterday about the Egan and Nesbit case and the fact that the exclusion was found in section 1 of the charter, whether or not we want to leave questions and cases on benefits to be excluded by section 1 of the charter or whether we should we get into it more and define it more. Could Ms Day could give us her feelings about that?

The Chair: Absolutely.

Ms Day: First of all, thank you for your kind words.

I think the minister is absolutely right not to define the word "family". That's not something we want to see happen. In fact, defining the word "family" would be sure to leave somebody out, so we don't want to do that.

The point I want to make is a different one. The point is to positively recognize that there are many different kinds of families. There are diverse forms of the family.

I think the difficulty with the way this preamble is phrased at the moment is that it seems to say there is "the family", that there is one form of family we recognize. It doesn't say that there are diverse forms of the family. For example, it could easily say that the government recognizes and affirms the importance of diverse forms of the family. It could easily say that, but that's not to say that there should be a definition. I'm absolutely with you on that one.

As for the second question about benefits, I think we're all agreed about what the state of the law is. The questions of benefits are already being dealt with.

But there is another question: what position is the government taking in those tribunals and court cases? In fact, it is repeatedly opposing benefits for lesbians and gay men and has been for the last 10 years while these cases have gone forward, and we have the little bit we've managed to get so far because the courts have said it's discrimination if we don't.

So there's also a question about government responsibility here, particularly now, when this amendment is being brought in and the federal government's own act is being amended by the government, to say, "All right, doesn't that now affect the position we take on these questions of benefits?" In fact, the government should be looking at its own actions in tribunals and courts on these benefit questions.

Third, I think there really is a reason for government not to just leave the benefit situation as it is, but to look at it responsibly and thoroughly and question whether or not benefits are being provided on a basis that seems now to recognize how families really are, how people are really living, and what kinds of dependencies people have that we genuinely do want to support.

Mr. MacLellan: One comment, if I may. The problem with the definition of the family, though, Madam Chair, is that by touching it at all we are starting to define it.

.1045

The Chair: That's discriminatory.

Mr. MacLellan: We're starting on the definition, and that's the problem. That's the problem with any qualifying words whatsoever: that by doing so we're actually on our way to a definition.

Ms Day: And the problem is that we're also on our way to a definition by just saying "family" -

Mr. MacLellan: Well, that's not a definition.

Ms Day: - particularly if we say "traditional family".

Mr. MacLellan: Yes.

Ms Day: So I think that's the bind we're in.

Mr. MacLellan: We're not saying "traditional family".

Ms Day: I think we can easily fix it, by saying "diverse forms" or "diversity of families", for example.

The Chair: Thank you. It was a very enlightening exchange and one that I'm sure will find its reflection at other times in the course of this debate.

We now will have a very professional presentation on behalf of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada.

Thank you for the brief and your presentation page.

Mr. Steve Hindle (President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada): We've provided a list of witnesses. I will introduce them, but the list we provided is not bilingual. For that I offer my apologies to the committee. However, the other submissions, the speaking notes and the brief itself, are available in both official languages. I apologize for the oversight.

I'd like to thank you for giving the Professional Institute the opportunity to speak on this important issue for our members.

I would also like to introduce you to Hélène Paris, who is a research officer with the Professional Institute, and Stuart Hall, who is the chair of the institute's subcommittee on sexual orientation.

Inclusion of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act is long overdue. This amendment has been requested by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, recommended many times by parliamentary committees, and promised during the last decade by successive federal governments. In fact, since 1985 seven Ministers of Justice have promised to amend the act to include sexual orientation but have failed to deliver on their promise.

Improvements in the protection of Canadians from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation have therefore been the result not of legislative reform but of efforts in judicial courts.

The institute hopes that Parliament will help to end discrimination toward gays, lesbians, and bisexuals by granting them equal recognition before and under the law, as well as the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law. We believe our brief will help you make a right and fair decision.

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada was founded in 1920 to protect the interests of scientific and professional public employees. One of the main goals of the institute is to secure our members' rights as found in contracts, in statutes, in common law, and in customs. The institute seeks to improve the working conditions of all its members, through either collective or individual representations.

.1050

The institute recognizes that a significant minority of its membership is composed of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. The institute supports a non-discriminatory definition of "common-law spouse" whenever it has the effect of denying benefits on the basis of sexual orientation.

In 1990 the institute successfully negotiated the removal of the words "of the opposite sex" from the definition of "common-law spouse" in the collective agreement of one of its bargaining units, the Senate of Canada legislative clerks. This landmark achievement allows for the provision of spousal benefits such as family-related and bereavement leave to employees in same-sex relationships. I wish to point out that appendix A in our brief contains a list of Professional Institute actions in support of its gay, lesbian, and bisexual members.

The Chair: You've arrived at the right moment, because that seems to be the issue under discussion. I'm very pleased you've provided us with that.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard, that would seem to answer your questions.

[English]

Mr. Hindle: During our 1993 annual general meeting, delegates strongly adopted and reiterated their support for resolutions dealing with employment equity, zero tolerance for discrimination, and equal benefits for gay and lesbian couples. The 1993 resolution on equal benefits for lesbian and gay partners empowers us to make representations such as this one.

The Professional Institute has supported, and continues to support, its members in the presentation of grievances due to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Public Service Staff Relations Board recently heard a grievance involving the denial of bereavement leave to an institute member on the death of his same-sex spouse. An excerpt from this decision is included in appendix B of our brief. The reasons given by the adjudicator for granting the grievance clearly explain the relation between the Canadian Human Rights Act and collective agreements.

In rendering her decision, the adjudicator explained that as an adjudicator, her function was to apply the law of the land to relevant provisions of the collective agreement and to determine whether the provisions - in this case the definition of "common-law spouse" - were in accordance with the Canadian Human Rights Act and the case law. The adjudicator summarized her reasons for granting the grievance as follows:

Since it is my duty as an adjudicator to apply the law of the land and the human rights legislation is paramount over inconsistent legislative provisions, and certainly over inconsistent provisions of the collective agreement, I will give no effect to the words "of the opposite sex" found in the definition of "common-law spouse".

In this case the adjudicator found that the definition of "common-law spouse" in the collective agreement was contrary not only to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the case law but also to another article in the collective agreement. Article 44 of the agreement provides that there shall be no discrimination practised with respect to an employee by reason of sexual orientation.

The sexual orientation amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act would facilitate the negotiation of a non-discriminatory definition of "spouse" in all our collective agreements. Grievances such as this one could also be avoided in the future.

The other important point raised by the adjudicator was the paramountcy of the Canadian Human Rights Act over federal legislation. For instance, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that human rights legislation will prevail when legislation is silent on a point or is in conflict with human rights legislation. Similarly, when legislation is found to be discriminatory it is rendered inoperative.

Therefore an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination would ensure federal government legislation, policies, and directives are non-discriminatory. For example, without legislative protection, nothing prevents the federal government from abolishing the directive it issued in 1995, extending work-related leaves to its gay, lesbian, and bisexual employees.

Canadians should know clearly what is and what is not the law by reading it and not by reference to court decisions. An amendment granting gays, lesbians, and bisexuals equal rights under the Canadian Human Rights Act would provide clear guidelines to the courts and prevent contrary rulings, such as the February 1996 ruling from the Alberta Court of Appeal in Vriend v. Alberta and from the Ontario Court of Appeal in Haig and Birch v. Canada.

.1055

The sexual orientation amendment would also bring the act into greater harmony with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Last year, in Egan-Nesbit v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada found that sexual orientation must be read into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a ground of discrimination and that the refusal to recognize same-sex relationships was discriminatory under section 15 of the charter. However, the court decided to allow a certain piece of legislation, the Old Age Security Act, to stand on the grounds that this piece of legislation can be justified since the government is entitled to take an incremental approach to bringing its laws into conformity with the charter.

It is made clear by this decision from the highest court in the land that Parliament has the responsibility of bringing its laws into conformity with the charter to ensure equality for all Canadians, including gays, lesbians and bisexuals. It also means that every Canadian law that fails to recognize same-sex relationships is discriminatory and is subject to legal challenge.

The question remains whether Parliament will finally recognize the right of gays, lesbians and bisexuals to equality or whether it will continue to pour millions of dollars of taxpayers' money into defending unjust laws. Either Parliament will do the right thing and eliminate all discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or courts will continue to strike down discriminatory legislation on a case-by-case basis. However, the latter option would occur at great cost to governments, to businesses, to human rights commissions, to gays, lesbians and bisexuals, and to organizations such as ours that defend equal rights for gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

The amendment of the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation would send the strong signal that Canadian society does not tolerate discrimination against a category of people. Canadian society strives to give deserved recognition to all its contributing components. We pride ourselves as being members of a tolerant and fair nation, yet personal beliefs act as justification for discrimination against others. This is not an endorsement of a particular lifestyle but rather an affording of legal protection to all Canadians without differentiation.

In 1993, at the United Nations World Conference on Human Rights, Canada advocated international protection for gays, lesbians and bisexuals. In fact, Canada provides refugee status and asylum to people persecuted because they are perceived to be gay, lesbian or bisexual. Citizenship and Immigration Canada has instructed missions abroad to consider applications for same-sex sponsorship on their merits, and where there is evidence that a stable relationship exists they are to issue a visa on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. However, Canada does not provide gays, lesbians and bisexuals in its own country the same rights as heterosexuals. By omitting to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, Canada sends the message that the country has two measures, one for its actions abroad and another for its own citizens.

Last year, the Liberal government amended the Criminal Code to protect the rights of people regardless of their sexual orientation. Sexual orientation will soon be recognized as a factor to be considered in sentencing for hate crimes. A promise was made in the throne speech in 1994 to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to extend it to sexual orientation. The justice minister promised the amendment several times. Most recently, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien promised to introduce legislation to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation before the next election. It is time for Parliament to own up to its promise and to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to cover sexual orientation.

The Professional Institute strongly supports Bill C-33 as drafted. The amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act will not give our gay, lesbian and bisexual members special privileges, but it will give them legislative protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and will provide them with the same access to redress enjoyed by other members of Canadian society. The amendment merely acknowledges that gays, lesbians and bisexuals do not deserve to be harassed, discriminated against or deprived of job-related benefits because of their sexual orientation. It is an issue of recognition of fairness, of human rights and of equal rights.

Merci.

Perhaps before we go to questions, Madam Chair, Stuart Hall has a few, very brief words to say.

Mr. Stuart Hall (Chair, Sub-Committee on Sexual Orientation, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada): Thank you. I just want to add to this discussion this morning on the free vote.

As a federal union, we represent federal employees. We therefore believe this bill is very important to us in a very practical sense. Our concern is what will happen if this legislation does not pass. What does that mean to our duty of fair representation to our gay and lesbian employees? Obviously, the courts would have to look at the issue again and reinterpret it if Parliament rejects passing this amendment.

.1100

The courts have said that it's unacceptable not to include sexual orientation in human rights legislation, based on section 15 of the charter. If Parliament does not pass this bill, does that send a message to the courts that they were wrong in their interpretation of the charter, that it is in fact not necessary to give gays and lesbians protection in human rights law?

As I see it, we have two choices. Either gays and lesbians are protected in employment in the federal civil service or they're not. Therefore, it's critical that this legislation passes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Paris, do you have anything to say? Thank you.

[Translation]

It is now Mr. Bernier's turn. Go ahead.

Mr. Bernier: I would like to thank the representatives of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada for coming today. As they mentioned, they are interested in this bill primarily as it affects federal institutions.

You are in the best position to tell us what the current situation is with the federal public service with regard to discrimination against gays and lesbians.

What kind of complaints do you get right now? What is really going on?

[English]

Mr. Hindle: The reality is that the federal public service is very much a mixed workplace, that how you are treated at work very much depends on where you actually work and on the people you work with. There are a significant number of federal public service employees who understand the issue, and not only do they tolerate it, but they view it as perfectly acceptable. The sexual orientation of their workmates and the people they work with is irrelevant to them.

Unfortunately, there are still people in the public service who will take the literal meaning of a collective agreement - the literal words that are in it - and whether intentional or not, will apply discriminatory practices by denying leave for such things as bereavement when one's partner dies. It is unfortunate that this is the case despite the fact that Treasury Board issued a directive last year to have departments apply the contracts as if "of the opposite sex" was not in the definition of "common-law spouse".

So it's still very much a mixed bag. I think it is getting better, but what we would like to see is the opportunity to have the whole issue addressed through our collective agreements and to have the workplace become a much more -

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I would like you to tell us whether there are people who have not been promoted, who have been dismissed or who have been refused a job because of their sexual orientation.

Could you name the departments or agencies with which you have had major problems with discrimination.

[English]

Mr. Hall: I know a number of grievances have been brought forth. There was one in particular in which somebody was on a work team of about ten members and was the only person laid off with some of the government cutbacks. He has had superior performance reviews in all the time he has worked there. He does have some clearly homophobic e-mails from his boss, who made the decision to lay him off. He currently has a grievance in the system. So this is happening today and it is very much an issue for us.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Which department is that?

[English]

Mr. Hall: The grievance isn't with PIPS; it is with the Public Service Alliance. I believe the ministry was Transport Canada.

Mr. Hindle: As for your other question about which departments are worse than others, there is no clear indication that some are worse than others. The tendency is that some parts of some departments would be worse than others, and it's not so much the department itself as it is the people who are actually in the workplace, whether they be managers or supervisors or other employees.

.1105

That's really where the discrimination begins - in the work units, in the day-to-day workplace where it's just the way people are treated. If you're in a workplace where people are very understanding of what's going on and they don't care if you're heterosexual or gay or lesbian, all they care about is how well you do your job and whether they enjoy being around you... So I wouldn't point out any department as being especially good or especially bad.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I do not want to go on a witch hunt for a given department or manager in the public service. But I'm sure you realize that every member of this committee wants to know what is really going on and what will happen after this bill is passed. What is really happening in departments and federal government agencies? We would like you to keep us posted, both now and in the future.

[English]

Mr. Hindle: If it becomes apparent that one department or one particular area of a department is somewhat worse than the rest, by all means we will take you up on your offer and let the members of this committee know of our experience.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Robinson: I want to thank the witnesses very much for their presentation this morning, and also to say that I very much appreciate the support they have given to their employees on Parliament Hill. As I think Mr. Hindle will be aware, I have filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission a complaint of discrimination based on sexual orientation on Parliament Hill for employees of the Library of Parliament, of the House of Commons and of the Senate. I just wanted to state for the record that the Professional Institute has been totally supportive of its membership. Indeed, every single union on Parliament Hill, including the union representing security guards and all of the unions, has been totally supportive of its gay and lesbian employees. I wanted to thank you for that leadership.

I have a couple of follow-up questions to the questions of my friend Mr. Bernier. The first is with respect to the issue of benefits. There has been a lot of ambiguity and uncertainty around this issue of benefits and whether the inclusion of the words "sexual orientation" in the Canadian Human Rights Act will actually facilitate recognition of benefits for your membership and for other gay and lesbian employees within federal jurisdiction. What you're telling this committee, if I hear you correctly, is that the answer to this is absolutely, unequivocally yes, that already the implicit inclusion of sexual orientation as a result of the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Haig and Birch has facilitated the recognition of benefits for your membership. Is that correct?

Mr. Hindle: That's totally correct. We have found resistance at the bargaining table for non-discriminatory definition of common-law spouse. That's normally the route we would take to try to remove the discrimination from the collective agreement.

The message coming across from the other side, from Treasury Board officials, is that it's a political decision; they're waiting for direction, they need direction. Somebody farther above than the managers and negotiators in Treasury Board has to make a decision that this is the way we are going to go.

Mr. Robinson: To be very clear then, there are some people, even some who support the legislation, who suggest that it's not going to affect the extension of benefits. You negotiate on behalf of members of the public service and what you're telling the committee is that it will assist you in negotiating benefits and in recognizing the relationships of your employees, and that it already has.

The other concern is that with the conflicting judgments in the Alberta Court of Appeal in Vriend and the Ontario Court of Appeal in Haig and Birch...and I might note that there's an error in the brief. You suggest that the Haig and Birch decision was a negative decision; in fact it was a positive decision. That's on page 5.

The Chair: I saw that; I just read it.

Mr. Robinson: I just wanted to flag that.

In any event, ultimately one hopes but ultimately it's not clear that in the absence of legislation by Parliament, the Canadian Human Rights Act would include sexual orientation. By putting this in, we're going to facilitate the extension of the recognition of equality for your gay and lesbian members, are we not?

Mr. Hindle: That's correct, and that's what it is - it's an extension of the recognition. It's not negotiation of new benefits. It's benefits they should be entitled to and that we feel they are entitled to. In a number of cases they've already been paying into the plans and not getting the same benefits as heterosexuals.

.1110

Mr. Robinson: Without these words, either the existing words as interpreted by the courts or the inclusion of these words by the legislation, you would be in a position of not being able to argue effectively before adjudicators. Is that not correct?

Mr. Hindle: It would make it more difficult, yes.

The Chair: I'd like a clarification there. The inclusion of the term "sexual orientation" in clause 2 of the bill as it is currently written is going to enable any of the grey area that's being negotiated right now to be quite clear. Is that accurate?

Mr. Hindle: That's right. It would clarify what is very ambiguous right now.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Robinson: I have one final question. On the issue of paramountcy, you raise an important point about paramountcy and primacy. I questioned the minister on this yesterday. You state that the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that human rights legislation will prevail. I wonder if you could just assist the committee with the reference to that. Do you know which decision that was?

Mr. Hall: I'm sorry. Which reference?

Mr. Robinson: At page 4 of your brief you state that the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that human rights legislation will prevail when legislation is silent on a point or is in conflict with human rights legislation.

I don't know whether you are able to assist us immediately with that reference.

Mr. Hindle: Actually, I think you will find it in a number of court cases. Most recent would be the Yarrow decision from the Public Service Staff Relations Board, which is the grievance we refer to in the brief and which we include an excerpt from. I believe it's appendix B of the brief.

Mr. Hall: There's another case. I can't think of the name of it, but I'll get back to you on it.

Mr. Robinson: Could you get back to the clerk of the committee with that reference?

The Chair: Ms Paris has that citation there.

Ms Hélène Paris (Research Officer, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada): It's just that it's in appendix B. It's an excerpt from the Yarrow decision.

Mr. Hindle: But there is another court decision. Mr. Hall has undertaken to get back to the committee with the reference by this afternoon.

Mr. MacLellan: I have just one question. On the question from Mr. Robinson, Mr. Hindle mentioned that this would help to clarify some grey areas. I wondered if we had some examples of what grey areas would be clarified as a result of this amendment.

Mr. Hindle: What it would clarify is that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination. There would be no more requirement to read it into the legislation. It would quite clearly be in the legislation as a prohibited ground. Therefore people could concentrate on whether or not the acts that were undertaken or the decisions that were made in the workplace were discriminatory and whether or not it was on that basis.

Mr. Kirkby (Prince Albert - Churchill River): About reading into the human rights code the phrase "sexual orientation", or putting it there explicitly, the effect of that on subsequent court interpretations, the results of a court adjudication on that point, would yield exactly the same result. Is that not correct?

Mr. Hindle: They would yield equivalent results, but somebody picking up the legislation without any access to the court decisions would not know that.

Mr. Kirkby: So what you're saying is that having this explicitly included in the legislation is important from a public education, public awareness perspective, but it will not change rights or the decision directions of the courts, or where they may go in the future.

Mr. Hindle: It actually serves a dual purpose. It is important for public education, as you point out - extremely important. But it is also an opportunity for Parliament to be very explicit that it is to be included and not to rely on the courts' interpretation.

.1115

The Chair: Mr. McClelland, do you have a question?

Mr. McClelland: No, Madam Chair, but thank you. I apologize to the witnesses and to members of the committee for being away.

The Chair: Thank you for the excellent documentation. I know it will be helpful to the committee. Thank you very much for your presentation.

Will the following witnesses please come forward? They are from the Canadian AIDS Society...

Mr. Armstrong, would you be good enough to trade places with Mr. Ford, the chief of the Ottawa Police? We are late and he has another appointment. I don't know what your agenda is. Do you have the time to wait the extra 20 or 30 minutes?

Mr. Russell Armstrong (Executive Director, Canadian AIDS Society): Well, I know the difficulty of getting chiefs of police to address this issue. I'm not convinced that his schedule is more important than mine, but...

The Chair: I didn't say his schedule was more important. I asked about your time schedule right at this moment.

Mr. Armstrong: I will step aside and let him make his presentation.

The Chair: I thank you very much. It has nothing to do with the importance of same, just with the disponibilité.

Thank you. Chief Ford, would you begin your presentation, please, and present the people who are with you?

Chief Brian J. Ford (Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service): First of all, let me thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing us to appear before your committee today. I do appreciate the opportunity. I'd also like to thank Mr. Armstrong.

The Chair: He's first and foremost in the thank-yous.

Chief Ford: The Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service welcomes the opportunity to submit a brief to the legislative committee examining Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

.1120

I am here today with two of my officers from the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service, Sergeant Dan Dunlop, who was instrumental in the creation of our bias crime unit in 1992 and who currently is seconded to the Canadian centre for police race relations, and Sergeant Bruce Watts, who currently is in charge of the service's bias crime unit. In that capacity Sergeant Watts is very active in investigation of hate crime and educating about its impact.

My brief will address the issue of hate and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and my and my organization's support for the proposed amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

To prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is consistent with the practices of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service. In fact, I firmly believe that this amendment will assist not only our service but also Canadian policing in a wide perspective in dealing effectively with the discrimination, intolerance, and hate that contribute to criminality in our community.

In particular, from a police perspective, this is consistent with our effort to denounce intolerance and bigotry where it occurs. As community leaders and role models, police officers are determined to prevent crime and the escalation of crime in our community.

Until recently, effective hate and bias crime responses, which occur throughout our country every single day, have not come from crown attorneys, from government, or, for that matter, from police services in Canada. Instead, the initial response to hate crimes and intolerance has come from the communities most affected.

Who better to know about the frequency and severity of violence, vandalism, and harassment than the people who are targeted?

As recently as five years ago it was not at all uncommon for police to take the view that hate crimes did not occur because they were not addressed in the Criminal Code. Police services and governments across Canada have now acknowledged that people can be the subject of hate or bias crimes because of their perceived or actual orientation. There are a number of examples right here in Ottawa that I could go to with respect to a person being the target of a crime because of their perceived or actual sexual orientation.

A young man was thrown off the bridge between Ottawa and Hull because the people who committed that crime had discriminated against him because they felt that he was gay. In fact, he wasn't gay, but that's a very prime example of the kind and severity of crime that we're talking about. There are subtler crimes that take place through damage to people's property. There are numerous kinds of examples. I put that one because it is the most graphic one that we've dealt with here in Ottawa-Carleton.

They also know that the number of hate crimes reported in Canada is a small fraction of the number of incidents that actually occur. Not surprisingly, it is in recent years that police emphasis has shifted away from a reactive model of policing to a more community-based, crime-prevention model. Partnership work with affected communities has now put the Ottawa-Carleton police service at, I believe, the cutting edge in terms of addressing hate and bias crime in Canada.

The message is clear. Communities can invest in prevention now or they can pay later.

Some people in our communities are victims of crime simply because they are the targets of hate. Some people hate gays, Jews, disabled persons, visible minorities, and women and act out this hate with criminal consequences. Organized hate groups display hate through their rhetoric and their actions.

The Ottawa-Carleton police believe that hate crimes hurt everyone. So do intolerance and discrimination. In addition to the victim, hate crime and discrimination directly affect the entire targeted group and the community at large. Hate crime and discrimination do not occur in a vacuum.

As a result, hate crimes are among the easiest crimes to prevent. Hate and discrimination are, I believe, learned behaviours and I believe they can be eliminated through education and through strong community standards against prejudice, intolerance, and discrimination.

We know that if hate crimes are left unchecked or ignored by community leaders, the trouble continues, the damage begins, and the problems are not resolved.

It is time for our institutions to care about anti-gay violence and discrimination.

Why are gays and lesbians targets? According to one American researcher, it is because they are far from being full members of society. Despite the widespread discrimination against gays and lesbians in jobs and housing, only a few states, and in our case many provinces, have civil rights laws protecting them against discrimination. Homosexuals are fair game for discrimination. Knowing gays and lesbians are social outcasts, their attackers feel they are acting on behalf of society in punishing them for the behaviour that makes them outcasts.

.1125

The bias crime unit of the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service came about in 1992 as a result of the police joining with community activists to bring about a strong and effective response to the problem of hate crime in the national capital. The bias crime unit is designed to operate with three distinct elements in its mandate: investigation, education, and intelligence.

Between January 1993 and December 1994 the bias crime unit handled 387 cases, including 346 offences, and 105 charges were laid as a result of that. In 1995 the unit handled 230 -

The Chair: I think you mean criminal offences.

Chief Ford: Yes, I said "criminal".

The Chair: I want the testimony to show you meant criminal.

Chief Ford: Yes, 346 criminal offences, and 148 charges were laid out of the 346 criminal offences.

In 1995 the unit handled 238 cases, of which 188 were criminal cases, and 63 charges were laid. It's interesting to note that 29 of the cases dealt with sexual orientation.

The Ottawa-Carleton police liaison committee for the lesbian-gay, bisexual, and trans-gender communities and the bias crime unit welcomed, and I might add strongly endorsed, the hate crime provisions of Bill C-41.

At the moment, under-reporting of bias incidents is a serious concern of community representatives and police services. Many hate-motivated crimes are not reported to the police because the victims are fearful. Regardless of who is victimized, there is a significant and detectable chill on the targeted community.

Strong leadership from community leaders can set standards by which people will live. A community that denounces bigotry will be safer for the people who are attacked by bigots and less welcoming for the bigots themselves. This denouncement has taken place with regard to hate crimes through the establishment of the bias crime unit. This has provided numerous opportunities for community leaders such as the mayor, police officers, and community activists to denounce hate when it occurs.

Former U.S. attorney-general Richard Thornburgh once stated:

Hate crimes are anathema to a free and democratic society. The destruction and fear that these acts cause, not just for the individual victim but for an entire group of citizens, have ramifications well beyond the actual crime itself. This is why we must vigorously investigate, indict and punish those who unleash their bigotry through cowardly acts of abuse, vandalism and violence.

A strong and aggressive police response to anti-gay or lesbian hate-motivated crime achieves two very specific goals. It conveys a strong message that gay and lesbian citizens are valued parts of the community. It also tells lesbian and gay citizens they have a responsibility to report incidents and the incidents will be taken seriously.

The biggest obstacle facing communities affected by hate and bias crime is intolerance. Many, if not most, victims do not report incidents, out of fear that they will be subjected to uncaring hospital, police, and court systems. An increased demonstration of concern by all institutions, in conjunction with community-based organizations, can go a long way in beginning to stop the cycle of hate-motivated violence, harassment, and discrimination.

In conclusion, until 1989 Ottawa had largely avoided the reality of violence against gay men and lesbians. If anything has been learned from recent experience it is the need for ongoing consultation, change, and education between service providers and the groups in the community that require this service. Safe streets, safe parks, and safe homes are in everybody's best interest. Discrimination, intolerance, and hate must be denounced. We protect every citizen every day, regardless of sexual orientation.

The Chair: Thank you. I just want to advise you that under the mantle of the multicultural dossier I handled you have a very fine reputation. We've been very pleased to work with you on the race relations undertakings we've had and you've been one of the more successful units. I think you should know that. I put it on record.

Chief Ford: Thank you.

.1130

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Committee members certainly appreciated your presentation. I represent the riding of Hochelaga - Maisonneuve, a riding in the east end of Montreal next to a gay village. Would you believe the Montreal Police Department currently offers a training program to its officers that includes courses in sociology, psychology and statistics? They get some fairly thorough and interesting training.

In the past, the question of homosexuality was never really broached. The initiative came from a police officer, Mr. Sarrazin. For the past two years in Montreal, police officers are trained to be more aware of the homosexual reality when carrying out their duties.

I know you have set up a hate crimes unit. How did you acquire your particular awareness? You seem very open to the homosexual reality. Have you gone as far as thinking about training? All of us around this table agree that one way to eradicate intolerance is through information. The best way to provide information is to be involved in education and training.

How should police officers be trained, if we are to eradicate intolerance? After all, of all those in positions of authority, they play a very specific role.

[English]

Chief Ford: Before I let Sergeant Watts, who's actually involved in that process, answer, I'd like to say I support the training and sensitivity training required for police officers. It is a part of our mandate from an organizational point of view to have that kind of training.

I'll let Sergeant Watts answer it.

Acting Sergeant Bruce Watts (Bias Crime Unit, Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service): I can't say any more strongly that education is one of the key parts to helping our officers become more effective in serving the community. Bear in mind the officers are from the community, and we can harbour the same misunderstandings and biases that reflect the community itself. Therefore it's paramount that we assist our officers to train to be better servers to the community in general.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: You said something very interesting. You said that before the passage of Bill C-64, which enshrined the concept of "crimes haineux" in the Criminal Code, which is what a number of groups wanted, including the gay community, police had felt there weren't any "crimes haineux". I do not know if you are giving an accurate interpretation, but I did note that you said that police felt that there had not been any "crimes haineux" because they did not exist in the Criminal Code.

The Chair: What does "crimes haineux" mean?

Mr. Ménard: Hate crimes.

The Chair: Oh! Hate.

Mr. Ménard: So today you are telling us that for a long period of time, both police corps and statistics had underestimated the extent of hate crimes.

That's why today, for all intents and purposes, some people think there is no violence against gays. Some of our colleagues in the House - if you don't mind, I will not name them, out of sheer kindness - say that violence is general in nature and affects every group in society.

If I understood your presentation, you think we should recognize that there are very specific types of violence, that there are different violence coefficients and that gays are victims of a very specific type of violence.

[English]

Chief Ford: Absolutely. There is absolutely violence directed against gays and lesbians because of their sexual orientation, or in some cases, as in the case I mentioned, because of their perceived sexual orientation.

There are numerous cases where people were picked on because they were gay and after that there was follow-up violence. Somebody stole their wallet and then went to their house and severely beat them to the point where both men, who were partners, very nearly died.

.1135

Definitely women are targeted because they're women. There are people who are targeted because they're visible minorities and blacks - just because of that.

I'll let Sergeant Dunlop expand on that, because he's been involved in it.

Sergeant Dan Dunlop (Canadian Centre for Police-Race Relations, Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service): First of all, any response to hate-motivated crimes right now is very regional. Police agencies are some of the few, other than the odd community group, that will actually compile statistics based on hate- or bias-motivated crimes.

Again, it's a very regional issue, and with the way the reports are tabulated based on that regional application, it's very difficult to glean the motivation out of reports that come in. We can tell you how many assaults, murders and robberies occurred in a year, but how many were actually motivated by a bias because of race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation is very difficult unless it's captured at the responding officer level. That is one of the issues we have to contend with.

To this date there hasn't been a national statistical collection of data. Julian Roberts from the University of Ottawa just recently released a report based on hate-motivated crime in Canada and the response to it, and one of his key recommendations is that a national database be set up to collect the statistics.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I am very pleased about one thing. A few weeks ago, I was asked by a number of community groups to make a presentation at a conference and I realized that in some Montreal police stations I go to occasionally, especially on invitation, there are some police officers who now openly say they are gay. I think that is a huge step forward in a society where, at one point, the police environment - you'll forgive me, because I know this is definitely not your case - , had the reputation of being somewhat macho. I know all that is changing and we are now dealing with a new generation of police officers who are trained and who are extremely aware.

My question is indiscreet, but I will ask it anyway. Are there members of your police corps who openly refer to themselves as gay and would you agree with me that the day that happens in places like the police environment, we will be able to say that our society has made great strides, which everyone should be very pleased about?

[English]

The Chair: That depends on your definition of "macho". I've seen a few macho activities by those who are declared gays.

Chief Ford: A couple of our officers have openly identified themselves as gay or lesbian, and it's important from our perspective that we support that kind of initiative to come forward with their sexual orientation. One of them was just recently promoted in the organization.

As an organization, we have to be open to differences, because after all, from my perspective, how else can we police a community that is made up of differences? The people in the community come from a wide variety of backgrounds, and if we're going to be part of that community...

In my view, truly the police are the public and the public are the police; we are part of the community. We cannot do the job alone, and we cannot have any part of the community feel they are isolated from the kind of service we're delivering. They must feel a part of that. That means we have to be part of that community in every respect. We must reflect the community in our organization.

Mr. Ménard: Bravo!

The Chair: Can I get one question in here very quickly? I just want to make sure you can tell us how, when you finish your tenure of office, we can be assured that your principles, philosophies and policies will be carried on.

Chief Ford: They'll be carried on because we're ingraining the principles and philosophies of our organization in the policies and procedures that will be established through our police service board of commissioners and through the council of the day, though maybe at that time we'll be directly accountable. We're also doing it by continuous training within our organization of the officers coming up through the organization, reinforcing positive behaviours within our organization so people see that's the kind of positive behaviour that's rewarded in your organization. That perpetuates the kind of organization you want in the future, rather than destroying it. You don't build up and destroy; you build up and continue on.

.1140

From a policing perspective, I think the policies are changing dramatically. The way we do our business in partnership with the community is changing. For us to change back or to go back from the way we are I think would create a hue and cry from the community because of expectations they've had over a number of years. But it's going to be done through the policies, through ingraining them in the policies we have.

The Chair: Quite frankly, Chief Ford, to change cultural perspectives within institutions is far from an easy task. Having worked with the Association of Chiefs of Police for a number of years now, I must say that you are a lovely fresh breeze coming in here.

I guess what I'm really hoping is not only that your mentality approach and perceptions become part of the ingrained culture in the institutional change, but that this particular amendment to the bill will be effective or helpful. I'm curious to know whether you think it will have any kind of an impact, both in the personnel and in the operating mechanisms.

Chief Ford: I strongly believe it will have an impact. It will also provide a guide for police organizations to develop strong community ties with all aspects of our community, based on the kind of legislation and leadership the government would show with respect to this. I think it would have a definite impact on changing organizations in the future, because the government is showing leadership in this way. It gives other organizations that may be reluctant for one reason or another, depending on circumstances wherever you go, the chance to make those changes and to follow through with them.

I'd like to say that there are a number of other chiefs who are very supportive of this. I think of Chief Vincent MacDonald in Halifax, the new Chief Doug McNally in Edmonton, and the former Chief of Calgary, Gerry Borbridge. There are other chiefs and I'm almost reluctant to name them because I'll miss somebody for sure. Vince MacDonald was the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. There are a number of other chiefs in Ontario who are making changes toward a community-oriented kind of organization.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. McClelland.

Mr. McClelland: Thank you.

I'm interested in whether there are some statistics that might shed some light on the whole notion of hate-motivated crimes that have been recorded. I felt it somewhat curious that as regards acceptance of anything to do with homosexuality in polling, the younger the people being asked the questions, the more open they are. The older they are, the more fixed in attitudes they are. There's nothing abnormal about that; that's just a natural evolutionary process.

I'm wondering if there are any statistics for the ages of people who are convicted of crimes, either hate-motivated or just random acts of violence, to see whether or not this is a group that is passing through society, just like the baby boomers. Does any such information exist?

Sgt Dunlop: There is one study that was done based upon acts committed by youth. The Youth Services Bureau of Ottawa-Carleton did a study about four years ago. I caution my figures here, but somewhere around the area of 70% of a lot of the acts that were committed were based upon race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. A lot of it did go unreported. I could dig up that report and forward it to you.

Mr. McClelland: Do you have any idea of what the age group would be?

Sgt Dunlop: It's teens.

Mr. McClelland: I remember discussing this with Chief McNally. For those who are not aware, Edmonton has had a longstanding community relations program that's extremely effective, and the citizens of Edmonton are very proud of it. He said at one time that there are perhaps200 people in the city who cause everybody to lay awake at night. It's a relatively small number of repeat, repeat and repeat. I've also heard that people tend to grow out of it, that after a while, in their mid-twenties and late twenties, people who have had a lifetime of being on the wrong side of the law just wake up one morning and are tired of it. Is that true?

.1145

Chief Ford: There are ample studies to show that after people reach a certain age they become less involved in active criminal activities. But there are many cases where people who are not involved actively in the violence aspect of the activity are encouraging it through recruitment and promulgation of propaganda, of hate towards groups. Through that process they are recruiting and influencing younger people who take on the role of doing the actual physical violence stuff. They promote it and they support it. Sure, they may not be doing it as actively as they did before because they're probably too old and will get beaten up by some of the people they're targeting. Once people reach 50 years old they are less involved actively. By actively, I mean in physical violence acts. I don't mean actively in the sense of promulgating and propagandizing hate. They are actively involved in that.

Mr. McClelland: Sharon brought up the situation where roving gangs in your constituency would attack people because they were wearing a specific colour. Was it the purple gang? They would decide that the next person they saw wearing purple would get beaten up, which is hard to even imagine.

Sgt Dunlop: I think that will bounce into the area of youth gangs and youth gang dynamics and the violence aspect of that. Some of that activity is a little broader than what we're discussing here today. Some youth gangs that come together are somewhat territorial over geography, and different colours mean different things to different groups.

The important thing that has to be touched on, as well as expanding upon your last question, is that the police are the end of the spectrum when it comes to a response in a lot of different cases. The criminal threshold is quite high before the police can actually get involved in this, where you have issues of prejudice and intolerance that roll into hatred, which then can roll into a criminal incident. For instance, standing on a street corner and calling someone a racial name, yelling or screaming at them like that, is not considered a criminal offence unless there's a death threat issued.

One of the frustrations from a policing perspective is the height of that criminal threshold. There has to be a lot of social interaction and community involvement to address intolerance and ignorance along that plane of human diversity so that we can all look at this together and not look just at the police as a stopgap.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Maloney (Erie): Chief Ford, you've given a presentation generally in favour of this legislation. Are you in a position to tell us today whether the rank and file officers that you command would share this submission? Would the Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association also share this view?

Chief Ford: I'm here basically representing myself and my organization, but I do have two rank and file officers, front-line officers, with me here today. I think the vast majority of front-line officers in my organization would support this kind of legislation, yes.

I did contact the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and they have not taken a position on it. But I will tell you that while they haven't taken a formal position through a resolution process on this bill, they do support intolerance towards hate and discrimination. The theme of our conference this year is cyber crime, and one of the major aspects of that conference is cyber crime and the promulgation of hate through the Internet process. That's one of the issues we're dealing with now. So basically I'm saying that yes, they support this kind of bill because of the things they're doing with respect to hate crime and bias crimes, the issues they're dealing with on a regular basis.

The Chair: Svend.

Mr. Robinson: Before I ask my questions I want to echo the words of the chair, Ms Finestone, in congratulating and commending you for the leadership you've shown on this issue, not just in Canada but internationally as well. I know Sergeant Dunlop and others have really had a significant impact. You've had an impact on my own community, the one I have the privilege of representing, Vancouver, on these issues.

.1150

I just want to add on a personal note how pleased I am to see my former assistant David Pepper here today, joining Chief Ford, because I want to say he has also shown real leadership on this issue. I'm sure the witnesses would agree with that, and I'm really pleased he's in that position.

I'll ask my three brief questions and then you can try to deal with them.

The first is the issue of lists. There are members of Parliament and others who say we don't need lists, we don't have to name the groups affected by hate crimes or by discrimination, let's just leave it open-ended; let's just say we don't believe in discrimination. Could you explain to the committee, and particularly to the one or two members of the committee who share that view, on my right, why it's important that we name those who are victims, whether it's Jews or victims of anti-Semitic attacks or gays or lesbians or blacks? Why is it important for us to name those people?

Question two is on the issue of reporting. You say in your brief one of the big reasons victims don't report is fear that they'll be subjected to uncaring hospital, police, and court systems. I wonder if you could elaborate a little, because I think another real fear is a fear some people have that they will then be outed if they're in the closet, for example to families or to their employers. Would you elaborate on that a little, because you're dealing on the front lines. Would you not agree that is a concern and some people who aren't out but who are victims of gay-bashing are afraid this could affect their relationship with their family or their job, particularly where there isn't human rights legislation?

The final question is this. It's been suggested by at least one Reform member of Parliament, Paul Forseth, from New Westminister - Burnaby, that gay-bashing is really all about one marginalized sub-group attacking another marginalized sub-group. He mentioned specifically skinheads. Could you tell us something about who these gay-bashers are, and would you agree we are not just talking about marginalized individuals and skinheads? Would you tell me something about who these people are who go out in gangs and beat up people who are gay or lesbian, or who are perceived to be gay or lesbian, as Chief Ford quite rightly points out?

The Chair: In all deference, I'm going to ask your officers and yourself to try to answer as succinctly as possible on what could be a weekend colloquium based on the questions, which are very creative.

Mr. Dunlop: I'll try to give you the Reader's Digest version on that.

First of all, it's important to identify who's being targeted, and at this point it's very difficult even to do that. The United States has been doing it for some time. Targeting is very important, because wherever you go in North America three targets are most victimized: the black community, the Jewish community, and the gay community, in that order. That's consistent. Wherever you go in North America, those are the three top groups that are targeted by hate.

The other thing is these units are in place for the community as a whole. It's important to recognize that we're not here for special interest groups or one group or the other. We investigate anti-white incidents. We investigate any issue where a person has been targeted because of race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. But overwhelmingly, those three groups are most targeted: the gay community, the black community, and the Jewish community.

On the second question, about the feeling of victims, we're really in the business here of looking at victimization. We think it's very important you recognize when you're dealing with a hate crime. An assault based on hatred is very important. It's almost like a sexual assault.

We have certain provisions in the Criminal Code that qualify special groups such as assault police. We have a special section for sexual assaults. We're talking about a personalized attack because of the identity of the individual and an issue where it's much more than just a physical attack; it's a psychological victimization that's at play there.

We do see under-reporting in that regard. It's very difficult to get victims to come forward, because they feel they're going to be re-victimized, mainly because of feeling their concerns aren't going to be taken seriously. In some communities, such as the gay community, there's a real concern about employment, there's a real concern about being outed and what have you. It's a very personal issue to a lot of people, and we have to recognize that, as police and as a community as a whole.

On the third, we're not talking about just skinheads and jackboots and shaved heads. What we're talking about when we're talking about hate crimes is a wide spectrum of ignorance and intolerance along that plane of human diversity. It's extremely important to recognize that hate crimes occur within families, that people are victimized because their son or nephew may be gay or lesbian or what have you, that we see neighbour disputes that are ongoing based upon differences in race, religion, ethnicity, and what have you. We'll see interrace conflicts from time to time.

.1155

So it's important to recognize that although the ritzy, glamorous stuff in the newspapers is always the white supremacist movement, in fact that's about 5% to 10% of what we really look at. Real hate crimes occur in school yards, in the streets, among neighbours and among family members. It's very, very important that we recognize that.

The Chair: Thank you. That's extremely succinct.

Mrs. Hayes (Port Moody - Coquitlam): The latest Vancouver police academy graduating class was recently in our paper, and I believe that more than half of that class were women. I believe, but I'm not sure, the majority were visible minority. Certainly the minority were white male whatever. That was to address the community-sensitivity topic that you've brought up. Certainly in our area we do have a lot of visible minority make-up, and new Canadians besides.

In your case, do you have hiring practices that reflect an employment equity situation? What are your latest recruitment statistics, and can you see those including the homosexual community in the future?

Chief Ford: We have employment equity legislation in Ontario, but, more appropriately, I personally believe, as does the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Municipality, in employment equity. In the statistics for probably the last three to four years you would see a representation of approximately 50% women in all recruit classes, about 25% visible minorities within those classes, and the rest would be white males.

Roughly, it broke down to the percentages that were within the community. There's roughly a 12% visible minority community in Ottawa-Carleton. We overrepresented them in our recruit classes to bring up the number of women and visible minorities within the organization, because, quite frankly, we were severely lacking in that respect.

With respect to homosexuals, we do have homosexuals, gays and lesbians, on our police service. They have not been targeted from an employment equity point of view, but we have been quite open in advertising in the gay and lesbian magazines here in Ottawa-Carleton for recruiting purposes, inviting people from all diversity within our community to join our police service.

I firmly believe we must be open to having all aspects of our community reflected in our organizations.

It's difficult at this point in time because we're not in the process of hiring. We haven't been for the last year. But we did hire about 80 people up to last year. But as we continue to hire, throughout Ontario, and more appropriately in Ottawa-Carleton, we will continue to reflect our community.

The Chair: I thank you for your presentation. Certainly for those of us who know that you have to apply the law, I'm glad to hear that there is this understanding of the law. I hope that that goes right down to the rank and file and it's certainly perceived to be.

I want to thank Russell Armstrong as I call him to the witness stand. I want to emphasize the fact that we're most appreciative of his attendance.

Would you be good enough to introduce yourself and the organization you are speaking for today.

.1200

Mr. Armstrong: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am the executive director of the Canadian AIDS Society. The remarks I'm going to make this morning are shared by another organization we work with, the Canadian HIV-AIDS Legal Network. The two organizations have been involved in a project addressing legal and ethical issues raised by HIV/AIDS, and one of the priority issues of this project has been studying the relationship between discrimination against lesbians and gays and the spread of HIV.

I guess I bring to the discussion this morning a perspective on the issue of amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act that might not have been raised by other parties. Part of the philosophy it's based on is some pioneering work out of the Harvard School of Public Health looking at what are called the health impacts of human rights violations. Certainly in Canada the story of HIV/AIDS is a good example of how the issue of human rights can affect the health of not only a specific group within Canadian society, but virtually all of Canadian society.

Before I address the specific issue before the committee, I should say a few words about the two organizations I mentioned.

For those of you who aren't familiar with our work, the Canadian AIDS Society is a national coalition of community-based AIDS organizations. Our members are located across Canada and we're currently counting just over 100 community-based programs and projects. It's important to remember that these community-based organizations are really the front line of Canada's response to HIV/AIDS. They provide a vast array of support programs and prevention and education programs. They work very closely with people living with HIV/AIDS on a daily basis, but more importantly they are also key organizations working at the centre of communities at risk for HIV/AIDS. The gay and lesbian community throughout the history of HIV/AIDS has been one of the communities most affected by the disease.

I mentioned the Canadian HIV-AIDS Legal Network. This is a national network of lawyers and legal policy analysts, which acts as a national source of information on legal issues and HIV/AIDS. One of the most important things they do is to promote discussion on key legal and ethical issues through a newsletter they produce that monitors these issues nationally and internationally.

The joint project that I mentioned the two organizations are working on started last year. In its first phase it consulted nationally with a variety of individuals and groups involved in HIV/AIDS. It's important to note that discrimination against gays and lesbians and its effects on efforts to deal with the impact of HIV/AIDS in Canada has emerged as one of the top priority issues for the project to address.

I have a few examples of the issues that emerged during the national discussions and the issues currently being studied by the project. One of the key issues right now is the refusal of school systems to provide positive information about sexuality, including gay and lesbian sexuality. What happens in this instance is that it leads to a hostile and difficult environment for young gays and lesbians struggling to understand their emerging sexual orientation. Within this environment we note tragically that it leads to risk behaviours and ultimately HIV infection on the part of young people in Canada. A statistic that dramatically underlies that -

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Armstrong, I think I missed something in what you just said. Did you say the reluctance of schools to identify...?

Mr. Armstrong: No, to provide positive information about sexuality as part of the education curriculum, including information -

The Chair: Oh, as part of the education curriculum. Thank you.

Mr. Armstrong: One of the things that dramatically makes the point I just raised about young gays and lesbians and a hostile environment leading to HIV/AIDS transmission is the fact that our own Laboratory Centre for Disease Control, in monitoring trends in the HIV epidemic, has noted that over the last several years the average age of infection of people getting HIV has been dropping. We are analysing this very carefully and suspect that it has a lot to do with the atmosphere that young people confront around issues of sexuality.

Another issue the project is addressing is the refusal to recognize same-sex relationships, which has been known to make the process of caring for a partner living with HIV/AIDS extremely difficult, legally and socially. A couple of examples are the fact that partners are denied access in hospital to their significant other who is sick. They don't have the legal authority to make decisions around treatment, and often after a partner has died they have no legal status in terms of decisions about disposition of estates.

.1205

The third issue, which is much more general, is the issue of living in a society where there is an extreme lack of acceptance of gay and lesbian sexuality and the effect this has on individuals. We know particularly that this has a tremendous negative effect on self-esteem and can operate as a very severe barrier in terms of making healthy choices about sex and sexuality.

In order to try to deal with some of these issues on a national level, last year the Canadian AIDS Society, as part of its annual AIDS awareness week campaign, which runs each year in October, decided to focus on the issue of AIDS and homophobia or discrimination against gays and lesbians. As part of the materials we made several very explicit connections on the need to deal with the issue of discrimination against gays and lesbians as part of an effective strategy of dealing with the HIV epidemic in Canada as a whole.

The aim of the campaign in addressing issues of AIDS and homophobia was an effort to encourage a more compassionate and humane response to gay people, but also to all people living with HIV-AIDS in Canada. In preparing this campaign we found that homophobia and AIDS are so firmly linked in the minds of many Canadians that their responses to a person with HIV-AIDS are often inseparable from their responses to the issue of homosexuality.

We've noted that these negative perceptions and attitudes about the gay community have been identified as the biggest barrier to a coordinated, compassionate response to AIDS in Canada.

As an example of that, one of my responsibilities with the Canadian AIDS Society has been working with the Krever commission over the last two years. At the commission, our role as the Canadian AIDS Society has been to try to present evidence to the commission about how negative perceptions and attitudes towards gays and lesbians in Canada were prevalent at the senior bureaucratic and political levels across most provinces in this country. That had a tremendous negative effect on the way this country dealt with the HIV/AIDS epidemic when it was emerging in the 1980s. We know that one of the consequences was the problem with the blood supply and the infection of the supply with HIV.

I think I've made some fairly explicit points about why the Canadian AIDS Society is interested in this issue and what the human rights amendments have to do with the issue of HIV/AIDS.

The Chair: You have made three major points, is that right, Mr. Armstrong?

Mr. Armstrong: Yes, as examples of the overall theme of the link...

I want to refer to a policy document Health Canada has produced that outlines phase two of the national AIDS strategy and one of the key directions of the strategy, as a way of reinforcing what we see as the need to deal with the issue of discrimination, especially discrimination against gays and lesbians, and as a way of dealing effectively with the issue of HIV in Canada. I'll quote from the document.

HIV infection is largely preventable by avoiding risk behaviours such as unprotected sexual intercourse and needle sharing. What must not be forgotten, however, is that individual decisions to reduce risk are strongly influenced by the social conditions and attitudes in which they are made. Creating a supportive social environment that fosters healthy and sustained behaviour change will remain a major challenge.

The Chair: Don't you find that there has been a significant change in the sexual attitudes of young people as a result of HIV and AIDS?

Mr. Armstrong: I agree that there have been many significant changes, but as we live through the HIV epidemic - for more than ten years now - transmission is still occurring in certain parts of society, and we're noticing that young gay men, especially, are continuing to be infected with HIV. We conclude it's largely due to the atmosphere in which they come out. We're dealing with people in high school who don't have access to positive information about who they are.

.1210

The Chair: I know it's not my job - I'll let all of you ask - but I find it's not the people in high school who have been bothering me. From what I can see from my own grandchildren and from listening to young people around me, it's the people outside of high school who haven't had access to that education. However, I'd be curious to know why you've made that observation.

Mr. Armstrong: I'll just conclude with a couple of points and then we can return to the question. Basically, from the point of view of the Canadian AIDS Society and the Canadian HIV-AIDS Legal Network, this amendment has been a long time coming. It has been a key part of the Canadian AIDS Society's strategy on HIV and AIDS since 1986.

In terms of the practical, legal effect of this amendment, it may be limited in terms of the issues around HIV and AIDS. More importantly for the issue, it sends a very strong leadership message. It sends a signal that tolerance, and especially tolerance for lesbians and gays, is one of the most important social values in Canada. By doing this, I think what we will have happen is the creation of a stronger environment in which people have the self-esteem to make healthy choices about sexuality, an environment in which people can receive proper care to live longer and stable lives.

I'll conclude with that and return to the questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Ménard: I am generally a very compassionate person, but I am especially compassionate when it comes to people with AIDS. I often had the pleasure of working with the Canadian AIDS Society, the main spokesperson on AIDS for English Canada, and even Quebec, since there are Quebeckers on the board of directors.

One of the Canadian AIDS Society's greatest merits is that over the past few years, it has shown us that from the time the first case of AIDS was diagnosed in 1979 up to the time this committee held its hearings, the AIDS epidemic did not regress, in fact, it progressed, and you expect the number of people infected with AIDS will double by the year 2000. That is one statistic committee members should keep in mind.

We should really thing about what is happening with AIDS. We have reached a point where we should try to make AIDS a chronic illness, rather than a terminal one.

There is some irony in what you said and it is important to establish the link with discrimination. We have had AIDS since 1979, nearly two decades, and we are all working together to fight it. In Geneva, we had the pleasure of meeting the head of the international AIDS program. He proved to us that our grandchildren - perhaps not mine, but yours, Madam Chair - will also have to live with AIDS. AIDS will be part of society's collective reality for the next few years.

Why is it that even if we know how the disease is transmitted and there are some non-curative drugs available, there are people who do not like themselves enough to protect themselves?

What relationship do you think there is between discrimination and the fact that there are people who do not like themselves enough to protect themselves and that the epidemic continues to spread in Canada and elsewhere.

Right now, Thailand, where Ms Augustine and I were, is the country most infected with AIDS. In some countries, the curb is really exponential. So show us exactly what the links are between the Canadian AIDS Society's mission and the discrimination you see every day, so we can make an accurate reference to it in our report.

The Chair: That is a very good question.

[English]

Mr. Armstrong: I return to what I quoted from the Health Canada document. We can provide specific information about sexual practices and what not to do, but what we can't forget is that you make decisions about sexual practice within an environment that tells you about certain kinds of values, about what people think is good and bad about particular kinds of individuals. What we have found throughout HIV and AIDS work is that discrimination and intolerance - whether it be against gays and lesbians, against women, or against people with disabilities - set up barriers to people being able to receive information about the disease and to act in their own self-interest to preserve not only their own health but the health of society generally.

.1215

[Translation]

The Chair: Another question, Mr. Ménard?

Mr. Ménard: I think it is important to state that clearly in our report.

I know you have travelled throughout the country. Some members of your society have told me - I will be very careful in what I say, to avoid offending anyone and I am not trying to be malicious here, because you know I am incapable of that - , there is a huge gap between rural societies and urban communities and some groups must really get up to speed, especially in rural communities where they are still unable to admit there is a problem.

In some regions of Canada, the first problem is always to identify oneself as homosexual, because if you do so, you are leaving yourself open to a huge number of stigmas. But in a city like Montreal, it is next to impossible to not know someone who does not know a homosexual.

I've been told, and this has consequences on how activism is lived in certain communities, that in certain areas of Canada, there's a terrible problem with just naming things, expressing them, putting words on facts.

How can your society and this committee act? What actions would you suggest to us so that we can, even before treating individuals, promote certain facts? That would be the first step to take in terms of awareness.

Do you share my analysis, based on things I've been told, such as in some rural areas in Canada - I was told a bit about Newfoundland, but more about the West - , there's a terrible problem in just identifying things?

[English]

Mr. Armstrong: Yes, you're certainly correct, Mr. Ménard. There is an extreme difficulty in rural environments in Canada, not only in addressing sexuality, but HIV and AIDS. They're intrinsically linked in that the problem with dealing with HIV and AIDS in rural environments in Canada is a problem of dealing with issues around homosexuality.

As I said in my presentation, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act that affects federal jurisdiction may not offer some practical legal assistance to a lot of people living in rural environments in Canada, but it does send a strong leadership signal on the part of the federal government that this is a value in Canadian society worth protecting. It also assists in the ongoing efforts of our society in particular to achieve social change in all areas of Canada - and around issues of homosexuality in particular - as a way of being able to address concretely and definitively the issue of HIV and AIDS.

The Chair: Mr. McClelland.

Mr. McClelland: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was going to begin by asking if the chair and committee might consider limiting our interventions in consideration of witnesses. We're behind and it would give us a chance to get caught up. I find myself with a whole bunch of questions. I'll try to be really brief, but perhaps we can consider that.

The Chair: We're going to do the catch-up over lunch.

Mr. McClelland: Okay.

Following up on what Madam Chairman raised some time ago, I feel it is my obligation and responsibility as a parent, and now as a grandparent, to educate my children about the potential of AIDS. The potential is there in heterosexual or homosexual activity, in drug activity or anything else. It's important as a parental responsibility. I know this doesn't speak directly to the bill, but I think it is of premier importance in our society.

I've seen all kinds of things addressed to younger people who may or may not read them. I know it has to get to everybody, yet I have never, ever seen anything addressed to me in a magazine. I've never seen anything that says this is my responsibility. Most parents have never been in that situation before, or they don't even think about it.

.1220

I know it's impossible to respond to that, but there is a point in our society where parents must be accountable and responsible for protecting their children from danger and risk, and this is one of them. Do you agree, or do you think it's ridiculous or just so self-evident that...?

Mr. Armstrong: I think every Canadian parent or grandparent needs to be able to have access to information about HIV/AIDS and to be able to personalize that information to their own particular situation, whether they are personalizing it as a parent or as anybody else.

We've worked within constraints in dealing with HIV/AIDS. Frankly there have been resource constraints and we've had to target, so we target communities and individuals that we think...[Technical Difficulty - Editor]

Mr. McClelland: In the interest of brevity, this leads me to the next consideration. AIDS started out in the gay community, but it's no longer in the gay community; it's in the heterosexual community. Are there statistics now to say that it's 50% in the gay community and 50% in the heterosexual community, leaving aside drugs?

Mr. Armstrong: No, there are not at this point. In terms of a national picture, we have a fairly reliable national figure on the incidence of AIDS, which is death due to AIDS 15 years after initial HIV infection. Although the proportion of those cases represented by gay men is dropping, they still represent close to 80% of those statistics.

The federal government just started over the last year trying to assemble national statistics on the number of people who are HIV-positive. Their estimates range close to 50,000. Again, although the proportion of that number that is gay men is dropping over time, they still represent as high as 65% or 70% of that number.

Mr. McClelland: This, Madam Chair, leads to the linkage to the bill at hand. I know that when the AIDS scare was really in its prime, there were and may still be certain people in the emergency response community - ambulance drivers, fire and hospital workers - who were afraid of contracting AIDS. They had pictures of people or lists of people with AIDS so as to be concerned. Has the use of prophylactic measures in the emergency response industry supplanted that fear? Does that still exist?

Mr. Armstrong: It has taken a long time to address those fears and the fears are still there. Last year I participated in a national colloquium with representatives from the various emergency responders, and it was a very difficult process. There is still a lot of prejudice not only about fear of transmission of HIV, but about fear of the particular individuals who are assumed to have HIV.

Mr. McClelland: I'm wondering how this legislation would impact. It seemed to me as you were... I'm running on, I know.

The Chair: Finish off and that's it, please.

Mr. McClelland: It seemed to me that this would be the obvious link to this legislation, that persons in the emergency response industry, for right or for wrong, may find themselves not being able to identify high-risk people. But then it seems to me that they should treat every circumstance as a potential high risk, so it should really be a non-issue, except that if it's in their minds it's an issue.

It's impossible to answer that and I wouldn't ask it.

The Chair: I wasn't quite sure how you were going to go about that, because I think you were getting yourself into -

Mr. McClelland: Sorry.

Mr. Armstrong: I think what you're asking about is a separate issue.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, we'll come back to the issue at hand.

Mr. Robinson: I too want to thank Mr. Armstrong -

The Chair: Excuse me. I would advise everybody that the lunch break will take place as soon as we have finished with Mr. Robinson. You have 25 minutes for the lunch break. Thank you.

.1225

Mr. Robinson: I will be brief. I wanted to thank Mr. Armstrong and the Canadian AIDS Society for the work they do.

In terms of this bill and the appropriateness and importance of this legislation, I'm reminded of the words that were sent to me by a gentleman named Kevin Brown, who was one of the founders of the British Columbia Persons With AIDS Society back in the early 1980s. This was at a time shortly after I came out publicly. He said that it was important for people living with HIV and AIDS because already we're fighting one virus, the HIV virus. He said we shouldn't have to fight two viruses, the virus of homophobia and hatred, at the same time we're fighting this virus and struggling for our lives.

I still remember those words, and I think that's another reason why it's important for us to have this legislation.

I have a number of questions, but I'm going to ask just one in the interests of time. It's been suggested by one member of this committee, Ms Hayes, during the debate on this bill that in fact the gay lobby has tremendous power. The illustration that was given for this was that, in her view, the levels of funding for AIDS are vastly disproportionate to the levels of funding, for example, for heart disease and breast cancer.

Ms Hayes has returned. I wanted to ask the question in her presence.

How do you respond to the suggestion that this demonstrates this tremendous political power of the AIDS lobby because there's something like $43 million a year in the AIDS strategy - we haven't gotten confirmation or renewal of that yet - and a relatively smaller sum for breast cancer and heart disease? How do you respond to that? I think members of this committee should be aware that this is an argument that's made, and they should hear the response to it.

Mr. Armstrong: Ms Hayes and I have interacted on this one directly. I don't think that you can justify dollars spent on a particular disease just on the basis of body counts. There are many factors that enter into why a government would put x amount of resources in one disease and y amount of resources in another.

There's no question that the issue has been very important to the gay community and that this community has spoken up on this issue nationally, but over the almost ten years of the national AIDS strategy, we've had two national elections that have endorsed governments that have supported this work.

So I think that the importance of this work goes far beyond any particular lobby group. Its priority is shared by all of the people in Canada.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Armstrong. I thank all of you for delaying your presentation. It was deeply appreciated. If you have any facts and figures that you feel should be part of the proceedings, I'd be very pleased to see that they are attached to the minutes you have brought with you today.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I have a question for you.

The Chair: Just a second.

[English]

I'd just like to advise the committee that Dr. Ian Kroll is here. He was scheduled to be on at12 p.m. The reason I'm giving a lunch break, even though we're a little late, is that Dr. Kroll has to set up some slides he wants to present.

Ask a short question, please, and then we'll get the set-up.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: My question has to do with the schedule, Madam Chair. My colleague brought to my attention the fact that we are going to have serious schedule problems this afternoon. I don't know if you follow me.

The Chair: Yes, but I'm going to be very strict this afternoon.

Mr. Bernier: Beyond your being strict, Madam Chair, we start again at 4:30 or at 3:00, depending on who you ask. There's some confusion.

The Committee Clerk: There are typographical errors in the French version. It should state 1:30, 2:30 and 3:00.

Mr. Bernier: We start again at 3:00?

The Clerk: No.

[English]

The Chair: Look on the horrible English side and you'll find the right hours. We've made a mistake on the French side.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Do you think, Madam Chair, that it's... We'll continue during question period?

[English]

The Chair: I don't want it to be any more confusing.

Mr. McClelland: I'm looking at that clock.

The Chair: Mr. Armstrong, just a minute.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier, do you want to ask him a question?

.1230

Mr. Bernier: We want to go to question period.

The Chair: No. I was quite straightforward on that: we won't attend the question period.

Mr. Ménard: We will stay here. We're the Official Opposition and we ask questions.

Mr. Bernier: I've a question to ask and I'll leave soon.

The Chair: We'll continue nonetheless.

Mr. Ménard: That isn't what we decided yesterday.

The Chair: Yes, sir. It was agreed following yesterday's discussion. I said we'd meet for breakfast, lunch and supper and that we wouldn't go to question period. We will sit until 10:30 p.m.

Mr. Ménard: It's ridiculous not to go to question period. We're in Parliament.

[English]

The Chair: There are lots of committees that don't go to Question Period. What happens if you're on the road?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: In all the committees I've taken part in, we were always allowed to go to question period.

The Chair: You don't have enough experience. You're very young. You will not attend question period.

Mr. Ménard: I will go. Question period is important. We must respect that.

[English]

The Chair: Suspend.

.1231

.1254

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): I call the meeting to order.

Our next witness is Dr. Ian Kroll. I think he speaks for himself.

There is a document available from Dr. Kroll. It's been circulated to members. Without further ado, Dr. Kroll, you can proceed.

.1255

[Translation]

Dr. Ian Kroll (physician, University of Calgary): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ian Kroll. I am a physician and I come from Calgary. I'm a pediatrician at the University of Calgary and I've been invited here today to present our research.

This presentation will be in English only, but if you have questions, I'll do my best to answer them.

[English]

My name is Ian Kroll. I'm a medical practitioner. I'm licensed by the Medical Council of Canada and I'm doing psychiatry at the University of Calgary.

I've been asked here today to present on our research, which is entitled The Dynamics of Sexual Orientation & Adolescent Suicide. It's a joint university project by the University of Calgary and the University of Alberta in Edmonton.

The presentation should probably take about 30 to 40 minutes. I won't be going over all the points in great detail, as that's just not possible, but I've asked that the paper be distributed to all of you. You'll notice that there's an extensive reference list at the end, if you have any questions.

What the research deals with are basically these topics. It looks at adolescent suicide and how it pertains to sexual orientation, at a history of sexual orientation, and then at what exactly this thing called sexual orientation is, including biological studies, family and genetic studies, and an ethological perspective, which is looking at why the heck something like this would exist in our society.

Further, we examined research and study biases and then took an in-depth look at the developmental perspective; that is, what are the results of being gay in a straight society? At the end of the research we looked at the recommendations that have been published over the past 25 years and went on to reiterate those.

On adolescent suicide, despite living in one of the best countries in the world, we also support one of the highest suicide rates globally and over 16,000 years of adolescent life are lost per year.

I'm quite ashamed to say that in my own province we have the highest adolescent suicide rate out of all Canadian provinces. It's 8 times what it was 40 years previously. It's the highest for the zero to 14-year-olds and the second highest for 15- to 24-year-olds. The male-to-female ratio is that 7 males kill themselves for every female who kills herself.

Just to put this into perspective, adolescent suicide is second only to traffic fatalities as the leading cause of death for adolescents in Canada. It's actual rate is probably very much higher, as about 15% of all accidental, homicidal, and undetermined deaths are thought to be suicides.

The most common method of suicide is used by the males and includes firearms and hanging.

So what does this have to do with sexual orientation?

Well, there are a number of studies - and this number is growing steadily - that look at the relationship between adolescent suicide and sexual orientation. It's known that same-sex-oriented adolescents are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers and that homosexual youth comprise 30% of all completed suicides annually.

Research has just come out of Calgary now that has looked at a stratified population, and actually it puts that bottom figure closer to 60% and it puts the top figure at 13.3 times as likely to attempt suicide.

So this comes to the question, what are the factors that put homosexual adolescents at such a phenomenally increased risk for attempted and completed suicide?

To start, maybe we should take a look at the terms we're using. All the information up there really isn't all that important.

When we think of homosexual, we think of genital acts. When we think of heterosexual, we think of love, relationships, being committed to a person, family values. In fact, the terms should be synonymous.

Probably a better term than "homosexual" would be "homoaffiliative", because what we're really talking about is the ability to fall in love. For example, the first crushes - Romeo and Juliet, Anthony and Cleopatra, Alexander the Great and his general Hephaestion - are all examples of love in our history, and this is what we're talking about when we're talking about sexual orientation. However, the term "sexual orientation" is quite ingrained, so we're going to use that. Just keep in mind that what we're talking about is not sex, particularly; it's something much broader than just a sexual act.

.1300

Our present society has a lot of myths and problems when talking about homosexuality, and I have to say that my own profession, psychiatry, is in part responsible.

This is a slide of Charles Socarides, a leading proponent of the pathological nature of homosexuality. Interestingly, you have to question the motives of people who are trying to push others into the ground rather than enabling them to lead healthy and productive lives. Charles Socarides has a son, Richard, who is openly gay and who is well-adjusted enough to be the department liaison for labour at the U.S. White House. Again, it raises questions about promoting pathology rather than promoting well-being.

Now I'm just going to take a look at some of the stereotypes, because I think that before we talk about what homosexuality is it's important to look at what homosexuality is not.

One of the stereotypes is that all homosexuals are cross-dressers. All these stereotypes may be totally useless for you people, but there are a lot of people who live by these stereotypes, and we see them in the media every day. For example, most cross-dressers are heterosexual and belong to what we call the transvestite category for sexual, erotic purposes. Ninety-eight per cent of cross-dressers are heterosexual, not homosexual.

Another myth is that all homosexuals are gender-nonconforming. That means little boys do little girls' things and little girls do little boys' things. Gender nonconformity is something that is broad and overlapping and is really not specific to sexual orientation itself. As a matter of fact, only 25% of adult gay males display obvious effeminate characteristics.

Yet another stereotype is that homosexuals hate people of the opposite gender. This is just absolute nonsense. In fact, 14% to 19% of self-identified homosexual men had been married to a woman at one time, often to fit in with the social requirements.

Yet another stereotype is that homosexuals are women in men's bodies or men in women's bodies. What we're looking at here is not homosexuality but transsexualism, and it's an entirely different issue with different ideology.

Another myth is that homosexuals are promiscuous. We all know of the understanding of difficulties with prostitution and johns and so on. That's part of the heterosexual community, yet we don't classify the heterosexual community based on prostitutes and johns. With the homosexual community we tend to do that scapegoating, though, and I think it's important to separate it out: promiscuity is not something in an entire community, it's more something in an individual.

A final stereotype here is that AIDS is a gay disease. In your previous discussion it was brought out that the incidence of AIDS is actually decreasing among gay and lesbian populations. Among lesbians, it's very low. And despite gay populations still having a very high rate, the heterosexual community is catching up very quickly because they don't feel they're at risk. There is the belief that AIDS is a gay disease.

Another myth is that homosexuality is equal to pedophilia. Pedophilia is overwhelmingly a heterosexual phenomenon and has been recognized as such in scientific literature for decades. In fact, it's much less likely that a homosexual is going to be a pedophile for fear of public retaliation.

When it comes to prevalence, I'm looking at deliberately underestimated quotations here. At least 1 million or 2 million Canadian citizens are homosexual. That is an extremely conservative figure. It's more likely to be at least 2.5 times that.

So we say, okay, small number of Canadians are homosexual, what does it matter? It matters because those Canadians belong to families. When you look at the number of Canadians who have a family member who is homosexual, that number jumps, again at a deliberately underestimated figure, to about 7 million Canadians. This is likely, again, about 2 to 2.5 times that.

.1305

I wish I had the pointer here, because being a psychiatrist I can't get by without having a slide by Freud. What I wanted to point out here is that despite our present beliefs, there were people in the past who did not share those. Freud is often misquoted. What I quote him here as saying is that homosexuality:

is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness. ... Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them. (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.) It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime and cruelty too.

Ladies and gentlemen, that was 61 years ago.

Closer to home again, to counter our belief that the beliefs we have have always existed, we often ignore the beliefs of the original inhabitants of this country. It was considered a great blessing by North American natives to have a child who was born of two spirits. I quote here:

Some tribes have described homosexuality as something a being is born with; others say it comes in a vision or is given to a person by a spirit

Interestingly, this type of approach by the native population before the Europeans came to North America seems to be what we're experiencing now in our biologic studies, that sexual orientation is more of an innate reflection of the individual. What the studies are showing is that structural differences arise during the period of brain development and contribute to sexual behaviour. Some of the differences in brain structure include brain lateralization - that is, how men and women use the left half of their brain versus the right half of the brain. This has an impact on their handedness. We find an increase in left shift of handedness in homosexual men. I quote men because it is more prominent in the male studies. There are also increased verbal abilities in homosexual men, and there are differences in visual and spatial abilities.

In summary, these are all functions of very early brain development. They come about at between eight and sixteen weeks of gestation. That means about two to four months after conception these things are already going on. This is far before the element of choice even arrives.

If we look at family and genetic studies, it's well known that there's an increased incidence of homosexuality in certain families. Taking this a step further, some studies have looked at particular modes of genetic transmission. From the picture here, all I want to show is that families in which there are gay brothers have an increased risk...or increased incidence - again, this is societal pathology coming out in my own voice - of homosexuality in maternal cousins and maternal uncles. In other words, it's something that's inherited from the mom's side of the family, probably on the X chromosome. That is to say, sexual orientation is inherited, not homosexual orientation.

What this slide shows, though, is contrary to the popular belief we had before about gay men having gay children. Actually, we find the result is the opposite. Over 90% of the children of gay men turn out to be heterosexual, and the risk of a son or a daughter of a gay man turning out with a homosexual orientation is no higher than that of the general population. This is in keeping with the previous study.

In summary, we have the family studies, the chromosomal studies, the studies on handedness, the brain studies, the studies on cognitive abilities. Again, these differences arrive well before the infant is even born. So whatever the causes are, none of us think sexual orientation is mutable. It's not changeable. It arrives and it's part of the individual before the element of choice is even there.

.1310

Moving on to the developmental perspective, there are numerous stepping stones a child goes through to be able to feel comfortable with himself or herself in the world or to regard himself or herself very lowly and quite hopeless in life. As we mentioned before, the substrate is already there for a particular sexual orientation, whether it's heterosexual or homosexual, when a child is born.

As the child goes through life, they either grow up in a heterosexist environment, which means there's no acknowledgement and no place for homosexual people, or in a homophobic environment, which means there's an actual overt hatred of homosexuality. That child incorporates those into him or herself, and basically judges himself or herself by the same standards he or she grew up with - that is, if it's heterosexist and homophobic, that child becomes very self-hating and very self-condemning.

What these stepping stones describe are the man-made stumbling blocks that these children have to face from birth on. Again, these are man-made; they're not part of the children. When the children are in a good environment, they don't experience these difficulties.

It's when adolescence hits that things really start to come to a head. There are a couple of reasons for that. Adolescence is a time when families, peers, and school become very important. It's also a time when hormones begin to rage and crushes start coming on. If you remember your own first crush, imagine that being in a situation where everybody said it was sick, it was disgusting, it was gross, and people like that should be shot. It's not quite the same experience.

Because of these types of experiences, kids develop what I call a true self and a false self. They develop an exterior shell with which they can interface with the world and pretend to be straight, but on the inside they know they are in fact gay. They do this because they're afraid of rejection from their families and from their peer groups, and they lack positive role models to identify with.

There's nobody out there who is like them in their school or in their family or in their community. They have to do it alone, and they don't have the strength or the support to do that. As a result of this, they may sense a lack of hope for the future based on their experience of being rejected and hated.

In this picture, you see the alien, and he's sort of chit-chatting with the earthling. In many respects, gay adolescents feel this way. They feel like an outsider. Unlike in this picture, though, there very often is not the sense of acceptance, and as a result, the gay adolescent may continue to hide. In this situation of tyranny and oppression, these adolescents resort to methods that any adolescent experiencing such tyranny and oppression would use to deal with the situation. They may turn to alcohol and drugs.

Many gay teens date to prove their heterosexuality. In fact, teenage pregnancy is a big problem among gay teens. Teens are often taught in society and in their family that it's bad to be pregnant but it's even worse to be gay, so being pregnant is a way of proving you're straight. We don't recommend it as a means of curing homosexuality.

In regard to heterosexual behaviour, they may adopt this as a way to fit in. In fact, they may become so overtly heterosexual that they may resort to hating anything that reminds them of themselves. We call this gay bashing.

On the other hand, they may withdraw from life. They may find themselves putting on a lot of weight and saying, I can't date because nobody would like me because I'm a bit overweight anyway. They may also withdraw into hobbies or sports or intellectual pursuits to avoid having to go through the acceptance of sexual orientation.

The next one down here is hero worship. When the teen finds something they can connect with, they often do so in a very profound sense. We're all aware of the Kurt Cobain phenomenon. What we rarely see covered in the press is that Kurt Cobain wrote about agony and aloneness and all these sorts of things that these teens can identify with. What we never hear, though, is that this is a man who himself struggled with his sexual orientation.

.1315

These are things that these kids identify with. Kurt Cobain, for those of you who may not know, was a man who in fact in the end committed suicide. He is a model we leave for our teens because we don't have better models.

On the other hand, teens may say, well, screw this; I want to get on with life, so I'm going to be gay, and in your face with it. In a way it can be an important stepping stone, but given the precarious support these teens already have, they may in fact burn a lot of bridges they don't have.

When it comes to school work, some of the research coming out of Calgary now is looking at the profound impact of sexual orientation on school performance, and they're finding that for a certain number of teens, this slide really fits. It says:

The sustained motivation necessary for mastering a difficult work role is possible only when the adolescent has a likelihood of fulfilling that role in adult life and having it respected by others

In my practice I have adolescents come and say, it doesn't matter what I do; it doesn't matter how good I am to my family, what I do in my community or how good of a Christian I am. All these things don't matter, because what I hear in the press is that I'm sick and I don't belong here.

In other words, often these teens find themselves giving up because there is no acceptance in our society. We don't allow a spot for them. This is the message we give to our kids.

As a result of this, the adolescents become depressed. They feel extremely helpless in the face of all the condemnation that goes on all around them in our society every day, things we would consider hate literature if they were under any other topic. They feel as though they don't belong. They feel entirely alone.

As a consequence of this, these teens may see only one of three choices.

The first is to accept their homosexual orientation, but if this were so simplistic, it would have happened a long time ago. In order for this to happen the teens need space. They need an element of acceptance to be able to take that step and risk their friendships, their family and things they don't have control over. They're not financially independent and there are no social services to help them along that way.

On the other hand, they can conceal or deny their homosexual orientation. Many gay teens choose to do this and often enter into relationships. The difficulty with this, though, is that these relationships will not be happy ones, because the gay partner cannot give to his or her spouse the love that the spouse is indeed wanting. So you see all sorts of problems such as alcoholism, depression and dysthymia, and you may see the partner becoming physically ill with chronic illness in an attempt to get some kind of affection from a gay partner who is just not capable of it.

The third option is that the teen may feel stuck between a rock and a hard place and see suicide as the only way out. Unfortunately this third option is all too frequent.

The irony of all this is the pain and suffering that are inflicted on the very young, whom society is supposed to be protecting, under the guise of preventing the spread of homosexuality or treating the individual. Of course we all know homosexuality is not spread and cannot be changed or treated.

Knowing, then, that these are the consequences of not taking seriously or not acknowledging that sexual orientation is part and parcel of a human being and that this path towards suicide, drug abuse, alcohol abuse and so on can be totally avoided, these recommendations have been published over the last 25 years. These are not new, and they're in the literature.

First, when it comes to youths, all youths need to be afforded the opportunity to develop a positive self-image and identity, which requires positive images and role models, many of whom are afraid to do so for fear of loss of their jobs in our present society.

These youths also need recognition in all social institutions. They need a place to be part of their school or part of their community, to be able to learn that their contributions are desired. They need to be recognized as equal and valuable citizens in their homeland. Without this they have no place.

.1320

Moreover, they also need genuine protection under the legal system and under immediate protection, which is the police and so on, in order to have a sense that they are equal and to have hope for the future.

In the same way, families experience the same repercussions as that felt by the gay kids. Very many families themselves struggle with what the neighbours or the congregation will think, and so on. These are good people, but given the society we live in, it's very unfair to them to make them struggle alone. They feel they are alone and lack support.

In this sense, we need to promote good parental models and accurate information. We need to give parents a good sense that sexual orientation is okay.

We also need to make parents very much aware of responsibility toward all of their children. Very often when children come out to their families, they may find themselves physically or sexually abused, or thrown out on the street with no means to support themselves other than through drug dealing or prostitution. This is a real waste of children.

When it comes to the media, they have an incredible power to unite people and promote understanding or to divide them in fear and mistrust. We often forget who are the casualties of what we are saying. I can tell you from my own experience that when something goes on in the press that is directed toward the integrity of these youths, whether it's something that happens in our legislature in Alberta or a comment that somebody prominent makes, these kids hear that. They come and wonder what's the use. We have to be aware of that.

When it comes to helping professionals - this means a whole bunch of social services, such as people like myself - we have to be very clear about what our role is, because we have now very direct policy statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association. They're saying that any attempt to convert a child from being homosexual to being heterosexual is considered malpractice.

Our goal is to help that child understand their sexual orientation and place in the world and come to that acceptance. So whether or not our personal beliefs coincide with these professional ethics, we have a professional responsibility to ensure that these children get the proper treatment and support they need.

A lot of the recommendations in the literature are also directed toward governing bodies, so I include them here. This one is from the New England Journal of Medicine, which says that there are no scientific studies to justify the unequal treatment of homosexual people or the exclusion from any group.

A lot of the literature suggests that because we're looking at a very marginalized group with a lot to risk by coming out and exposing themselves, governments have to be leaders in making changes, because without that added information, people will continue to reiterate their present beliefs. For example, if a vote on the rights of Jews had occurred during holocaust Germany, it's unlikely what the outcome would have been, so in this sense government has to be a leader.

On that note, I'd just like to sum up with about four points.

First, sexual orientation is not a choice; it is something that is part and parcel of the individual. It occurs before birth and at a very early stage of development, well before the element of choice is present.

Second, we're looking at the element of love, not necessarily sex, and we always get that mixed up. These kids want to be able to contribute in life and so on, and we denigrate it to a sexual act.

Third, the consequences of this are very profound. There is a choice to sexual orientation, but that choice is ours. Consider whether or not we enable these kids to become part of our society in which they will be leaders in the future, or whether we say to them that there's the status quo, and they continue along the route to suicide. In other words, how we act will shape the future of these kids, and to that extent, we have to accept that responsibility and its blood on our hands.

.1325

The fourth point is that not all societies have thought as we do presently. Again, I refer you to the original inhabitants of our country, who thought it was an extreme blessing to have a child who was two-spirited.

So on that note, I'd like to leave you with this final summary by Erik Erikson, who is a major contributor to our understanding of normal child development. He says:

Someday, maybe, there will exist a well-informed, well-considered and yet fervent public conviction that the most deadly of all possible sins is the mutilation of a child's spirit.

Are there any questions?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): First of all, thank you very much. You were inside of eleven seconds, so I thought it was worth noting.

Do we need...?

Dr. Kroll: No, we probably don't, but I do have another set of slides if there are other points.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): So perhaps we could have the lights.

And to enlighten us, we'll go to Mr. Ménard, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I was very impressed by your presentation. At the beginning, I misunderstood the interpretation. I thought you were a psychiatrist, but I see that you're a pediatrician. Am I correct in saying that you work with young people? Okay.

I'd like to discuss three things with you, but not the technical aspect of the bill. What interests you, basically, is to see how, first of all, people accept their homosexuality and then how societies accept homosexuals.

I'd like to ask the chair and the clerk if it's possible to get a copy of your slides and if we can keep this material. I don't know if this is possible, but I would like it to be widely distributed.

For three years, in this Parliament, I've been very concerned with the issue of homosexuality, but never have we had something as coherent and interesting presented to us - statistically, anthropologically and etiologically.

I have three questions for you. The first is basically psychoanalytic. You claim that homosexuality is genetically predetermined, that it isn't a choice. The choice is to live it. The choice is that amount of liberty that we give individuals in society.

I agree with that. Deep down, I believe that homosexuality isn't a choice, up to a point. I'll use myself as an example. I'd be curious to find out what you think.

I have an identical twin brother. So we are homozygotous, and we're supposed to have the same genetic background. I am very homosexual and he is very heterosexual, and we don't foresee any changes in the next few years.

How would you explain this phenomenon? Shouldn't we consider homosexuality rather to be a combination of genetic and social factors, of equal importance?

I'll have other questions later.

[English]

Dr. Kroll: Maybe I'll answer these questions one by one. Otherwise, I might get a little muddled here.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): Dr. Kroll, could you respond to the original question relative to your credentials? I apologize for not pointing that out, but I think it's important for everybody.

Dr. Kroll: Okay. And which question was that?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): The one on your background, so that we can establish -

Dr. Kroll: I'm a medical practitioner. I'm licensed with the Medical Council of Canada. I'm in my final year of residency at the University of Calgary. I'm going to be entering practice in a few months.

This is an area of interest that I particularly have. I've done this research with the University of Calgary and with the University of Alberta, and I do deal with youth through the human sexuality program and the Woods program, which are youth programs in Calgary, in conjunction with aDr. Gary Sanders in Calgary.

.1330

Your first question was about predetermination and so on. Again, we're in an era where we're looking at lot of new information, and unfortunately a lot of studies continue to be very pathologically based when it comes to human sexuality. We're not looking at homosexuality here. We're looking at an understanding of human sexuality.

I was at a conference in Miami in May of last year, and there's always this debate about nurture versus nature, and the bottom line is that there is no debate that sexual orientation is not a choice. That is clearly accepted by all counts. It looks as if there is a very strong genetic or developmental factor, which may be acted on by very early experiences. If you want to talk analytical and so on, this would be well before the Oedipal triangle and all these other theories, so they don't really hold. We're looking at a totally new understanding of human sexuality here.

With regard to your question about twins, in my studies of handedness there's a lot of work that's looking at symmetry in twins, because there's an increased rate of sexual orientation in one twin versus not in the other. There's also in identical twins a very marked increased in sexual orientation in general. If one twin is gay, for example, the other twin is much more likely to be gay.

This has, from my understanding, which is not conclusive - I mean this is an area that's understudied, but it looks as though what's happening in twins is that there are differences in what we call symmetrical development; that is, in the same way as hurricanes go one way on one hemisphere and then the other way on the other hemisphere, the same sort of thing happens to some extent in twin development, and this has some role in whether a child will be left-handed or right-handed; will be gay, will be straight; will have visual spatial abilities or will have verbal abilities.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I don't want to push it, but I have one last question. It's so rare that we have before us people who deal with sociological, anthropological and etiological considerations that we have to take advantage of the witness.

I've always understood homosexuality in the following way. Some may choose to repress it and some not, but that has nothing to do with their identity. The basis of homosexuality is desire. I don't know how you can explain desire and I don't know if you've carried out any research on desire.

I've often made speeches and I always tell people that in society, there are people who will find out they are homosexual. You know when you are homosexual and I think that even parents know. There is a divide between those who decide to repress it and those who do not, but the basis of homosexuality is desire.

A person who is attracted to somebody of the same sex may not live as a homosexual, but they are still homosexual. The person may not be gay or an activist, but it is fundamentally as desire that homosexuality exists. Do you think that this train of thought is worthy of attention? Have you studied how desire comes to be, and how we are attracted to people?

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

Dr. Kroll: Well, first, if we knew what caused homosexual desire and attraction we would also know exactly what causes heterosexual desire and attraction. This is a very big area that's under study right now.

To answer your question, unfortunately sexual orientation, as I said in the presentation, is often denigrated to a sexual act, and this is incorrect because - that's how we define our stats. We say, "Okay, have you been sexually active with a person with the same sex in the last year?" because it's very easy to measure. The problem is that it's talking about an experience of being a human being with a particular attraction to the same or the opposite sex, and it's basing it on a behaviour.

.1335

Now, a person has a choice over what they do, over their behaviour. For example, there are many heterosexuals who remain celibate. There are many homosexuals who remain celibate. These are choices over their behaviour. The essence of who they are cannot be changed. Whether a person is heterosexual or homosexual cannot be changed per se. What they do with it can be changed.

However, as we talked about in the presentation, this has immense consequences.

You talked about when a person becomes aware. Oftentimes a sense of awareness that this person is different is present throughout life. When you get to know families who have a gay child, very good people, very salt-of-the-earth people, they'll say that they always knew little Johnny or little Sue was different, that they always had that sense about him or her.

This sort of fits what we're finding about sexual orientation now, that there's really quite an early awareness of being different, probably already by the age of three, for sure by the age of five.

As the child goes through school and experiences these repercussions from peers and the school system, not having any sense of safety, that child becomes more and more marginalized.

Whether that child has the supports in life to be able to counter these when they reach their teens, to be able to say, "Well, I'm going to have a heck of a time with this, but I can manage it", versus whether they say that they can't and either they're going to take a step backward and lead a straight life or they're just going to give up... This is all a matter of balancing the positive experiences that they have in life. Unfortunately, for many of these teens those positive experiences don't add up to much, because the essence of who they are is under criticism.

I hope this, in a way, answers your question about will.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I hope we'll get a copy of those slides, Mr. Chairman. I'm making a formal request.

[English]

Mrs. Hayes: I noticed the word "mutable" on one of the slides. I'm more used to the word "immutable". Are they the same? As you said, it is "mutable" on the slide, I believe. Is it changeable or is it not? Maybe you could tell me the difference between "immutable" and "mutable".

Dr. Kroll: I'd have to look on the exact slide, but I believe what it said is that none of us believe that sexual orientation is mutable. So it all depends on where you put the negative in the sentence.

The main point is that this quotation came from the 1995 American Psychiatric Association conference in Miami. There was a debate between Dr. Byne and other doctors, some of whom supported the biological aspects and some of whom supported the environmental aspects. This point was made because often we live in a very different world in the scientific world, because our studies are under scrutiny and if new ideas come up we have to examine those and we open those to change. It's part of the way science advances.

So Dr. Byne and his colleagues often may question each other on details of what's going on. One thing they agree on, though, whether it's very early environmental influences or it's genetic or it's both, is that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice.

To make that point, maybe I should say that the more recent information we have on sexual orientation is that what we're looking at is probably the tip of the iceberg. We're looking at one factor in the individual when in fact that individual's brain may have developed in a different way, which may enable them to think very broadly and to plan in a very creative way to be of assistance to our society. Yet what we see is only the sexual orientation issue.

In any case, it's firmly believed that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice and that, although sexual behaviour can be changed, the consequences are severe and the sense of one's self cannot be changed.

.1340

Mrs. Hayes: You did mention the American Academy of Pediatrics and that they now consider it malpractice to counsel someone to change their sexual orientation. You can clarify that, but the question there would be what if somebody actively...?

I believe there's actually an organization there that has broken away from that specifically so that they can address people who want to change their sexual orientation. Would it be illegal under the American Academy of Pediatrics to help someone who asked for that?

Dr. Kroll: There are strong recommendations by the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics that any attempt to change sexual orientation can be considered malpractice. This is how my profession has advanced.

Maybe it's because we're closer to the scientific literature. I see the fallout every day. I see the kids who come in and are struggling with this. When they first come in they say, I can't be gay, I must be straight. Please make me straight. They would like nothing more than to fit into this world. They don't want to be ostracized and rejected and not have a future. They want to be able to be part of society and to contribute.

I see the families who deal with the fallout of seeing their kid who blew their head off and who live with the lifelong guilt of not having been there and not even having known. This is not a fringe group we're dealing with; these are our children.

How likely we are to acknowledge the okayness of that child, whether in fact they are gay or straight, has profound impact on whether that child is going to be able to tell somebody like me as a dad, or like you as a mom, that they might be gay. Of course, if you're not open to that, they're not going to tell you.

In fact, the most recent study from Calgary is indicating that the more homophobic the environment - that is, the more rigid and condemning the family is of homosexuality - the less likely that child is to reveal their sexual orientation and the more likely they are to suicide.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): Thank you very much, Mrs. Hayes and Dr. Kroll.

Ms Augustine.

Ms Augustine: I want to say how much I appreciate your presentation and how impressed I am by the literature search and the over 300 references you've provided. I want to ask if you know of any studies that would refute the work you've been doing. Are there any studies that would go against the arguments you presented to us today?

Dr. Kroll: Certainly there are components in society, especially American society and the Oregon issue, where for example they talk about homosexuality fitting all these stereotypes. They distributed that to the public. I would hope we live in a society where we're a bit more on top of things, where we realize that these are falsehoods.

When it comes to the actual scientific literature, though, I'm not aware of any good studies that refute this. In fact, most of the studies that are presently coming out highlight these factors in an even more profound sense.

For example, I mentioned a couple of times a study from Calgary. A difficulty in studies is oftentimes that there are people involved and strangers are coming up and asking people about their sexual practices. This would be no different from my asking any one of you in this room about your sexual practices. Of course it's going to be difficult for you to reveal that. This study got around that by providing anonymity and a computer interface and linked mental health issues.

.1345

After they collected the data, the issue of sexual orientation was reviewed in, for example, comparison to depression and suicide attempts and so on. What they've discovered is that their findings were even much more profound than what I have presented here today. Youths who considered themselves to be gay but weren't self-accepting of it were extremely high on the depression scale; very many of these youths were as depressed as somebody who has lost their spouse within six months. That's the degree of depression we're talking about. The number of suicide attempters who were gay was about 60% and, from this study, the increased risk of attempted suicide among these youths looks to be 13.3 times higher than any heterosexual norm.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): Mrs. Finestone has a question.

Mrs. Finestone (Mount Royal): I must say that you had a very interesting presentation. I guess there are lots of questions I could ask, but there is one that is really fundamental, and that is the question of one's biological orientation from birth or from its recognized moment within oneself, meaning its coming through birth or immediately thereafter - or however you want to define that. Am I to understand that your identification of the 7 million Canadian families or the 2 million plus15 times that potential of people who are homosexuals in our society...are biologically so defined and determined? That was my first question.

Secondly, when two people enter into a love affair, and one of affection that's beyond just the sexual expression, do both parties come with that sexual orientation that you have been talking about or is one a learned approach?

You have given us this biological definition. I'm not quite sure what the implication of it is on the total aspect of that sector of our society that we believe deserves to be protected and not discriminated against like anyone else, to be seen as an equal in full partnership in our society.

Dr. Kroll: I'm not quite sure I understand the exact question.

Mrs. Finestone: You have given us all the biological reasons for why these people, from very early - either prenatal or post-birth - have a proclivity to or the internal mechanism that promotes their sexual orientation. Is that not accurate? Is that not what you've done?

Dr. Kroll: Yes.

Mrs. Finestone: Well, my questions flow from that. Are all people who live in same-sex relationships found to have this biological reason for that particular approach to life?

Dr. Kroll: There was a video put out by This Hour Has 22 Minutes in which this reporter says that when he was young, he just decided to give up all these things that meant something to people in society. He decided to become an element of a stigmatized group in society that everybody hated and despised. He decided to risk his family, his friends, and his job and everything else.

At some point I think we, as human beings, have to have the common sense to look at why on earth a person would risk all that to be able to experience something that is a positive experience to them. For example, I talked about some of the romances in history - Romeo and Juliet, or Anthony and Cleopatra. These are things that are very heart-felt and very strong. Just think back on your first crush. You know, you're head over heels -

Mrs. Finestone: It's a fond memory, but go ahead.

Dr. Kroll: You don't have to tell us about it, but just think back on it.

Mr. Ménard: I want the details.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Dr. Kroll: These are the types of experiences we're talking about - denying people the essence of access to these types of wonderful experiences in life, instead subjecting them to negative experiences. In other words, for anyone here who has ever been in love, that feeling is no different whether a person has a heterosexual orientation or a homosexual orientation. That's really what we're talking about.

.1350

Mrs. Finestone: That's not my question, sir. My question is whether or not that sense of love - the stars and the big smash that one feels - is the same thing in the case of a heterosexual versus a heterosexual, a homosexual versus a heterosexual, or a homosexual versus a homosexual in contact and meeting. Is it because you have this biological, internal structure that you would have that attachment, that sense of love towards another person? Does that other person have to have had that same biological inheritance that you've been talking about?

Dr. Kroll: Well, maybe we can -

Mrs. Finestone: I find it hard to put everything down to biology, but perhaps it's out of ignorance. That's why I'm interested in what you're saying.

Dr. Kroll: What I'm talking about is from the individual's perspective of another. For example, whether or not the object of one's affection is heterosexual or homosexual, when that person finds another attractive, the heart goes boom-boom, right? If you look in our fashion magazines and modelling magazines, a huge percentage of what we hold as stereotypes for heterosexual males are in fact homosexual, and women find them very attractive. That's a reflection of that woman being heterosexual. She's attracted to men.

When you're talking about a homosexual relationship, you're talking about one person being attracted to a person of the same gender for reasons that also go beyond gender. They are the same reasons why, for example, anyone here would find another person -

Mrs. Finestone: Do they need the gender base? That's what I'm talking about.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): I think that brings this particular part of our exercise to a close. I thank you very much for your presentation, Dr. Kroll, and I thank everyone for their questions. It's been quite illuminating.

I will now turn the chair back over to Mrs. Finestone, and I would ask the next witness, Gerald Vandezande, to come forward.

The Chair: Excuse me, Dr. Kroll, did you leave us several copies of your document?

Dr. Kroll: I gave copies to Mr. Cole, who is supposed to run off copies for everyone here.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Vandezande, after sitting here and monitoring us for some many hours, I'm sure you have had some enlightening experiences. I want to thank you for your extreme patience. Please go ahead.

Mr. Gerald Vandezande (National Public Affairs Director, Citizens for Public Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I admire both your patience in listening to all the arguments and your ability to process all that's been presented.

The Chair: Don't take that for granted.

Mr. Vandezande: I really found the last presentation extremely helpful and enlightening.

Citizens for Public Justice is an independent, national, non-partisan, ecumenical organization that is entirely financed by membership fees and donations. It works closely in co-operation with a variety of Christian churches and other faith communities on the development of public policies. We welcome this opportunity to appear before this committee and to present our public justice views.

.1355

At the outset, I want to say that in appearances such as today's, I try to put myself in your position or that of the minister responsible for developing a public policy position that needs to be put into law.

CPJ supports in principle the government's proposed amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act. This amendment will justly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against persons who are employed by the federal government or by federally regulated businesses.

However, we have some important questions regarding three issues.

First, there's the possible implications of this historic amendment and what it may do to the established definition of marriage.

Second, there's the impact it may have on spousal benefits.

Third, but not least, there's the need to extend equal benefits to people living in different relationships characterized by mutual commitment.

We raise this third issue in the context of the minister's April 23 press release in which he said that there is nothing in this bill that deals with the issue of benefits. Also, in the Department of Justice's backgrounder that was tabled with Bill C-33, there are repeated references, at least three, saying that this bill doesn't deal with these benefits. We want to address that.

CPJ is committed to the biblical principle of public justice for all people. We believe that all Canadians in all our communities should fully enjoy the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law as stipulated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Equal justice for all is at the heart of a democratic, pluralistic society that practises public respect for all citizens in all communities.

CPJ has constantly maintained that principled, non-discriminatory pluralism involves the public recognition that different people in different communities have different beliefs, values and views. Consequently, all people should have the legal right and freedom to live in different ways, no matter how deeply we may disagree on religious or ideological grounds with the different values or lifestyles of our neighbours.

CPJ has consistently advocated that public justice for all persons in all communities should be practised within a framework of Canadian law and public policy that equitably protects all and discriminates against none. All Canadians, including minorities, are entitled to legal equality, including structural opportunity and fair public treatment to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on irrelevant criteria, such as race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, or sexual orientation.

CPJ agrees that Canada's laws and policies should respect the human rights of all Canadians - none excluded - when it comes to the provision of goods, services, facilities, or accommodation, or when it comes to employment and related matters.

CPJ also agrees that the exceptions as described in section 15 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which protect the right of employers in certain cases to "discriminate" on the basis of a "bona fide occupational requirement", should be continued. For example, political and religious organizations should continue to have the legal right to set standards of employment and membership based on their respective commitments and visions of life to protect their own identity and integrity.

However, the government needs to do much more than protect gay and lesbian Canadians against discrimination when it comes to their employment rights and the provision of goods and services. The government must be proactive in the protection of human rights.

The legal rights and status of gay and lesbian partners who live in committed relationships and accept mutual responsibility for each other's well-being continue to be the focus of much public debate and several court actions, which are very costly. Parliament must address these citizens' claims to legal equality, including the regular pension, health, tax, and other benefits normally available to heterosexual couples.

The government gives certain financial benefits to heterosexual marriages because the government views these committed, long-term relationships that involve, among other things, cohabitation and socio-economic interdependence, as a socio-economic benefit to society. It is CPJ's position that other relationships that are similarly characterized by mutual commitment and socio-economic interdependence are justly entitled to equal legal treatment. All relationships, whether between gay or straight partners, friends or even relatives, should be entitled to the same pension, health, tax and other benefits as married couples, provided they enter into a public declaration of mutual commitment that is formerly registered with official authorities.

.1400

Therefore, CPJ advocates the introduction of appropriate legal definitions for different social relationships, each enjoying legal equality and fiscal equity in the context of well-defined rights and responsibilities.

We've suggested, for example, the establishment of a new legal category of relationship called "registered domestic partnerships", which would be accessible to heterosexual and homosexual couples alike and would be legally equivalent to marriage. In appendix A, we elaborate on this concept.

These legal definitions should publicly respect the unique character of diverse social relationships, such as "marriage", "domestic partnership" and "household". Parliament should foster mutual responsibility and public accountability when amending the Canadian Human Rights Act and other federal laws and policies that govern legal equality rights for all Canadians. The public recognition of these different social relationships should be accompanied by appropriate legal definitions outlining both the rights and the responsibilities, both the benefits and the burdens of the spouses and partners in a marriage, a registered domestic partnership or a household.

Accordingly, CPJ urges Parliament to do two things. First, it should immediately initiate in-depth studies with the cooperation of the provincial and territorial governments to determine which pension, health, tax and other rights and benefits are now available to married and common-law couples, families and others.

Second, it should conduct public hearings to determine which rights and benefits should be made available to married and common-law couples, families, domestic partners and others because of their mutual commitments and socio-economic interdependence.

These studies should be undertaken with a view to proposing possible public policy options that reflect Canada's commitment to human dignity, mutual respect, mutual responsibility, economic equity, social justice and fiscal fairness for all citizens and permanent residents. Justice means justice for all; it is not spelled "just us".

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. I wonder if you might perhaps share with us any information you have about the Swedish domestic partnerships. It seems to me that the minister mentioned domestic partnerships in the course of a few interventions and a couple of questions from our colleagues around the table, but I really can't remember exactly his remarks with respect to the problem in domestic relationships from the Canadian perspective. What was that?

Mr. Vandezande: I was not here when the minister made his presentation. I'm not fully familiar with the Swedish model.

Our concern is for the right and need for committed lesbian and gay couples to be publicly recognized and, in our view, that this ought to be dealt with equitably. Currently -

The Chair: Beyond the definition of "spouse"?

Mr. Vandezande: - the only way it can be done, it seems, is by asking the courts to expand the meaning of marriage, which is a well-established, historic relationship that has traditionally been defined in terms of a heterosexual relationship.

The issue in the courts has therefore been: how can we possibly bring under this umbrella of marriage the claims of a homosexual couple, a gay or lesbian couple? The courts have not been agreed on that.

Our suggestion is that in addition to the established marriage definition, there should be a registered domestic partnership definition, which for the purposes of law and public policy is equally accessible by both heterosexual and homosexual couples, and that also has attached to it the same rights and responsibilities and the same benefits and burdens, so that there is no discrimination of any kind, in law or in public policy, for the entitlements that people registered either under the definition of "marriage" or under the definition of a "registered domestic partnership" may have to certain privileges, rights, benefits, duties, obligations, and responsibilities under public policy. All people are treated the same, but you have a variety of categories.

.1405

The way I came to that conclusion was that we did a nationwide survey of our members, and consultations, and throughout those focus group meetings gay people were present, except for two sessions. The interesting thing we ran into is that a number of gay couples insisted on referring to each other as "husband and wife", and a number of heterosexual couples said "we don't want to refer to each other as `husband and wife', we want to be known as `partners"'.

Talking through with these and other people what might be the most equitable way to enshrine in public policy the equal entitlement to social and other benefits, we came to the conclusion that it might be beneficial to have another category that is equally available to both heterosexual and homosexual couples and that would entitle people to the same benefits, but they would have to accept the public responsibility to register their mutual commitment in the same way as you register a marriage, so the government or other agencies would have proof, so to speak, public evidence, that they had registered their partnership and they wanted to be mutually responsible for one another's well-being and therefore in law ought to be entitled to the benefits that accrue normally only to married couples.

I know in some European as well as American jurisdictions there are different forms of registered domestic partnerships. Let me put it first negatively. We do not favour the model where people simply move in and out. I've discussed that with some people in the gay community, and they don't either. There ought to be some formal act of commitment that we are known officially as partners. That could be done at city hall or wherever. In a positive way, in keeping with the spirit and the letter of the charter and the Human Rights Act, we favour equal treatment in law and public policy, so there is no discrimination in the provision not only of goods and services but also of benefits accruing under federal law.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I'd like to thank Mr. Vandezande for his very original presentation. I have some questions to ask him. If I've understood correctly, when he refers to the new concept of domestic partnership, he does see - at the same time - the need to settle the issue of discrimination separately. Is that right?

In other words, the suggestion you are making may be a solution when we consider the aspect of economic advantages that certain people want to benefit from. You agree, I think, that the issue of discrimination, which is the purpose of this bill, is different from the suggestion you're making. Have I understood your presentation correctly?

[English]

Mr. Vandezande: You're correct. We are unequivocally in favour of ending once and for all the discrimination against gays and lesbians because of their sexual orientation. So we support this amendment. But this amendment deals only with employment and the provision of goods and services.

I purposely came early this morning because I wanted to listen to the other presentations. The issue of benefits came up repeatedly. Justice Minister Rock, as well as the backgrounder and other materials that were released on the 29th, time and again state that the government doesn't intend to deal with the question of providing same-sex benefits, as the popular term goes.

.1410

I agree with one of the previous witnesses that benefits should not be made available on the basis of one's sexual relationship, but on the basis of a social commitment between two people. If you reduce everything to the sexual then you are in real difficulty formulating public policy in the long term, I think.

So in addition to the need to enshrine in law something that the courts have already said, that we ought to end the discrimination with respect to employment and provision of goods and services, you need to deal, whether we like it or not, with the reality that there are claims for equal treatment when it comes to provision of benefits.

There have been conflicting court decisions and there are conflicting views. One of the reasons there are conflicting results is that we allow people under certain statutes, such as the Old Age Security Act, to get benefits only if they are married, with the traditional definition attached. We're saying from a public policy point of view, wanting to do justice to the social realities that governments need to deal with and the different relationships that exist and need to be recognized, that government must amend those statutes and consider establishing an additional category for the purpose of establishing who is entitled to which benefits. If you simply allow the courts to make conflicting decisions, you will continue to have this social conflict.

We appeared before the committee in 1984 or 1985, when this whole issue began. We've had a debate now for 10 or 12 years that has not always been constructive and healthy. We're saying, in order to deal with that in the most responsible way possible, consider establishing an additional legal category or two more categories so that people who live in committed relationships, sexually committed or otherwise, are treated equally for tax and other social benefit purposes, without changing the definition of marriage.

We believe that from a public justice perspective, this is a responsible way of treating people equally, fairly, without appearing to favour any particular view or way of life. From our perspective, the law must acknowledge certain realities and must in that context recognize people's rights within those realities. Law is not there to promote or endorse a particular view or way of life. Law is there to deal with the possibility of enabling all citizens, regardless of religion or sexual orientation or whatever, to enjoy equal participation in a democratic, pluralistic society without having to abandon their views or values or faith perspective.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: That is good enough for me, but I'd like to continue, if you'll allow me to, Madam Chair.

The Chair was saying before that the Minister of Justice had already referred to this concept. I don't think he brought it up before this committee concerning this bill, but I believe he appeared, last year, before the committee on human rights. I don't know if some of my colleagues attended, but he referred specifically to this concept.

However, in the context of the bill before us, the minister wants to separate the issue of discrimination from the issue of economic rights granted to individuals. If we refer to economic rights, you're correct in saying that there are parliamentarians who are concerned, but that's the reality.

Commissioner Yalden also stated this. It's obvious that we'll have to deal with the matter of economic rights and settle it. I find your suggestion on this matter very interesting.

I'd like to come back to the bill before us and get your opinion concerning the preamble and the reference to the family. I don't know if your organization has already given its opinion on this.

.1415

Yesterday, the minister did not want to define the family. He explained for what reason he hadn't wanted to recognize that a homosexual couple with children is a family. He didn't say they weren't a family, but he didn't want to recognize it explicitly. So what is your conception of the family, and do you feel it useful for us to define it?

[English]

Mr. Vandezande: Thank you.

First of all, I have a counter-question the committee may want to consider. It isn't clear from Bill C-33 that the proposed preamble will become part of the preamble to the Canadian Human Rights Act. That's a question I have. If that is not the intent -

The Chair: No, it will not be. Judicial notice will be taken, but it will not be included in the bill.

Mr. Vandezande: Correct. Then my other question would be on its legal effect. Particularly if it doesn't become a preamble to the Canadian Human Rights Act, its legal effect might be very minimal, if at all.

Second, I listened to the discussion this morning. I don't think Parliament should try to define "family".

I have not consulted with our staff and board of directors.

Let me give you a personal example. Some people believe that my wife, Wyn, and I, who have two adopted children, do not constitute a family because our two children are adopted. That's just one illustration. There is a huge variety of views as to what constitutes a family.

The Chair: In other words, blood does not necessarily constitute a family.

Mr. Vandezande: Right. I think you get into all kinds of problems that way. Personally, I'm of the conviction, from a public justice point of view, that Parliament should deal with what it encounters and what is out there.

I have friends who live in a lesbian relationship, and one of the partners' children are part of that household. I consider it a family. Others don't. I have a friend who lives with another friend, both gay men, and one of the gay men's children lives with them. I also consider that a family.

Some of these people belong to our churches, and we warmly welcome and invite them, although there are some who have difficulty accepting these people. I deeply believe that God welcomes all, the church should invite all and the state should protect all. That's a core creed I have.

For public policy to, in a preamble, try to deal with all the forms of family, or then make an arbitrary or not-so-arbitrary decision that this is family and that isn't, isn't allowing for the kind of genuine flexibility that both policy-makers and courts need to have in order to evaluate how best justice can be done in a particular situation where you encounter these various relationships.

I know some church people might disagree with me, but for the record, I think we ought to keep in mind that historically there has been a great variety of family relationships, even in the Old Testament scriptures. At no point is there a definitive description of what a family is or ought to be. The heart of the Old Testament scriptures and the Christian gospel has always been to invite people to faithfulness and to accept responsibility for each other's well-being.

Coming back to your question about family, it's good to affirm it, but I'd rather see a commitment made in the preamble that we will do justice, practice fairness and demonstrate mutual responsibility and economic equity. That tells me much more than when you say "We affirm the importance of the family". I'd love to see our social programs do that.

The Chair: We've gone way beyond the time.

Sharon, do you have anything you want to ask?

Mrs. Hayes: Actually I missed most of the presentation, unfortunately, because I was caught outside the room.

I just have a comment on this last point, and perhaps I could come back later and reply to another question.

.1420

It is my understanding that "family" is defined in statutes such as the Income Tax Act. So I think for you to say "family" should not be defined by Parliament is putting your head in the sand. It is defined in statutes now.

Mr. Vandezande: Correct. I understand that. I was addressing myself to whether there should be a definition of what constitutes a family in this particular preamble.

I recognize Parliament has the right and sometimes the obligation to define for certain legislative purposes what constitutes a family, and I have no difficulty with that. But in the context of human rights legislation it's important not to get trapped - and I don't mean that in a negative way - caught, by a definition such that six months or six years down the road you say, oh, my goodness, why did we do that?

For example, in our denomination at one point adopted children could not be baptized. They changed their minds, but it took the grace of God to do it.

The Chair: Audrey.

Ms McLaughlin (Yukon): I have three questions on the domestic partnerships. I don't disagree at all. I think it gets around a lot of these other issues you've just talked about.

As you know, and this has been discussed in provincial legislatures around same-sex benefits, which, I might add, we have in the Yukon, so we are far advanced and trying to teach the rest of Canada to catch up -

Mr. Vandezande: Maybe you should have hearings in the Yukon.

Ms McLaughlin: One of the issues, and I just wondered how you would respond to this, because I suppose one of the criticisms is you have mentioned - I presume this would include common-law relationships -

Mr. Vandezande: If they wished.

Ms McLaughlin: - between men and women, if they wished... They'd somehow have to state it formally or sign something or whatever. One of the arguments against the issue, as you know, is, well, how far does this go? Is it an adult daughter living with her mother? How do you address that issue, that it just goes too broadly because they form a household, but is this a family, is this a domestic partnership? What kind of research have you done on that issue?

Mr. Vandezande: I personally favour three definitions. One is marriage; what is available now, under traditional law, to heterosexual couples only. Second is domestic partnership, which would be available to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Third is what I'd call a "household", with two friends, a mother and a son, two sisters, or whoever should decide to accept a shared responsibility for the household - share resources, share income, buy or rent a common dwelling - and where for a variety of purposes it is not a marriage, not a partnership, but a household. That way the law could make those distinctions and differentiate how you treat for certain benefit purposes whatever category you're dealing with.

I understand some of this is done in western Europe, particularly in the context of social policies. So you prevent this business of "spouse in the house" and all this stuff; people checking up whether you're living with someone. Well, if you want to be entitled to certain family benefits or marital benefits or partner benefits, then declare yourself to be such. Then you're entitled to it. But you can't eat the cake and have it too. You need to make up your mind: are you prepared to accept certain responsibilities and obligations in order to have certain rights and privileges and vice versa?

The Chair: Jean.

Ms Augustine: I'm not too sure what category you would put my question in, Madam Chairman.

As I look at your brief and listen to you, and as I have been participating in debates with my own colleagues and listening to the members of the Reform Party and others speak to the issue... I would like you to address yourself to the whole question of pushing beyond where it is politically wise to go at this point. We are trying now to move our colleagues along to an understanding of discrimination and what all of that entails and asking them to look at the issue from that perspective.

.1425

I think a lot of the discussion, a lot of the conflict or the polarization or whatever, comes from the fact that - and I think I used that expression last night, because I have heard it so often around here - the opening of the floodgates would let in all of those kinds of things and create in society something we're not yet ready for, despite the international agreements we've signed, UN, human rights, despite our charter, despite our codes, despite our other jurisdictions where we already have this on the books. Maybe when you begin to pull the discussion as per your recommendations, people like Sharon and others are not ready to come on side.

I am speaking as someone who's been involved in moving several issues forward. How do we say, okay, this is what we can get today, in May of 1996? Then how can we allow the tide of...whatever to move by and carry the discussion again to the old thing: he who fights and runs away lives to fight another day?

Do you get the drift of what I'm trying to ask?

The Chair: As with everything, timing is the question.

Mr. Vandezande: First, with respect to pushing beyond what is politically wise, what is politically wise? Politically wise, in my view, is to accept the kind of leadership responsibility that our nation deserves and is entitled to in order to help the citizenry and all the relationships and structures understand what makes for a quality way of life, for a genuine sense of community, for a social fabric that is really mutually respectful and mutually responsible and reinforcing the fundamental core values by which we want to live.

If you don't lead the discussion, then others will. So I think Parliament and the legislatures and especially the media... I don't think they've done a very good job on this issue at all, because they avoid the deeper and broader questions that must be addressed and tend to address them only in the context of conflict rather than dialogue.

That's why we think it would be important if a special committee of the House and the Senate, as it did around euthanasia, began to explore where Canadian public opinion is at.

But we need to do more than that. We also need creatively to explore alternatives that go beyond traditional categories and look at the reality in an open-hearted way and have the kinds of round tables that we had with the finance committee dealing with how we can deal with the deficit and the debt. How can we deal with these things away from a formal agenda?

On this business of opening the floodgates, you are opening the floodgates if you don't deal with it responsibly. By that I mean the following: if you don't give citizens a sense of participation, of ownership, of a right to influence and have input, then people begin to do things on their own and say, "Forget it; we'll do our own thing".

Plus, we must make people understand that because you change a law, in this case the Canadian Human Rights Act...

Assume for a moment, for the sake of discussion - although I'm not prepared to say this - that the protection of homosexual orientation is evil. If you don't deal with that openly, either within the churches or in the public, then you invite the kind of social conflict that really makes for - I hate to say it, but I have to - what one of the members of Parliament did the other day. I very much regretted that, because it reduced the level of debate.

I must say that I wasn't very impressed, either, when the government side exploited that.

I'm just using it as an example. We must not exploit each other's weaknesses in order to score partisan points, but we must ask how we can help each other discover a more meaningful future and life together, recognizing that there ought to be mutual respect. There are politicians at the community level...

.1430

Ms Augustine: But this is politics.

The Chair: Mr. Vandezande, Ms Augustine, and everyone else around this table, we could go on with almost every one of the people who have been good enough to appear before us and have exciting exchanges, but I'm afraid we're going to have to wrap this up.

Do you want to make a closing remark? We will leave it at that.

Mr. Vandezande: I'm glad you didn't put a time limit on it.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: I am putting a time limit on it. This gavel is going to drop in about two seconds. Go ahead, please.

Mr. Vandezande: I do hope that this committee will take this issue of benefits seriously. From what I heard this morning and from what I've read of what the minister has said to Canadians...three years ago, two years ago and a year ago he was looking at this question of socio-economic interdependence. You can no longer wait. You have to deal with it. You have to deal with it also in the context of the reform that is going on in social programs, in unemployment insurance, social assistance, etc. If you don't, it will come back to haunt you, you will be faced with having to make a very quick decision and then you will have people all riled up again.

I hope it won't have to take as long as the twelve years it took to have sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act, but if the time needs to be taken, let's use it to have an open-hearted dialogue, a candid discussion. Let's acknowledge certain differences, but let's find a way that deals fairly with the rights and responsibilities of all Canadians with public justice. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'll ask Dignity Canada, represented by Joseph Brabant, to please come forward. First, we'll allow Mr. Vandezande a few moments to leave the table.

From Dignity Canada we have Joseph Brabant, who is the national president, and from Integrity, Ronald Chaplin, a member.

Mr. Joseph Brabant (National President, Dignity Canada): Madam Chair, with your permission, Ronald will be first and I will follow with a brief comment.

The Chair: I just want to acknowledge that Ms McLaughlin is here. I'm very pleased to see you. I didn't introduce you before.

Please, go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Ron Chaplin (member of Integrity): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would like to thank you all for inviting me to appear before this committee today.

[English]

My name is Ron Chaplin and I am a member of Integrity, the association of gay and lesbian Anglicans. As such, there are two short messages I would like to share with this committee today.

First, many of the opponents of this legislation do so because they feel it is not a question of fundamental human rights, but a question of public morality. I am here to state that the Anglican Church of Canada understands the distinction between these two issues.

The Anglican Church of Canada is currently seized of a nationwide debate on the moral acceptability of homosexuality and the legitimacy of homosexual relationships. Traditional interpretations of the scriptures are being reviewed. Traditional doctrines of the church are being re-examined in the light of the new scientific understandings and the new understanding we have of the true nature of homosexuality.

All that said, the court is still out and none of the traditional teachings of the church on this issue have changed.

Nevertheless, I would like to read to you a portion of a statement of the House of Bishops. As a statement of the House of Bishops, it is an authoritative public declaration of the official teachings of the Anglican Church of Canada, and I quote as follows:

We believe as Christians that homosexual persons, as children of God, have a full and equal claim, with all other persons, upon the love, acceptance, concern and pastoral care of the Church. The Gospel of Jesus Christ compels Christians to guard against all forms of human injustice, and to affirm that all persons are brothers and sisters for whom Christ died. We affirm that homosexual persons are entitled to equal protection under the law with all other Canadian citizens.

.1435

This declaration was made in 1978, and we of the Anglican communion are pleased that18 years later this government has finally responded to our plea.

What we in the gay and lesbian community are seeking from the Government of Canada is no more and no less than an end to state-sponsored homophobia. I have experienced that state-sponsored homophobia in an intensely personal and visceral way.

I was shocked by testimony I heard before the Krever commission of inquiry into HIV-contaminated blood that during 1983 and 1984 the Government of Canada was actively suppressing safer sex information, and in particular safer sex information directed towards gay men. This material would routinely be seized at the border and destroyed. I was infected with HIV in 1984, and it is my firm conviction that had it not been for the Government of Canada carrying out these blatantly homophobic policies, I would not be living with AIDS today.

Thank you. Merci beaucoup.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chaplin.

Mr. Brabant: Good afternoon, Madam President and others. I am Joe Brabant, the national president of Dignity Canada, Dignité Canada. Dignity is a ministry of and by gay and lesbian Roman Catholics. This is a historic and prophetic time in our country's history, and I'm certainly glad I'm alive to be here to talk to you about it. I'm also honoured to be here in the presence of my friend, Ron Chaplin, my brother in faith, who has spoken so eloquently on the need for this legislation.

Because being gay and Catholic is considered an oxymoron by many people, especially the leadership of our church, I would like to just say a few words about Dignity to put this in perspective. Dignity as an organization was founded in 1969 in the wake of the Stonewall riots. The Stonewall riots represent the beginning of the modern-day period of what I guess you would call the gay and lesbian revolution that we are still undergoing.

A brief history of our spiritual community can be found in the pamphlet I've given to you. The pamphlet also outlines Dignity's areas of concern, which include our spiritual and pastoral ministry, our educational outreach ministry, and our social outreach ministry, which deals primarily with assisting people who are ill or impoverished. Two additional areas that are an integral part of our ministry are dealing with the church and society on issues dealing with women and the treatment of women in our society and the provision of fellowship within our own community.

On the last point, I think by now you may all be aware that when we deal with gay and lesbian issues, we're also dealing with a sense in our society, through history, of a patrimony, which in fact has left a very wounded culture. That is why Dignity, although it's primarily an organization of men, with 80% men and 20% women, has made an issue of dealing with feminist concerns in our organization.

Dignity is a federally incorporated organization. We have our national headquarters here in Ottawa. There are ten chapters of our organization spread from Vancouver to Halifax, and we have five additional chapters in formation, with probably one in your neighbourhood. They're in St. John's, Newfoundland; Hamilton, Windsor and Sudbury in Ontario; and Prince George, British Columbia.

In addition to our local and national ministries, we work with other gay and lesbian Roman Catholic spiritual groups in the United States, the British Commonwealth, Europe, and Africa. There's something about liberation that brings more than patriots out of the closet. We've seen that recently. I'm happy to announce that Dignity Canada is working with Dignity U.S.A., our sister in the United States, to assist in the organization of gay and lesbian Roman Catholics in Poland and most recently in South Africa.

As a ministry and as a faith community, we rejoice that this long-promised legislation you are considering has finally seen the light of day. For gay and lesbian Catholics, this legislation is not merely about two words being added to a document created by Parliament. It's a fundamental issue of justice, community respect, and human dignity. These are of course concerns to all people of faith, regardless of sexual orientation. All Canadians, regardless of birth condition, are called to do justice, and this bill reminds us of the ideal society, where all people are treated fairly.

.1440

We also see a better Canadian community on the horizon - or, as we like to say in our community, somewhere over the rainbow - a community where people are not condemned by ancient prejudices but are welcomed as equals to the Canadian family.

Most of all we see this as an opportunity for Canada to realize its great potential.

I note in the preamble to Bill C-33 an opening phrase, "whereas the Government of Canada affirms the dignity and worth of all individuals". Surely this is one of the greatest goals in this blessed democracy of ours. This also reminds me of a statement by Father John McNeill, a Jesuit and one of the founders of Dignity. He said:

Dignity is not something that we can give ourselves, but it is something with the help of God's spirit that we can give each other.

Years ago, as a young soldier, I had a chance to listen to Her Majesty, the Queen speaking to a group of new Canadians - people who had just received citizenship. It was in British Columbia, I believe. She reminded them that true liberty is only alive when all people are free. Indeed, if your neighbour is not free, then your freedom is incomplete.

We know we cannot build our happiness on the sorrow of others. I had to insert this in the record because it's an expression I grew up with from my grandmother, who always reminded me that we must be truly aware of that. The passage of this bill, which we hope will occur in days, will be a gift for all Canadians. By its very nature it proclaims that we have chosen to work for justice for all people. The world and Canada have come a long way since gay people were branded with pink triangles and forced to endure unspeakable hatred at the hands of their fellows and at the hands of their state.

We have a sacred covenant with these innocent souls, people who live even into our time, whose cries for justice have never been answered. The time to act is long overdue. How many more victims must there be?

This bill proclaims that neither ignorance nor hatred are Canadian values. My dear friends, in that most sacred of places, in our heart of hearts, we know what justice demands of us all.

God bless you, and thank you for allowing me to be here today.

The Chair: Thank you very much for that very moving presentation, one that certainly underscores the place of building our happiness for ourselves and justice in dignity and in rights. I understood what you said from your grandmother.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: I would like first to thank you for accepting to appear before our committee on the issue of this bill. Your presentation, as the chair emphasized, goes beyond the purpose of this bill, and the emotion felt during your presentations, Mr. Chaplin's as well as Mr. Brabant's, reminds us of the reality we must deal with beyond this bill. There are people who are affected by the decisions we are making and particularly by those we aren't making.

.1445

That is what I retain of your presentation. I'd like to add that the Official Opposition support, almost unanimously, the government's bill. We do because we share the goals of this bill and we are particularly aware of the terrible consequences for the men and women who have to live with this kind of discrimination or any other bias resulting from this type of situation.

I'd like to thank you once again for your presentation that reminded us of this sad truth.

I'll end by asking a rather pragmatic question. I think I understood that you opened a chapter in Montreal, and you enumerated cities where you intend to start up soon. Is your association established in rural Quebec?

[English]

Mr. Brabant: We are in the process of re-establishing a chapter in Sherbrooke. I might add that on our brochure we have Montreal listed; we also have two chapters in Montreal. The Canadian reality lives with us in our community. We have Dignité Montréal and Dignity Montreal, which are joint chapters unified by language.

We also have political recognition of how our organization is structured. We have two regions in our national organization: the western region, everything west of Kenora, and the eastern region. The western region functions totally as autonomous chapters reporting only to our headquarters. However, in the eastern region we insist on bilingual coordination and we have a coordinator who is bilingual for the eastern region.

One of the first chapters of Dignity in Canada, and indeed in the United States, was established in Montreal. It is still one of our strongest and most devoted chapters.

[Translation]

Mr. Chaplin: I'd like to thank all the Bloc Québécois members for supporting this bill.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. McClelland.

Mr. McClelland: This may be one of the questions I will wish I had never asked, but I'll try to do so in as careful a manner as I can. If you choose not to respond, I will appreciate and understand that.

Members of the committee received a communication from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops recently, and I was struck by the irony that it's well documented and well known that the Catholic clergy has had, to say the least, a rather chequered recent history. It seemed to me that part of it may be a denial within the organization of the reality that exists within the land. Do you think this legislation will sway the pope?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. McClelland: I understand the gravity of the question, but it speaks to the irony involved in a situation where... It's always better to deal with things in the sunshine than to pretend that a situation does not exist. That's the context of my comments. I mean them in a dignified and constructive manner.

The Chair: It's only fair to say that we've had some very sensitive and very thoughtful questions from you, sir. This is equally sensitive and thoughtful and I thank you for it.

Mr. Brabant: I'd be willing to answer it.

The Chair: Please do.

Mr. Brabant: Being a Catholic is more like being a Jew than it is like being another faith. It is a culture.

The Chair: We'll have a discussion about that later.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Brabant: What can I say? But I sincerely feel that. Of course you know that we now have a Jewish gay synagogue in Ottawa as well.

.1450

However, the issue of the papacy is what you're addressing, and it has to do with the structure of our church. I spent 33 years in the armed forces, retiring just last year - honourably, I might add - and I've come to recognize the wonder of the Catholic Church and how it is structured. It has survived for eons because it has this tremendous Roman structure, which it inherited from the empire.

However, probably the most unknown feature of Catholicism is something called freedom of conscience, which every Catholic has. It is that ultimately, when faced with a question, whether it be of morality or law, you must listen to God within yourself.

We have had popes come and go. We've had legislation that has changed. The history of the Catholic Church is really one of change. It's very nice for clerical leaders to stand up and say, "This is the way it is; this is what God wants, and this is the way it's always been", but nothing could be further from the truth. Just take one year and study Catholic theology or Catholic history, and you'll find that what we have today is nothing like what we had at the beginning of our faith. There is an evolution. There is always change.

I can give you two examples.

Usury was once one of the most sinful things that a Catholic could do. It is now the basis of our economic system in Canada, and the church that fought usury is perhaps one of the largest landowners and property owners. We have an expression in the church, "To have more money than God is to talk about the Vatican". However, that is a change.

Since we mentioned the issue of Jews, in our history we are called to be Semites by John 23rd, a pope who was of unusual charity and quality. He reminded us of our roots. He also reminded us of what we have done as a church to other people. Ghettoization is a concept that was forced on innocent people by the church, but today no one in their right mind would say or even claim some responsibility for that.

The church changes.

Will the church change? Yes, it will. A hundred and twenty years ago, the word "homosexuality" did not exist. It somehow crept into the Bible.

Let me give you an example that we were involved in. About two years ago the American bishops decided to publish a new Bible. Some people think there is a Bible, but there are thousands of Bibles and everyone gets a crack at it in one way or another. The American bishops decided that using the word "homosexual" in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was somehow not appropriate. It wasn't getting the message across. So they said "practising homosexuals". These were eventually listed as being among the people who wouldn't go to heaven.

Dignity, our sister organization in the United States, brought some theologians together and said, "Look at this issue and then go to the church". When they looked at the facts - and they went to the bishops in the United States - they said that there is no basis for making this qualitative change in something that goes back to scripture.

The story of Sodom was not about sexual orientation to begin with - it was about inhospitality - and to add "practising homosexual" to a phrase when it wasn't there before was bizarre.

It's interesting to note that when that was pointed out to the bishops in the United States, they decided to strike that. So our little organization, a couple of thousand of us, was able to rewrite the Bible in the United States. This gives you an indication...

Unfortunately, it took a while in some other places, but it is swinging over.

Ms McLaughlin: I really enjoyed your presentation. Unfortunately, I think you've just destroyed all the wonderful jokes about guilt that my Catholic friends have, but my question is a little bit more serious.

Representing an ecumenical group, would you consider this legislation to be a moral issue or a human rights issue?

Mr. Brabant: It's strictly a human rights issue. Throughout our history, Dignity has never seen things of this nature as being a question of morality. The reason is that we know in our heart of hearts what is right and what is wrong.

With all due respect to this Parliament sitting here in Canada, you are not going to create truth or untruth. Gay people are free in their hearts. They were born that way. They are gifted by God with their sexuality, as we all are.

It's not a question of legislation. All we ask is that the legislators remove some of the inequities in our society so we can all be what we are called to be.

.1455

I spent 33 years in the Canadian Armed Forces. I know what it is to be a straight person. I would ask any straight person in the audience just to try to live as a gay person for one year and see what could happen.

The Chair: Having heard from the armed forces during the course of another part of our non-discrimination life, I can understand what you mean.

Mr. Chaplin: I'll just add that indeed the purpose of my presentation was that the Anglican Church of Canada understands that this is a human rights issue and not an issue of public morality.

The Chair: Any questions from this side of the table?

Mr. MacLellan: I just wanted to say how much I appreciate these gentlemen coming and appearing as witnesses. I've known Mr. Chaplin for some time, and I think to hear his testimony and his presentation today is tremendously important.

I want to ask these gentlemen, either one or both, about the support they're getting from the church. As we know, both the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church are changing the philosophy and the dogma. Sometimes it's like trying to turn around the cruise ship Queen Mary. It takes a while.

I think you mentioned, Mr. Chaplin, that it's taking a while to do that.

What support are you getting from the churches for your and other gays and lesbians? I think you indicated it's improving, but is it improving fast enough? Is it really getting to the problem that people are having in getting the comfort and friendship they need from the church? I'd appreciate any comments either of you may have on that.

Mr. Chaplin: I like to describe myself as someone who's been an openly queer Christian for over seventeen years, and as part of that process I have become something of a queer Christian guerrilla. I often find myself in fora where I am not particularly welcome, saying things people do not particularly want to hear and addressing issues people generally don't want to hear about.

I'll make mention of my continuing guerrilla tactics. My previous religious background was all with the United Church of Canada. In fact, I was a member of the Bloor Street United Church in Toronto, which is the congregation that brought the issue about the ordination of openly gay clergy to a head within the United Church, and we succeeded. People who know that background ask me what I'm doing in the Anglican Church today. I said, well, they haven't done it yet.

I am enormously pleased with the process now taking place within the Anglican church of Canada. It is a painful and heart-wrenching process, and it is going on from parish to parish, from diocese to diocese. The entire church is involved in this discussion and this dialogue. It is painfully slow for those of us in the gay and lesbian community.

By the same tactic, I have nothing but words of encouragement from my bishop to continue my efforts to change people's hearts within this diocese.

Mr. Brabant: Perhaps I could put something in perspective. I was asked by a reporter two days ago about Catholics agreeing and disagreeing on this issue. I simply pointed out to her that if you took all the Catholics who agree with the pope on everything, you could not fill this room.

But that is the wonder of our church. "Catholic" means we are universal and we have a wide range of views.

On your specific question, Dignity was founded by a priest. We have clergy in our membership. In addition, the Catholic Church has something it doesn't like to talk about, but I'm going to blow it right now. They have something called a "secret ministry", which everybody knows about. That is where the Catholic Church says, we can't help you, but Father So-and-So can, and Sister So-and-So can, and we'll do what we can; the bishop will come to talk to your group, but don't tell anybody. This happens regularly. In Ottawa, for example, we have half a dozen Catholic clergy who are assisting us, and we have that through Canada.

So we have plenty of clergy helping us. That's not the problem.

What you see on TV is not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the hearts and souls of people throughout this country, not unlike yourselves.

.1500

The Chair: Thank you very much. It's been a very enlightening exchange. I wish you both good health and good fortune in your undertakings. Thank you.

Next is Judith Wiley from the YWCA of Canada. Do you have some opening remarks to make, an opening statement or anything?

Ms Judith Wiley (Executive Officer, YWCA Canada): Yes, I do.

The Chair: Thank you. Please go ahead.

Ms Wiley: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity today to speak to you in support of this bill to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the act. I don't have a written formal brief but I would be happy to give you a copy of my notes.

If you are wondering what the YWCA of Canada could possibly have to say on this subject, it may be that you are unaware that our mission statement is in fact a voice of equality, a strong voice for women. As an organization that is often described as a "mainstream" and credible women's organization, we felt it was important to publicly state our support for this bill.

We have been at work across Canada for over 100 years, promoting equality for women and promoting the improved status of life for women and their families through a variety of means at the grassroots level. We have 45 member associations, which work in over 200 communities on advocacy and education issues, offering child care, housing, shelter and other forms of residence, employment training, and health and wellness programs, to name just a few.

For the YWCA, this is clearly and only an issue of human rights, and one that we may add is long overdue. The YWCA has lent its voice in support of this amendment since at least 1985, when the subcommittee made the first recommendation. We give credit to the government for taking a lead at this time in bringing it forward, and we thank all the members who have supported this amendment.

In our work to eliminate sexism and racism, we understand that there is very clearly a need to name the kinds of oppression that continue to happen and that there is very clearly a need to name and list the kinds of oppression that must not happen. Until our society substantially changes the way we live together and until the way that prevailing assumptions about who has power and who has access to resources change, then we have no option except to have this list of oppressions that are to be banned in our Human Rights Act.

That is basically our message to this committee. It's a message in support of the amendment, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Wiley. I think the YWCA has been in the forefront of equality measures in many ways and has enabled many women to refocus and rebuild their lives, and I'm really pleased that you came.

.1505

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Ménard: I won't take up the committee's time because I think your presentation was clear. There is a YMCA in my district, on Hochelaga Street near Aird, which provides sports services, of course. There is a pool where I go myself from time to time, courses for my fellow citizens, as well as a program to help prisoners, a community work program. I know that when you talk about quality in rehabilitation, it's because you have yourself, within your structures, worked to provide services to people who, at one point or another, have had problems in life or reversals of fortune.

Would you be available in a few weeks? We're all working together hand in hand and this is obviously very hypothetical. If we had before us, in a few weeks, a bill to recognize same sex spouses, would you want to be heard again? Would you want to support such an act, given that what we are discussing today is putting an end to discriminatory practices that you are asking us to name, because you tell us that you can't end pressure if you can't state things clearly? This is the case for some of us, not everyone. You understand that this isn't an opinion shared by all around the table.

But inevitably, in a few years or months, we'll have to take the next step which is recognizing homosexuals in their relationships. Of course, I mean recognizing same sex spouses. If that were to occur, would we have the pleasure of hearing such supportive and comforting statements from you?

[English]

Ms Wiley: You possibly would. At this point it is my understanding that this bill does not deal with the issues you have raised and could not deal with those issues. At such time as there would be some other type of legislation to deal with justice issues, which is what I see your question being related to, I think the YWCA would in fact speak in favour of that.

Again, when I refer to our work on sexism and when I refer to our work on racism, we are talking about the sharing of resources and all people having equal access to the resources of a society. We are talking about oppression and exclusion. So my sense is that if there were some appropriate type of legislation to look at that, we would be in support of it.

The YWCA of Canada does offer same-sex benefits to its employees, and many of our member associations across the country, if not all, offer family support and family assistance to a very broad definition of family members.

I'm also glad to hear that you support the YWCA and enjoy the programs.

The Chair: He has one in his area and there are several others around the city.

Ms Wiley: I would be surprised if everyone didn't have one in their area.

The Chair: Mr. McClelland.

Mr. McClelland: My comments will only be to thank you for your testimony here today.

The Chair: It would seem, Madam, that your Y is internationally renowned for its role in equality and fairness. We appreciate your coming to lend your support to this legislation. Thank you.

Ms Wiley: Thank you very much for having me, and good luck.

.1510

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we have the pleasure of calling B'nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress.

The Canadian Human Rights Campaign is coming at 7:30 tonight. They've called and asked to come later.

[Translation]

Are you okay?

Mr. Ménard: Calm down. I think you're a bit nervous.

The Chair: I never feel nervous before them.

[English]

Would you be good enough to present yourselves? I understand you have complementary presentations.

Mr. Eric Vernon (Director, Law and Social Action Committee, Canadian Jewish Congress): That's correct. Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Eric Vernon and I am the director of the Ottawa advocacy office of the Canadian Jewish Congress, the representative organizational voice of the Jewish community of Canada, some 360,000 strong. It is with pride that I note the long-standing involvement of the honourable chairperson of this committee in my organization's activities.

Because this still is on the fast track, really the Bullet train or the Très Grande Vitesse, our senior leadership is unable to join me today, but on behalf of Canadian Jewish Congress President Goldie Hershon, I thank you for inviting us to speak before the committee today in support of Bill C-33.

From our perspective there is an upside to fast-tracking this bill: it will become the law of the land without further undue delay. This amendment has been long in coming, and we commend the government for honouring its commitment to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I wish to say at the outset that I am not here today to talk about pensions, benefits or marriages. I am here today to talk about provisions for full civil equality, statutory protection for basic human rights and the willingness of a strong and humane society to salve the pain and anguish of discrimination based on minority identity.

Unfortunately Jews have considerable experience in these areas, both in the long historical picture and in modern Canada. It was just a generation or so ago that nobody would hire a recently graduated lawyer named Bora Laskin because he was a Jew.

Considerable progress has been achieved in breaking down some of these systemic barriers in Canadian society, although we must always be vigilant to counter the corrosive effects of discrimination and intolerance. In a very real sense, the quality of the society our children will inherit tomorrow will depend on our determination and political will today to build a Canada based on compassion and diversity.

Much has happened in the intervening years since the Canadian Human Rights Act took effect in 1978, not the least of which was the establishment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our interpretation of human rights concepts has evolved considerably, and of course several of the provinces and territories have included sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination in their human rights statutes.

The parliamentary committee on equality rights recommended such an amendment to the federal act in its report, Equality for All, tabled in 1985. As we all know, in the interim the courts have taken the lead in setting policy in this important area.

In considering these issues, people sometimes ask why a list of proscribed grounds is necessary at all, and further, why sexual orientation and not, say, left-handedness or height should be included. I would suggest that the list enumerated in clauses 2 and 3 of the revised CHRA as proposed in Bill C-33 is necessary and accurate precisely because it precludes the inclusion of capricious or frivolous claims and enumerates the vulnerable minority groups that have historically suffered discrimination in a variety of ways, including the specific areas within the ambit of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The record shows, I believe, that sexual orientation meets these criteria.

It was in 1992 that the Canadian Jewish Congress first established its policy in support of an amendment to the CHRA to proscribe discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. At each stage of the process to adopt this position, the discussion focused on the critical context of the issue, in keeping with the aim of the Canadian Human Rights Act to promote equality of opportunity for all Canadians.

It was understood that the proposed amendment had nothing to do with the advocacy of a particular sexual orientation and everything to do with affirmation of statutory protection for the rights of persons not to be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. As such, it was recognized that a person's sexual orientation should not be considered a factor in the ability to do a job or to have access to services available to others.

.1515

Canadians are currently engaged in yet another round of self-scrutiny to determine the nature of our society and the values that bind us as a nation. Few would disagree, I hope, that an enduring principle of Canadian life is the notion of equality and the right of full participation in society for all Canadians.

While we recognize that governments cannot and should not legislate attitudes, they can and should regulate discriminatory behaviour. The statutory protection and legal remedies afforded by the Canadian Human Rights Act are critical tools in this struggle against discrimination, and it is time for the Parliament of Canada to exercise its rightful jurisdiction and move expeditiously to include sexual orientation on the list of the act's proscribed grounds.

The Canadian Jewish Congress supports Bill C-33. It is the right thing to do, and we recommend its swift passage into the law of Canada.

Thank you. Merci. After Mr. Friedman speaks, I would be pleased to answer any questions dealing with the issues that I have discussed.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Vernon.

Mr. Friedman, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Rubin Friedman (Government Relations Director, B'Nai Brith Canada): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm speaking to you on behalf of the B'Nai Brith Canada, an organization established in Canada for 125 years which has always fought for human rights.

[English]

B'Nai Brith Canada has, for a number of years now, been calling for amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act that would recognize and deal with the basic human rights of all Canadians and would ensure that all Canadians, including gays and lesbians, have equal access in areas such as employment and housing. On behalf of B'Nai Brith Canada, its president, Brian Morris, and executive vice-president, Frank Dimant, I'm here to express strong support for the swift passage of Bill C-33.

Mr. Vernon has described some of the historical issues that Jews have faced in the past. In terms of the attitudes of people and in terms of some of the anti-Semitic incidents, we know that remnants of what existed in the past are still around today. The annual audit of anti-Semitic incidents in 1995 showed an increase of 12.1% over the incidents that were recorded in 1994. Recent events show that Jews across Canada have to be concerned about their security in a way that was unthinkable even fifteen or twenty years ago. Jewish community centres and synagogues now have constant security concerns in a way that they never did in the past.

All this is to say that B'Nai Brith, its members, and the Canadian Jewish community are very familiar with the notion of discrimination and the feeling of being under attack - the feeling that one cannot openly express who one is in a public place. We therefore would like to call upon the government to continue to meet its commitments and to pass swiftly into law the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

We realize that the courts have been taking the lead in reading sexual orientation into many areas of the law. And indeed, as Mr. Vernon has mentioned, several provinces have included sexual orientation as prohibited grounds for discrimination. Nevertheless, we think it is crucial for the Parliament of Canada to set national standards and to indicate what Canadians as a whole see as important in the protection of the rights of all minorities in the country.

I thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

[Translation]

I would be pleased to answer all your questions at the end of my presentation. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

.1520

[English]

I have a question. The police chief for the city of Ottawa was here and we were discussing the question of lists, numbers, and the extent of the identifiable groups. While he was talking I thought to myself that B'nai Brith is able to identify and audit anti-Semitic incidents, yet the police are not able to identify or audit the incidents related to homophobia. And yet protection for all minorities is inherent in a civic and democratic society. It's probably one of the litmus tests.

I'm glad you raised the question of Calgary because terrorism and fundamentalism, just like anti-Semitism and all forms of hate, really have no place or no home here in Canada, and anything we can do to ensure the safety and security of our citizens by right, I think, in the sense of non-discrimination, is vital.

Is it possible there could be an audit procedure so we are more familiar with the incidents that we have to be concerned about?

Mr. Friedman: Both the Canadian Jewish Congress and the B'Nai Brith League for Human Rights are participating in a working group to set up a national network to promote standardization on the reporting and monitoring of all hate crimes.

Actually, I'm surprised there wasn't information in Ottawa. I believe there are some statistics for the Ottawa-Carleton region that relate to the criterion of religion, the criterion of sexual orientation and the criterion of race or colour. I have seen some such statistics. According to the statistics I've seen, the leading groups or the leading incidents reported were, in order, against blacks, against gays and lesbians, and against Jews.

The Chair: Yes. I don't want to misinform you. That was definitely brought to our attention and I didn't ask the question at that time. I wondered if there was a way of quantifying. He seemed to indicate that there was a lack of ability... Maybe I misunderstood, but the quantification of saying...not that it's important, one is just as bad as a hundred, as far as I'm concerned.

Mr. Friedman: I think it's the issue of standardization across the country to ensure that the same methodologies are used. Unless you do that, it becomes hard to compare statistics.

Mr. Vernon: I just want to add a couple of points. Part of the problem is a matter of self-identification. I think that gay-bashing is likely under-reported simply because of the stigma attached to sexual orientation, unfortunately. I think that factor makes it even more complex.

But I think it's also worth pointing out that the government did the right thing by including sexual orientation in Bill C-41. This particular section of the bill dealt with enhanced sentences for hate crimes and included crimes against people that are based on sexual orientation. So now that's part of the law and part of the sentencing regime, and we're hoping that crown attorneys and judges will take that under consideration.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard or Mr. Bernier?

Mr. Ménard: It will be me, Madam Chair, because your friends are my friends.

I'd like to welcome you. I notice that your presentation is in the same vein as those we heard this morning. It's great to see that you ask us, not only to support this bill, but also to be careful and prompt in passing it.

Concerning its passage, two questions are continually asked of this committee. Since the courts have interpreted it, the Canadian Human Rights Act is unconstitutional, and this since the Haig and Birch decision of 1992. It should read as if we'd already included sexual orientation.

All of this, of course, is related to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights, which calls for equal treatment for all. The charter has been in effect since 1985, following work that the chair of this committee was very much involved in and of which she is quite proud, politically.

.1525

The two questions we must ask of this committee are the following: do we believe that, in the preamble, the definition... The preamble is not an operating provision of the bill. It is an interpretative clause which, as you know, the courts will probably have to rule on, as with any section open to interpretation. In this respect, do you think that, in the preamble, there should be a more explicit definition of family? If that's the case, does your association have a definition to suggest to the committee?

Here's the point of my second question. We around this table understand that the step we are taking now is to put an end to discriminatory practices based on sexual orientation. Of course, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has received complaints concerning discrimination based on sexual orientation over the last ten years, and has even set up tribunals to deal with them.

And it has happened that one or another of the tribunals in this country has granted, in an isolated and fragmented ruling, benefits to same sex spouses.

In actual facts, the government hasn't completely recognized the notion of same sex spouses and be aware that the bill that I tabled was defeated.

So my second question for you is the following: are you asking us, in the more or less near future - which we don't have to specify here - , in the weight of our works, to legislate and pressure this government so that it will eventually recognize same sex spouses?

Mr. Friedman: For my part, I think that what is important in the preamble and the act is to set standards, even if the courts and tribunals have already, up to a certain point, included sexual orientation amongst unacceptable grounds for discrimination.

As for the principles you set out concerning the definition of family, I must admit that we didn't really look at them. So I don't have any suggestions to make at this point. With a view to the future, I think those questions should be examined for all to understand exactly what the implications of the legislations you're going to be changing today - not today but...

Mr. Ménard: ...in days to come.

Mr. Friedman: ...in a very near future, let us hope, as well as in all other areas not just those of employment and lodging.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Eric, do you want to add anything to that analysis of place and role of the preambular statement?

Mr. Vernon: I have just one quick point, Madam Chair. I think there may be some utility to leaving the term "family" vague at this particular stage. It may allow for wider interpretation. It may be a more inclusive term than if we try to pinpoint precisely what we mean by it at this particular time in the legislative discussions.

With respect to a definition of family that we may have or a particular position with respect to same-sex couples, these are issues that are very complex, of course, and we are struggling with them. At this point, we don't have a particular position that I could articulate to you, but we are always looking at them as they evolve in the public forum.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. McClelland.

Mr. McClelland: Thank you very much for your testimony. I have two questions and I'll try to pose the short one first.

I take it from your testimony that as far as you are concerned, this legislation deals exclusively with discrimination issues. It doesn't enter into any employment equity or recognition issues beyond that. If it did, would your approach to this be similar? Now I speak for the people who feel threatened and say that one of the reasons they object to it is that they feel threatened that it will inevitably lead to this.

Mr. Friedman: I'd like to answer that question with a comment Mr. Ringma might have made at some point.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

.1530

Mr. Friedman: You're asking a hypothetical question.

Coming back to your first point, I think it's important to stress that whenever you get into the area of things such as employment equity, you have to have some kind of statistics to demonstrate that this group has been disadvantaged with respect to the thing you're examining. Now, given the fact that many people have hidden their sexual orientation and may actually have risen quite high, it's going to be hard to demonstrate that people have been disadvantaged on those grounds. It's going to be hard to do.

Mr. Vernon: I would just add that once we accept the initial premise you propose, that this bill does deal strictly with discrimination, the rest of the question becomes moot.

Mr. McClelland: The more difficult question pertains to considerations Bernie Farber raised a couple of weeks ago. The program hosted by Elwy Yost, Saturday Night at the Movies, had a retrospective on discrimination and prejudice. In my view it was really first-rate. It was tremendous. The first movie shown I believe had the title Crossfire. It was produced in 1946. It was about homosexuals, but you couldn't use the word at that time, so they made it anti-Semitism.

In the course of the conversation Bernie Farber linked the necessity of linking the fight against discrimination to sexual orientation - and I hope I'm getting this right; forgive me if I don't - to anti-Semitism and denial, and Holocaust denial specifically, which is perhaps the biggest threat to our society today: the denial of what is historical, or the reinvention of history and the rewriting of history in a laundered fashion so as to make it palatable. I felt those were very worthwhile and insightful comments, because I truly feel people who are prejudiced and who discriminate will find a reason to be prejudiced or to discriminate against anyone. They'll pick a target. Historically, I appreciate that minorities are targets.

For the record, would you expand on that? I hope I haven't paraphrased Bernie Farber incorrectly.

Mr. Vernon: Mr. McClelland, as Bernie's colleague, I can attest to the fact that he's done extensive and very important work on these issues.

I would make two points. First, it's worth remembering in tying in the Holocaust with these issues that those wearing the yellow star in the camps were in the camps with people wearing the pink triangle.

We know that discrimination sometimes starts at a small level. But as Bernie often says, there is a line of discrimination, and we know the line ends with Auschwitz. Where you get on the line is what matters, and where you try to break that chain of events.

Racism, to use another metaphor, is an ugly weed, and it sprouts in many different forms. I think it's important that we understand that any vulnerable minority threatens all of Canadian society. That is one of the reasons why we're particularly supportive of this amendment: because we understand the pain and anguish that go along with the suffering of discrimination by a minority group.

Mr. Friedman: I just want to add one quick comment. I didn't see the show, but I wouldn't myself make a direct connection between the Holocaust and what we're dealing with here today. I do, however, accept very strongly the notion that once you start discriminating against one minority, it's inevitable that others will get thrown into the hopper. Stephen Scheinberg, former national chair of the League for Human Rights and current vice-president of B'Nai Brith, has said that in the United States right now gays and lesbians are like the canaries in the coal mines because they're the most vulnerable group. That's where people start, so you have to watch how they're being treated.

.1535

Matt McKay was arrested in Winnipeg for the 1991 alleged beating murder of a 48-year-old man on the basis that he was thought to be gay. Matt McKay is the same individual you see on the tapes in the Somalia inquiry saying, "Ain't killed us enough of them niggers yet". He is also wearing on his chest a tattoo of the Celtic cross, which is a symbol of white supremacy and anti-Semitism in many of the white racist groups. So there is an obvious multiplication of groups once you get started down that road.

The Chair: Ms Augustine.

Ms Augustine: There is still a question that I've been asking in several different ways because I think it's the crux of the decision we have to make when we get this back into the House and have to stand up to vote. By increasing awareness, public information, acceptance of sexual orientation, are we conflicting with traditional Jewish religious beliefs?

Mr. Ménard: Good question.

Mr. Friedman: We agreed on the same answer.

The Chair: You should have asked me that, Jean. I would have given you the answer.

Mr. Vernon: I think the same answer I gave to Mr. Ménard applies here. We're talking about very complex issues and they don't avail themselves of easy answers. We are not rabbinic scholars. I think it would be best to put that question to somebody who has a deeper knowledge of the issues.

Mr. Friedman: To add the obvious observation, there is a wide range of views on this issue among people who call themselves Jews. It would be very difficult for us to give one position on it because there isn't one.

Ms Augustine: This brings me back to the problem that faces us as we discuss this. There are those of us who see it purely along the lines of justice and discrimination, and those who see a whole series of other moral issues involved and base their position on what they consider to be religious and moral beliefs. This is where the discussion is, and it's going back and forth like ping-pong.

Mr. Vernon: Ms Augustine, I would echo the comments made earlier in response to a question Ms McLaughlin raised, which is that we regard this strictly as a human rights issue. We prefer to focus on the particular aspect of it dealing with discrimination. That's a short answer.

Mr. Friedman: That's seconded.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Robinson: Madam Chair, I apologize for being late. I came directly from the House and very much appreciate being able to catch at least the tail-end of your evidence.

I also wish to say, and I trust that others have said this, that both the congress and B'Nai Brith have been on the front lines of this struggle for many, many years. I recall working with my colleague and friend Sheila Finestone back in 1985 as a member of the equality rights committee. I knowMr. Vernon is a veteran of these struggles. I don't personally know Mr. Friedman, but I know that he was -

.1540

The Chair: He was behind the scenes and working with Heritage Canada.

Mr. Robinson: I just wanted to say how much I value the consistent and longstanding leadership of both B'Nai Brith and the congress on this issue.

I have two questions. If they've been asked, just tell me and I'll read the record.

The first question is with respect to the issue of the commonality of discrimination. Frankly, I agree that this equation of the Holocaust is one by which I personally am troubled. I don't think that's appropriate.

Certainly when I look at some of the arguments used in this area... I look at how children are used. Children are the most vulnerable and precious people in our communities.

For a long time, anti-Semites have suggested that Jews will convert our children. They say they'll take their children away and convert them or that gypsies would abduct their children. Of course, gay people would seduce their children. Children have been used in that very powerful way.

People are making links with pedophilia. Just today, again, unbelievably, another Reform Party member of Parliament, Dave Chatters, is suggesting that somehow gay people shouldn't be allowed around young people in schools. Every single member of that party voted against this amendment, including Mr. McClelland, and some of them are making those links. Some Liberal MPs are making the same links. When we say "shame", that shame applies right across the board.

I wanted to ask if you wanted to comment on the importance of naming those who must be protected by human rights legislation. Again, this may have been asked. That's the argument made by Mr. McClelland and some others. They say we don't have to have names or categories; let's just say we don't want any discrimination. They say that's the way to approach this.

Given those who have historically been victims of discrimination - I remind you that those three categories of people all ended up at Auschwitz - and given that some are more victims of discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of race, why is it important to name these groups?

Mr. Vernon: Mr. Robinson, I alluded to that in my testimony-in-chief, but I'd be happy just to quickly summarize the point I made. We hear people wonder about why there are not people with blue eyes on the list or people who are in this category or that category.

I said earlier that, first of all, it's important to have a list to make sure that frivolous and capricious categories are not included. I think it's important to focus on the groups that have historically faced all kinds of discrimination, particularly focusing in on the kinds of discrimination that the CHRA deals with.

I endorse that position. I think it's important for us to have a list that enumerates these categories. That's why we're so concerned about having sexual orientation included on that list.

Mr. Robinson: One other brief question.

Mr. Friedman: I just wanted to add one thing. The other thing is that the categories are not actually specific groups. The categories are dimensions, not groups. Sexual orientation does not mean gays and lesbians; it means sexual orientation. Religion does not mean Jews; it means religion.

In other words, these categories we're talking about are extremely broad. Even the categories themselves cover just about everybody. As for gender, everybody has one. We're not talking about women versus men, or men versus women, or gays versus others. The law is framed very broadly.

If in reality - we firmly believe this - some groups are the specific targets, and if that's the way the world shakes out - it appears to - then that's simply a fact of what is actually happening in the world. It's not the categories themselves.

Mr. Robinson: Just one other question. I believe that at a recent national conference, rabbis of reform Judaism in the United States agreed to acknowledge and celebrate the relationships of gay and lesbian partners. I'm just wondering what the current situation is in Canada.

Mr. Vernon: This gets us into the territory that was first raised by Ms Augustine. It's a very complex situation. We're not really the best authorities to respond to that. I'd be happy to provide you with some information later on. I think it would be best if we -

Mr. Robinson: Just as a factual matter, does that decision have any impact on Canada?

.1545

Mr. Friedman: Rabbinic schools are pronouncements that individuals have to apply on their own. Even in the United States a pronouncement by an association is not binding on any individual. It's a guideline, a statement of principle. So I couldn't answer you. We'd have to do a poll of reform rabbis in Canada to know.

Mr. Robinson: Are some reform rabbis in Canada, to the best of your knowledge -

Mr. Friedman: I couldn't answer that, sorry. I don't know.

The Chair: I thank you both and both your organizations. You've given leadership over many years and we look forward to wise counsel in the future.

Next is Dr. Brian Hodges. Who are you representing, Dr. Hodges?

Professor Brian Hodges (Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto): I am representing the University of Toronto.

Mr. McClelland: Madam Chair, for the record, if ever there was a committee meeting that should have been televised, I think this is it.

The Chair: I asked. There was so much enlightened information...

Dr. Hodges, please.

Prof. Hodges: Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honour for me to represent myself today as a psychiatrist and a professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto. It's an honour for me to appear.

Throughout this debate we've heard a great deal of rhetoric and opinion about what is good for individuals, what is good for families and what is good for society. But I think there has been precious little in the way of facts from empirical research informing the debate, and I hope this afternoon -

The Chair: Dr. Hodges, throughout this debate we have not heard a lot of rhetoric. We have heard some very sincere and deeply committed points of view that have been extremely enlightening. Please continue.

Prof. Hodges: Thank you, Madam Chair, for that correction. Perhaps I should have said that it would be helpful from my perspective to add some factual information in the area of medical information.

Mr. McClelland: Dr. Hodges, we're all treated exactly the same. She beats up on all of us.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Prof. Hodges: No, thank you for correcting me on that.

Madam Chair, somewhere in Canada at this moment a youth is thinking about suicide, a teenager who perhaps to his or her shame has recognized that he or she is homosexual. The shocking truth is that 30% of youth suicides are gay or lesbian youth. As a psychiatrist, this horrifies me. I have to wonder if we can prevent this, if these young people can get help. But of course they would have to come forward before we could help them, and therein lies the problem.

Madam Chairman, they don't come for help in most cases. The literature shows that the average time between recognition of one's sexual orientation and telling anyone is 4.6 years. The truth is that people can't tell in many cases because to disclose that one is a homosexual man or woman is to face losing friends, losing family, losing a job or perhaps not getting a promotion.

But there's more. I can show you a recent study that I brought that suggests that victimization of lesbian women and gay men is actually becoming the most common form of bias-related discrimination and assault. Most lesbian women and gay men in surveys have encountered some form of harassment, and up to 40% of gay and lesbian youth have actually been physically assaulted. This is quite a dim outlook for young teenagers. Despite this, remarkably, some actually do come out to their families and friends. Some, however, come to hospitals and clinics.

.1550

I want to tell you about one. I was working in the emergency department when I met a young woman who was 15 years old. She'd taken an overdose of drugs and was found on the street by youth workers in Toronto. She had told her mother that she was lesbian two weeks before that. Her mother screamed at her, called her an aberration, told her she was disgusting and sick. The young woman fled her home in the outskirts of Halifax and found her way to the streets of Toronto. What she found on the streets was drugs, of course, but what she brought with her was a despair about her life.

This young woman is not alone. We know from the literature as well that 10% of lesbian and gay youth who come out to their families are disowned. They're forced to leave home.

Madam Chair, between 20% and 40% of street youth today are lesbian and gay youth. But this woman did come to see us. Many of you might wonder what we as health professionals do when these folks do come. I've heard in recent debate that my colleagues and I should try to change their sexual orientation. This is a point that as a physician I want to be very clear on.

Neither the American and Canadian Psychiatric Associations nor the World Health Organization classifies homosexuality as a disorder. It's very clear that without a disorder, there's nothing to treat. Even when scientists of the past have tried to treat it, they've had no success. I've brought some of the studies with me. There is no empirical research evidence to suggest that sexual orientation can be changed.

Madam Chair, medical science research tells us that sexual orientation is immutable. It's not a choice. It's a fact of life in every culture, in every society, and at all socio-economic levels. Using the most conservative of statistics, we know that at least one million men and women in Canada are lesbian or gay.

Perhaps I'm dwelling too much on disease. As physicians we sometimes do that. We are increasingly reminding ourselves to look at prevention and health promotion. Those are very important themes right now. I can tell all of you sitting here considering this bill that this is one of the biggest opportunities we've had for a long time to promote health and well-being among our citizens.

We know from research that disease, mental illness, morbidity, and suicide are substantially less in individuals who have a strong sense of self-esteem, in people who are employed, and in those who have loving and supporting relationships.

I want to give you a clinical example of this as well. I'm working with two patients whose lives have taken tragic turns. One is a woman and one is a man. Both have good jobs; one's an accountant and one's a lawyer. Both are highly regarded by their employers, and both have been living in loving and supportive homosexual relationships for over five years.

This year tragedy struck both of them. Their partners became ill, one with cancer and one with AIDS. Both felt anger, shock, and remorse. They had trouble sleeping, lost weight, and cried sometimes, but they continued to work as best they could and to carry on with their lives, albeit both had some troubles concentrating and avoiding tearfulness at work.

The woman went to her employers and told them about the tragedy that was occurring in her life. They gave her time to go to the hospital with her partner and they helped her to find counselling. Her colleagues gave her smiles and words of support.

The man had seen a top performing colleague denied promotion and later forced to leave the company because he was gay. In fact, because my patient was in that senior management and had witnessed all the discussions that led up to the dismissal, which included a great deal of hateful talk, every day at work he was now in fear that someone would discover him.

He was struggling with the fact that his partner was dying, but he couldn't tell anybody. He never went to the hospital during the long days he was at work. He made up stories to tell his colleagues when they asked him why he looked tired or why he looked down.

Madam Chairman, both of my patients have lost their partners now. I've tried to support them as best I could. They have been grieving and they will continue to experience sadness and loneliness.

.1555

The woman had two weeks off and she's back at work now. She has on her desk a picture of her partner who died.

The man became more and more depressed. He's been off work for several months of sick leave now, and I'm doing the best I can to treat his depression, but he doesn't really have any supports. He feels he can't tell his family. I had to write to his employers the most veiled letter you can imagine, stating in vague terms that he had a serious depression, but I couldn't say anything about why or what was wrong. I don't know that he's going to be able to go back to work, because he's too afraid people are going to find out about him.

I'd ask the committee to consider that to achieve health, well-being and social stability, politicians and health professionals really have to work together. I'll look after the health and well-being of individuals; you look after the health and well-being of society.

I said at the outset there was a young person somewhere in the country considering suicide right now. If that youth makes it to my emergency department, I'll do everything I can. I'll use everything at my disposal to treat an overdose, to suture lacerations, to prevent death if I can, and a little later I'll try to instil hope through psychotherapy, maybe even a sense of self-worth. But we have to start before the overdose, the hanging, the shooting, the firing. This is your job.

You can get to this youth, this man or this woman long before I can. This legislation can send a clear message to people and to every Canadian really that it's okay to be a gay man or a lesbian woman; that homosexuals can indeed aspire to careers, even careers in the federal government, and to promotions, housing, openness and honesty. Members of the committee, this will be far more effective than my stomach pump or my sutures.

Ah, but people will be saying, and they have been saying continuously throughout the debate today, is this small change to the Canadian Human Rights Act really going to do all of that? Do we really need to add sexual orientation to this increasingly long list? Can't we just do away with lists altogether and simply say discrimination is wrong?

Well, as a doctor I've spent years studying lists of diseases. I'd like to be able to say all doctors should go out into the world and stamp out all disease and suffering, regardless of what kind of disease or suffering it is, but while no list is perfect and no list can be exhaustive, I can no more stamp out disease in some abstract and nebulous way than society, its courts and institutions can begin to eliminate undefined, unnamed discrimination.

To research it, to quantify it and ultimately to prevent it, like disease, we really have to be clear about discrimination against whom and on what basis. So the list is important, and at this time there is a glaring omission in the list.

I'm here as a physician and as a psychiatrist, from the point of view of health and well-being, to say we can't sit by while gay and lesbian youths commit suicide at three times the rate of other youths. We can't wait for a sort of general mist of non-discrimination to float in and envelop the country, while thousands of gay and lesbian people are evicted from their homes or tossed out, because they are honest with their families, into drugs, prostitution and despair. We can't keep averting our eyes when gay men and lesbian women are harassed, beaten up, fired or evicted.

Yesterday I found a great quote in the Canada Elections Act from the turn of the century. It said "No woman, idiot, lunatic or criminal shall vote". That was in our Canada Elections Act. On beaches in Canada at the same time there were signs that said "No Jews", and there were employment announcements you can still read today that said "Irish need not apply".

Ending such forms of discrimination in Canada has improved our social and economic health. Most of the provinces, a lot of our private industry and our courts are already recognizing the value of ending discrimination against gay men and lesbian women.

I know inevitably Canada will do this, but for the health and well-being of all the citizens of the country, we need to do it now. We've already waited too long.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): Thank you very much, Dr. Hodges. In the fine tradition of neutrality of our chair, I will...

.1600

I wasn't hearing when you were introduced. Did we get for the record your credentials, your background, and so on?

Prof. Hodges: Yes. Because of the short timeframe, of course I can't say that I completely represent the opinion of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, but I'm a professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Bernier: Thank you, Mr. Hodges, for being here and presenting your point of view which is quite interesting and in the same vein as what Mr. Kroll told us a few moments ago.

Personally, I wasn't present for part of Dr. Kroll's presentation especially the part on youth and the rate of suicide. My colleague told me of the figures mentioned by Dr. Kroll and repeated by you, in substance. I'm flabbergasted.

Of all our youths who commit suicide, I always thought that many did so because it was impossible for them to live with or accept their homosexuality. However, I didn't think the proportion could be that high.

You emphasize that the decision we're making as legislators goes way beyond the implementation of the amendments we'll be making to the human rights legislation. Finally, you're saying that by passing this legislation, we'll be sending a message to the Canadian society as a whole, and maybe more specifically to our young people, which is that we, as a society, intend to tolerate no form of discrimination whatsoever. Thus, any person, no matter what his or her personal choices may be, will be considered and accepted as a full-fledged individual.

In the name of the Official Opposition, I thank you for your statement. We're making good note of it. Thank you very much.

[English]

Prof. Hodges: Thank you for your comments.

As a health professional, I think that any factor that leads to death, disability, or mental illness that can be reduced or eliminated is a very great asset for society in general.

Mr. McClelland: Thank you very much for your testimony.

I'm not particularly surprised by the statistic that 30% of youth suicide is related to gay and lesbian youth and the dilemma that gay and lesbian youth would find themselves in when they feel that they may be disowned by their parents. I wonder, though, how much drug use is related directly in youth to that specifically. Do you have any quantitative information?

Also, I'm wondering if there's a connection between this and some of the lyrics in Kurt Cobain's music and that whole subculture. I'm thinking of a young man who committed suicide in St. Albert about two years ago. His parents went on a cross-Canada crusade, which came to nothing, but they appeared before, I believe, this committee. It had to do with their son's sexuality, music, and a combination of drugs. That's a quite lethal, potent mixture.

Would you mind amplifying on that for the record?

Prof. Hodges: This has been studied. There are what are called problem behaviours when you look at adolescence. They relate to alcohol, drug use, sexual promiscuity, etc.

.1605

There is a group of youth in which these factors are clustered. It's interesting that the gay and lesbian youth are not similar to that group. There may be use of alcohol, or perhaps drugs, or they may become involved in prostitution, but they are not part of that core group who are considered the most troubled, often the anti-social youth, many of whom go on to have troubles with the law, etc.

Among the gay and lesbian youth who have been studied, alcohol and drugs are one of the factors that may lead to suicide in that group, but it's not strongly correlated with it. Many gay and lesbian youth commit suicide who are not living on the street, who are not street youth, who are not involved in that sort of subculture.

On the question about the musician's lyrics inciting suicide, teenagers, yes, are influenced by idols, by social forces. We see in the north of Canada strings of suicides and suicide attempts in communities where one teen will mimic another, who will mimic another.

The interesting thing about the gay and lesbian youth is that they're often very isolated. Because of the nature of their sexual orientation, they're not identifying with a group. In fact, the literature suggests that the ability to identify positively with a group would prevent suicide and probably would cause a lower incidence.

Mr. McClelland: I have a short supplementary, then.

Other witnesses, as I recall, have drawn the link with the inability of parents to confront or to try to change behaviour that is not changeable, creating even more problems between them. This is a major factor in the ostracization of the youth. It seems as if this is fairly common. It's the denial by the parents, probably more than any other factor.

Would you concur with that? If that is the case, do you have any suggestions for a remedy?

Prof. Hodges: There's an interesting article in a book I have on public policy related to homosexuality. They've done studies to look at what factors might lessen discrimination in this area, might improve the situation for people. The number one factor that seems to predict a tolerant, open attitude about sexual orientation is knowing a relative, friend, or co-worker who is gay or lesbian.

So the most powerful effect of this legislation would allow more gay and lesbian people to be more open, which would allow more Canadians to be comfortable and to be aware of the presence of them. They're all around them anyway, in the workplace, in schools, in homes.

Probably the problem comes most prominently in a home where the family is perhaps not prepared for this, have never thought of it. It comes out of the blue. It's shocking to them. They don't know how to deal with it, and they have no legislation, no community, no understanding in the social environment around them to say, "Well, maybe this is okay. This may be something your family has to struggle with, but this is okay. This youth will go on and be all right and will be able to get a job and look forward to a successful life, family, etc."

Mr. Robinson: I want to thank Dr. Hodges for his very eloquent testimony this afternoon, and to thank both Dr. Hodges and Dr. Kroll for the work they're doing and the leadership they're showing us as professionals, really, on the front lines in this very important area.

I have a question on your professional associations: the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the Canadian Medical Association. Do you know if these associations have taken any position with respect to the importance of human rights legislation including sexual orientation discrimination?

Prof. Hodges: I'm sorry to say that I don't know that.

In terms of the points I mentioned, the understanding about homosexuality and treatment or not treatment, they've strongly adopted the guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association, which is to say that if any psychiatrist views or attempts to view or attempts to treat anyone with the goal of changing their sexual orientation, that should be considered to be unethical.

There is also work to publish literature and to understand how to work with lesbian women and gay men who present, with problems in their lives, aside from trying to convert them somehow.

Yes, work is going on to look at how to support people.

The Canadian Paediatric Association has a list of guidelines of what to do when a lesbian or gay child or young person is brought to a physician, how to work with them and how to support them to develop a healthy sense of self-esteem and identity. But I'm not able to tell you about the CPA's specific position on this.

.1610

Mr. Robinson: You might want to follow up on it with them.

Prof. Hodges: I certainly will.

Mr. Robinson: It would be valuable to have them on the record on this issue.

Prof. Hodges: Absolutely. Thank you.

Mr. Robinson: You mentioned the Canadian Paediatric Society. I've circulated a study to all members of this committee - I believe the clerk has circulated it - that was published in 1994 in the American journal of pediatrics. The journal is called Pediatrics. I'm sure you're familiar with it. The headline on the study was "Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?" There were 269 identified cases of child sexual abuse. This was in Colorado. Of the the 269 cases, 2 offenders were identified as being gay or lesbian.

Prof. Hodges: Yes.

Mr. Robinson: In 82% of the cases - or 222 - the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child. We know that there are still some who attempt to make this enormously painful, destructive and dishonest link between pedophilia and homosexuality. This study quite definitively demonstrates the lie of that suggestion. Based on your professional knowledge, do you have any reason to believe that the experience in Canada would be different?

Prof. Hodges: No, not at all. One of the most odious arguments made is that there is somehow a link between pedophilia and sexual orientation.

There is an interesting parallel with the civil rights movement among blacks in the United States that was pointed out to me recently. It was originally put forward by a number of people that blacks had an excessive sexual drive and that they were somehow assaulting women and children. It seems like the proposal that marginalized groups are somehow attacking or hurting the most vulnerable people in society is something that rears its head whenever discrimination...that's one of the most potent arguments used.

I've reviewed this literature carefully and there are a number of studies, apart from that one, that all show there is absolutely no increased incidence of homosexual orientation among perpetrators of child sexual abuse. I'm very comfortable with that and all of my colleagues in psychiatry would tell you that's accepted in our text books and our literature. It's clearly understood.

Mr. Robinson: I have just one last question, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

Sometimes people forget that gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth are probably in the only minority group that can't always look to their own families and to institutions that traditionally would nurture and support them, like the church. When you think about it, a young black youth at least can go to his family for support, and a young Jew or a young person with a disability...at least they can go to their families and get love and support.

One of the greatest fears that some gay, lesbian and bisexual youth have, of course, is that their families might find out. When they hear their parents, in some cases, making homophobic comments, when they hear political leaders denouncing gay and lesbian people as immoral and unnatural, when they hear church leaders condemning them as sinners, what does this do to a child? What does this do to a young person? I'm asking you now from your medical perspective, what does it do to a child, Dr. Hodges, not to be able to confide in his parents or to seek the nurturing or support of his parents and family?

Prof. Hodges: The love and support of family, as we often hear, is the cornerstone of healthy development and stability in society. Loving, mutually supportive relationships are the foundation of self-esteem, of success and of a good sense of self-identification.

There's a study I was reviewing this morning that actually looks at the relationship of families to discrimination. The family can be the most powerful mitigating factor when there is abuse or discrimination. We all know that when we are in trouble when we're young we try to reach out to our family for support.

I think this is one of the factors that directly leads to the rates of despair, of suicide, of leaving home, and of running away and living on the street for lesbian and gay youth. They perhaps don't feel - many of them are made to feel they can't - that they can reach out for that kind of support to help them with the things all youths are struggling with. But they have the additional thing of growing up with a part of their identity that is different and is perhaps thought of as less worthy by their friends, their peers, their teachers and those around them.

Mr. Robinson: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): Thank you, Dr. Hodges. Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

.1615

Mr. MacLellan.

Mr. MacLellan: Thank you, Doctor. That was very interesting and very helpful.

Did you say that the American Psychiatric Association does not consider an attempt to change a young person's sexuality as malpractice?

Prof. Hodges: Well, what it says exactly is:

The APA does not endorse any psychiatric treatment which is based either upon a psychiatrist's assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder or a psychiatrist's intent to change a person's sexual orientation.

Mr. MacLellan: Right. What if they attempt to change the sexuality? How do they, or the Canadian Psychiatric Association, for that matter, consider it? Do they consider that as malpractice?

Prof. Hodges: There is debate about how to view people who do practise this. I could give you an example of one person from the American Psychological Association, which is a twin organization of the American Psychiatric Association. There's a man who's very famous for having written papers based on this model with very spurious research results and findings. That particular person, who is often referenced by people suggesting that sexual orientation change is possible, was asked to leave the organization because of the ethical and methodological lapses in his work.

I won't pretend that there isn't a core of people within the American Psychiatric Association who still feel that perhaps this is a mistake. It's a very small group and they still make their views known occasionally. Many of them attribute their arguments to some psychodynamic work and not so much to empirical research.

I think it's going a little far to say that at this point it's considered malpractice, but with a strongly worded statement like this from the APA, it's certainly not considered acceptable practice by the organization.

Mr. MacLellan: You mentioned that there are those who ask you and other psychiatrists to try to change the sexuality of young people. Would that be parents? Who would ask you to do this?

Prof. Hodges: It's true that fairly often parents will come to us with a youth who is in most cases recognizing that they're a homosexual and have come out to their family. The parents explain to us that this tragedy has happened and could we not please just cure the child and everything would be fine. So yes, we have requests from families.

There are also groups in society that request that psychiatry, as a medical profession, focus on changing this, that this is a disease, that our research should find the gene and eradicate it, that we should find the psychological damage that's been done and eradicate it. So there are sometimes requests from groups in society.

I think we're always clear in our response, whether it's the mother or father in the emergency department or the clinic or whether it's an official response to a group in society, that not only is there no evidence that it can be changed, not only is there evidence that it's an immutable human variation that's consistent across societies and across cultures, but that it may in fact be very damaging to that youth to tell them that they're sick, they're diseased, and we have to fix them. It's going to be much more helpful to say let's understand how this affects your life and your family and how you can continue to have a mutually supportive relationship in your family, a career, and goals for the future.

Mr. MacLellan: I want to follow up on what Dr. Kroll said about the fact that homosexuality is something that's formed when the baby is being formed, that it's not something you learn, it's not an acquired activity. I just wanted to get your comment on this. There are those, of course, who say you have to be careful about who you let your children associate with, because they will pick it up, or you can't let them go into ballet because they'll do this sort of thing. To me it's very offensive to hear that, and I would just like to have your comment on it for the record.

Prof. Hodges: The issue of the development of one's sexual orientation, as indeed the development of our identity as a whole, is incredibly complex. It begins before conception, through conception, and all the way through the in utero life and early childhood. There are a number of factors that influence it. Many of them are biological, and we're learning about those. Some of them are environmental and sociological, and we are learning about those as well. However, we know that sexual orientation is immutable after a very young age.

.1620

I think we should come back to the intent of the legislation, of this particular debate, and that's not about what causes sexual orientation. The fact is that there is a consistent group in all societies, in all cultures, that is lesbian or gay. The fact is also that they are discriminated against, however they got there. I think the intent of this legislation is to prevent that, to send the message that it's not all right to discriminate, and therefore it's not all right for these people to be committing suicide at higher rates, or to lose jobs or be fired or what not.

If we go too far into the medical-biological debate about what causes it, I think it will lose the point that this is a human rights issue, that it's a change that will strengthen society in general.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): Thank you very much.

Ms Augustine.

Ms Augustine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question was more or less pre-empted by your last statement. I was going to ask you to ask us to return to the intent of the bill. I ask whether or not, in all of this discussion... I think you quoted something back from the right to vote, etc., and you did mention the situation of blacks and a whole series of groups. As I sit here reflecting on all I hear, I realize progress has been slow. It's one foot in front of the other, one step at a time; knock one brick down and then go after another to get the whole wall down.

I'm just wondering, in this discussion, where the intent is really to go after the issue of an amendment by which we add sexual orientation to the list of things we cannot or should not discriminate against. Should all of the discussion that brings us into moral, ethical and other grounds, other rights and whatever else, be part of that debate? Maybe I tend to go straight to what this bill concerns itself with, but I feel that the other discussions are for another day, another time, another set of amendments that need to be made.

What I would ask is how you see this being separated from the great big picture of justice, equality and fairness in Canadian society, which is the ideal we are working towards.

Prof. Hodges: As a psychiatrist, I'm familiar with the literature on relationships and families and that whole area that we tend to get into and pull back from. I do believe that regardless of how we define a relationship, the literature shows that a mutually supportive, caring relationship is good for people's sense of self, for their ability to care for one another and contribute to society. In the long run, I think we need to create an environment that supports that.

The proposed amendment to the Human Rights Act, however, is really not about sex, marriages and relationships. That is for another day, I think; it is an important issue and I would very much like for it to be debated in the future, but it's not the issue today. This is about discrimination. It's about how the effects of discrimination harm people physically, mentally, psychologically, and in their ability to live their lives happily and contribute to society. I think that to vote for this is really just to say that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong, period.

Ms Augustine: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): Thank you very much, Ms Augustine.

Before letting the witness go, I would just make one request or inquiry. When the Ottawa police chief was here earlier, he talked about the incidence of - and just so we know, I'm speaking specifically now to the question of discrimination - violent acts based on some kind of bias, or hate crimes. About half - I think it was 29 of 63 - of the charges that were laid in 1995, I think, were related to sexual orientation. It occurs to me that there may be some research somewhere that would demonstrate whether or not there's any correlation, whether or not there's any kind of indicator of broader discrimination. We're talking at this point about violence perpetrated against someone on the basis of sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation.

.1625

My question is very simple. Is there any research that would demonstrate to what extent that is an indicator of a broader discrimination problem?

Prof. Hodges: Yes. Another aspect of psychiatry, which we haven't touched on at all, is working with criminals with a so-called anti-social personality - the person without a sense of conscience who harms, abuses and manipulates other people.

We come into contact with those sorts of people, and I can tell you that when somebody feels it's all right to beat up, abuse or assault one type of person, for many of them it makes very little difference what the reason for that hatred is. We heard the canary argument before, that gays and lesbians tend to be one of the most vulnerable groups in society at the moment.

But I tell you, I've heard people threaten this. When they start to speak about the hatred they feel or the fact that they should kill someone, harm someone or assault someone, it's often not specified in any direction. When gays and lesbians are being assaulted, the people who are doing that are equally likely to assault other members of society for other differences, other group identifications and other reasons.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): Thank you very much, Dr. Hodges. You've been very helpful.

Prof. Hodges: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): I would ask our next witness, David Hallman, program officer with the United Church of Canada, to come forward.

Dr. Hallman, I notice you've been here for awhile. I will assume it's interest and not that we've been keeping you here. Please introduce yourself briefly and make your presentation.

Dr. David Hallman (Program Officer, United Church of Canada): Thank you. I'mDr. David Hallman. I'm on the national general council staff of the United Church of Canada, and I'm also on the staff of the World Council of Churches. I have a variety of portfolios related to social justice and environmental issues.

Today I am representing our moderator, who is unable to be here, Marion Best. I've circulated a press release from her that welcomes the introduction of this legislation and indicates that the United Church of Canada is very pleased that this has happened, in part because we have been advocating for twenty years now the inclusion of sexual orientation in human rights legislation.

I'm personally also pleased to be representing the United Church, because as one of the longer-term staff members on the national staff of the United Church, I was part of the committee that adopted that policy back in 1976.

We think there is some appropriateness for us, as the United Church of Canada, to be one of the witnesses here today, because we have lived through the controversies you are dealing with in this bill and around this table. Some of our experiences may be of use as you struggle with your dilemmas.

We are here to bear witness to the fact that these kinds of debates around sexual orientation can occur in a context of respect for differing perspectives. They can occur with integrity only if they are open to hearing the real-life stories and experiences of gay and lesbian people, who are the subject of discussions. These debates can lead to principled decisions being made, motivated by justice and love, that will result in a much more inclusive community. Once such decisions to be more inclusive are made, the community can move towards greater healing, greater wholesomeness and greater health.

That's been our experience, and we hope Canadian society as a whole might experience some of that enrichment and growth towards greater integrity with the adoption, hopefully, of this legislation, and that gay and lesbian people themselves will experience less of the fear under which they have lived.

.1630

I will give you a couple of details about our history in dealing with the issue of sexual orientation.

I mentioned that we first adopted a policy back in 1976 that sexual orientation should be a protected ground in human rights legislation. That policy was adopted in the context of a review of the Ontario Human Rights Code at that point.

In the following year, 1977, when the Canadian Human Rights Bill was being discussed, we reaffirmed that position and advocated to the federal government that sexual orientation be included.

Our submission at that time also included other aspects of what we felt should be important in the bill, including aspects related to persons with disabilities. We look forward to those other kinds of revisions being entertained by the government on this bill in the near future.

In terms of the protection against discrimination for gay and lesbian persons, on that issue we have experienced within the United Church of Canada, which is the largest Protestant denomination in Canada, a consistently high level of consensus of support.

Our church is a church that believes we need to live out our faith in very active ways to ensure the well-being of all of God's creatures. That kind of faith leads us into work on social justice, economic reform, poverty, and human rights, and it is in that context that our people approached the issue of discrimination against gay and lesbian persons and found it not difficult at all to accept the importance of protection of gay and lesbian persons.

This is not to say that there is complete uniformity within the membership of the United Church on this, but on the issue of inclusion of sexual orientation in human rights legislation we found very little debate or difference of opinion.

Where we did encounter much more controversy in the United Church had to do with gay and lesbian persons being ordained or commissioned as ministers in the church. This was more than an issue of eligibility for an employment position. It had to do with perspectives on what constitutes appropriate spiritual leadership in the church.

After ten years of very intense debate - very difficult and painful debate - within the United Church during the 1980s, the United Church came to the conclusion in 1988 that sexual orientation should not be a barrier to ordination or commissioning for ministry, that gay and lesbian persons should be evaluated and judged on exactly the same criteria as anyone else in terms of their appropriateness for ministry. This position was reaffirmed in 1990.

Adopting such a policy does not automatically mean that it's easy for gay and lesbian people, nor that the debate has evaporated. But what we have clearly experienced over the last number of years since that policy was adopted is a growing healing within the church.

There's a greater sense of integrity and a greater enrichment in the life of the church because gay and lesbian people have increasing freedom and security in participating fully in the life of the church. There has been a greater sense of an ability to move on to other very significant and important social justice concerns and not be fixated with this one.

The United Church of Canada, as an employer, has also been among the increasing number of public and private organizations that have extended health benefits to same-gender couples. We, like many of those other organizations, have found that in fact the roof did not cave in.

I would like now to turn your attention to the orange pamphlet, because I want to raise up a little bit about the theological basis for our support of the inclusion of sexual orientation in human rights legislation. I want to do this in order to underline that our support for this bill is not just because of our history of human rights promotion, but is indeed related to and based in our understandings of our theology and our spirituality and our ethics.

This is important to underline because much of the opposition to this bill comes with religious dimensions attached to it and religious arguments associated with it. We want to indicate clearly that those perspectives are not the only religious perspectives that people of faith can have.

Our United Church support for the bill is firmly grounded in our theology, spirituality, and faith.

If you will turn with me to pages 8 and 9, this report summarizes conclusions from a major study on human sexuality in the 1980s. This particular section looks at positions related to sexual orientation. I would ask you to understand that this is written within the context of a Christian faith.

.1635

a) We affirm our acceptance of all human beings as persons made in the image of God, regardless of their sexual orientation. Accumulated social science research and the articulated experience of the vast majority of both heterosexual and homosexual men and women affirm that sexual orientation is not so much a matter of choice as a given aspect of one's identity resulting probably from a complex interaction of genetic and environmental factors. We've heard that articulated by the medical personnel who have been here today.

b) We affirm salvation for all people is by grace through faith and that all who believe in Christ are accepted as whole members of the Christian church regardless of their sexual orientation. We acknowledge that the church has encouraged, condoned and tolerated the rejection and persecution of homosexual persons in society and in the church, and we call on the church to repent.

c) We affirm that the church is called to initiate and encourage communication and discussion with homosexual believers about sexuality in order that fellowship might be increased and misunderstanding, fears and hostilities lessened. In learning more about sexual orientation, the church can benefit from the input of the homosexual community, which is working to articulate its own history, understanding of sexuality and its relationship to the broader church in society.

Item d) relates directly to the matter before this committee.

d) We affirm that members of the church, individually and corporately, are responsible for becoming more aware of discrimination against homosexual persons, taking action to ensure that they enjoy their full civil and human rights in society, working to end all forms of discrimination against them, and personally supporting the victims of such discrimination.

In March 1977, the Department of Church in Society of the Division of Mission in Canada passed the following resolution:

We affirm the right of persons, regardless of their sexual orientation, to employment, accommodation, and access to the services and facilities that they need and desire.

Recommendation: That in all areas covered by the Canadian Human Rights Act, provision should be made for prohibiting discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation".

e) We affirm the need, as the church engages its heterosexual and homosexual members in dialogue, to recognize the personal and professional risks to which homosexual persons open themselves as they respond to this invitation.

f) We affirm the need for all church persons, both heterosexual and homosexual, to study and understand sexuality and lifestyles in the light of the gospel.

This grounds and articulates the process and the struggle, and the results of the struggle, that the United Church has been going through. That discussion continues, but we have, by having been prepared to take some decisions about human rights and our own life together, as a community, been able to move on. We would encourage this committee to strongly support the bill so that we as a Canadian society can move on.

I would conclude by wanting to express our appreciation on behalf of the United Church to this committee, the government, the Prime Minister, and particularly to the Minister of Justice, the Hon. Allan Rock, for introducing this legislation. We hope that it will be adopted speedily and thereby correct an unjustifiable omission in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): Thank you very much, Dr. Hallman. Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank Dr. Hallman for having accepted to come here and meet us on such short notice. Naturally, as I have already said a few times and I would like to repeat it, the Official Opposition supports this government initiative. So we're very happy to hear what Mr. Hallman has said, especially in his references to the document produced by the United Church representatives.

I'd also like to put a question concerning the preamble of the bill and the notion of family. I'd like to know Mr. Hallman's opinion as to the relevancy of mentioning the notion of family in the preamble of the bill. I would also like to know if his organization has a clear position as to whether it's necessary to define the kind of family referred to in the preamble of the bill.

.1640

[English]

Dr. Hallman: I referred to the fact that our discussions in the church were ongoing. This is one of the areas in which they are ongoing and have not reached any particular conclusion.

We do not have a specific definition of the family. The family is seen by the United Church of Canada as extremely important in the life of the community, in the development of children, in the life of society as a whole. We recognize, however, that families are of many different forms. In fact, one of our resources to assist congregations provides support to families. The title of that resource is "All Kinds of Families". It's a reflection of our appreciation that there are many different types of families.

I understand the reasons why it was placed in the preamble to the bill. We would not be in a position to advise on any more specific kind of definition because that kind of discussion is still going on in our church. And the fact that it still is going on in our church points, I think, to the facts that we feel the definition is changing from what it has traditionally been, and that we need to be open to the possibilities of, in the language that we would use, the spirit of God leading us to a fuller understanding of what that term might mean. We think it needs to change, that it will be changing, but at this point we're not in a position to come to a consensus on what that definition specifically should be.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton - Melville): Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-Chairman.

One of the concerns that is expressed to us concerns the definition of "family" that you've just related to us. Do you think there needs to be any amendment to this legislation, to this amendment that's going to be going into the Canadian Human Rights Act, to express some of those concerns? Do you think there need to be any limits put on where this is going to lead? Yes, people agree that there shouldn't be discrimination, but they are concerned that this legislation will lead to amendments in many other areas - a complete redefinition of "family", spousal benefits going to a wide range of people - and that it may open up areas to which we would rather not go.

Dr. Hallman: No, I don't think it would be appropriate to try to do that within this legislation. The United Church, as I mentioned, has changed its own policy to extend benefits to same-gender couples. It has also submitted a petition to the federal government arguing that the provision of the income tax law that restricts pensions should be changed so that a member of a same-gender couple would be eligible for his or her partner's pension. So we are moving in the direction of increasing the scope of the definition, but we don't think this particular legislation is the appropriate place in which to do that.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Could inclusion of sexual orientation lead to the conclusion that same-sex couples are being discriminated against because they're not allowed to marry?

Dr. Hallman: I don't think inclusion of sexual orientation in this bill will lead people to conclude that. I think gay and lesbian people already conclude that they experience a whole variety of systemic forms of discrimination. I don't think including the words "sexual orientation" in this bill does anything to move them in that direction. What they do is provide a grounds for protection against the kinds of discrimination that they have experienced in employment, in access to facilities and services - the kinds of provisions that are covered under the Human Rights Act.

Mr. Breitkreuz: Specifically I'm asking whether or not you have any concerns about this amendment leading to same-sex marriage, along with complete acceptance and benefits and everything else that goes along with it.

Dr. Hallman: No.

Mr. Breitkreuz: You have no concerns about that?

Dr. Hallman: No, we don't have concerns about this. You are describing it in the context of a kind of slippery slope in that you are projecting some sort of very nefarious pit at the bottom of it.

.1645

We think that this legislation is very important to protect against ongoing discrimination that has occurred and continues to occur. We think that as a society we are moving towards a greater understanding of the diversity. In fact, within the United Church, even though we have not adopted any kind of policy whatsoever in relation to same-gender unions, some of our churches have requested - so it has been provided - some samples of liturgical services that could be used to celebrate them.

The church has not taken any position on it, but it has responded to the grassroots requests from some congregations for that kind of support. That's an indication that we are still struggling but we are moving in a direction of being more open to a greater diversity of understandings of family.

Mr. Breitkreuz: That seems to contradict a little bit of what you have in your material, that Christian marriage is a man and a woman giving themselves to each other with the full intention of a lifelong commitment. I'm wondering if what you're saying is maybe in contradiction with what you're printing.

Dr. Hallman: Christian marriage, as it's defined right now, is indeed partners of the opposite sex. That is how Christian marriage is understood by the church. It's understood in the law in that way.

What our church is doing is trying to understand and reflect and support persons of the same sex who are also committing themselves in long-term relationships to each other, trying to find ways to be supportive of them. That does not equate to marriage at this point, and that's why there's still so much discussion within the church about it.

We are recognizing that those kinds of relationships are important and that if we as a society want to support and be affirming of committed long-term relationships in same-gender couples, then we should not be doing that by imposing all kinds of restrictions, but, rather, by trying to be supportive in what ways we can. We as a church are struggling with the best ways in which we can be supportive in that.

Ms McLaughlin: As you're representing an ecumenical organization, religious faith, do you consider this amendment that's being proposed to be an issue of morality or an issue of human rights?

Dr. Hallman: We consider this to be an issue of human rights.

Ms McLaughlin: If this legislation had been in place when the church was discussing ordination of gays and lesbians, do you think that would have affected the outcome at that time, in 1988?

Dr. Hallman: It would have created a more supportive context for the eventual decision that the church made. Already by that point it had been church policy for over a decade to press for the inclusion of sexual orientation in human rights legislation, and a number of provinces already had done that.

It would have provided another indication within society generally that persons need to be respected regardless of the diversity that's represented and protected from discrimination and included in as comprehensive a way as possible.

For us it was a question of including gay and lesbian people in the opportunity to give leadership in the church, and our decision to do that hopefully was a contribution to the broader society's looking at other ways to increase that participation and inclusion. Now the Human Rights Act is reflecting that as well.

Mrs. Finestone: I listened with a great deal of interest, and I have also watched for a number of years the evolution of the church and its vision of itself. As a matter of fact, you and your colleagues appeared before us in 1984, which I remember. That was very early in the discussions that you were having within the church, and I see that there's been great advance in that area.

It's taken you a decade, too, of discussion, because you had just entered into that aspect of your change within your church. Did you use a voting procedure at each step along the way? How have you worked to develop the consensus that's been required within the framework of your church?

.1650

Dr. Hallman: One might describe the decision-making process in the United Church of Canada as a modified democratic process guided by the Holy Spirit.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Dr. Hallman: The actual system involves representatives of local congregations electing people to go to a regional conference where issues are debated and discussed. Representatives from those regional conferences are then elected to the general council, which meets once every two or three years. That's where policy is discussed.

It is in a sense a democratic process where people who are making the decisions are elected from the local congregations. Those local congregations also have the opportunity to send up petitions and resolutions that can be discussed at the senior levels.

What we found in terms of the question of building consensus was a very interactive process. A study document was introduced at one point and then it was debated, changed at the general council level, and referred back to the congregations for discussion over the next two years. A further refined process came back to the next general council. This went back and forth like that until 1988, when we were able to make a policy decision in terms of the question of ordination. That also precipitated some reaction. It was discussed again for two years and then came back in 1990 and was reaffirmed.

So there is very much contact with local congregations and their opportunity to feed in. That does not say that there isn't a great deal of debate and often lack of consensus among some congregations around the issues being discussed, but there is certainly the opportunity for coming back and forth.

The area where the democracy becomes a little bit more modified and where the Holy Spirit becomes more active is that the representatives from the congregations at the national general council meetings are not bound by any kind of legislative authority to reflect and vote exactly as their local congregation might. The general council studies issues, functions, listens to each other, and learns together often in a very intense way. Often new decisions emerge out of that intense two-week discussion and debate period that would not have been obvious at the beginning. We believe there is an evolution of that within the context of learning from each other.

Mrs. Finestone: Perhaps I can draw the following conclusion in answer to a question fromMs McLaughlin. When she asked you if you felt that this was a matter of rights versus a moral issue, you were quite definitive in observing that it was a right. The issues you were discussing went beyond the recognition of the right to non-discrimination and moved into the field of recognition of what flows from that right. Would that be a fair observation?

Dr. Hallman: Yes. It would be interactive as well. Certainly the issues we're dealing with in terms of sexual orientation and human sexuality generally have huge moral, ethical and spiritual dimensions to them. In terms of the inclusion of sexual orientation in the legislation, we clearly see that as a human rights issue. Certainly that was not what occupied us for the last 15 years. It has been much broader.

Mrs. Finestone: No, but the fundamental recognition of the right of people to be perceived as equal and not to be discriminated against but to be included in the totality of protection within our society was affirmed.

Dr. Hallman: That's right.

Mrs. Finestone: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): Thank you very much, Dr. Hallman. It's been a pleasure, I can tell you. I don't know how often something like the positive or constructive nature of the debate that took place in the church around the question of ordination happens, but it certainly advanced the understanding of these issues in my house. I'll never forget it.

Perhaps you're like members of Parliament; not very often do people call you up to say nice things. I'm saying nice things.

Dr. Hallman: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Scott): Madam Chair.

.1655

[Translation]

The Chair: We welcome Mr. Maurice Champagne with great pleasure.

We thank you for having accepted our invitation so quickly and on such short notice. I know that you have played an important role in the matter of the evolution of sexuality and sexual orientation which has resulted in changes or for having those ideas included in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights. Quebec was the first Canadian province to recognize the right for people to be protected, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Our procedure is to grant you 30 minutes or so for your comments. You have the floor.

Mr. Maurice Champagne (individual witness): Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

I would say a few words in English, simply as a courtesy, but the fact is that I come from a French country. I would prefer to speak to you in French because I think the subject of this intervention is so delicate and so complex that I'll be more fluent if I speak French.

I suppose you have received the text in French.

[Translation]

I've had the pleasure of knowing Madam Chair for many years now as I have appeared in the past before the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I remember in particular a time when persons with disabilities did not have rights either in this country or in the provinces and couldn't have access to transport. I remember the serious crisis about patients' rights that arose in 1982 because of the strike in Quebec's health system, something to which I have always been particularly opposed.

We had organized a silent march and appealed to all kinds of personalities and Sheila was one who joined our group.

The Chair: Yes, I did join you.

Mr. Champagne: First of all, allow me to summarize my presentation and tell you why I'm here today to talk about this major humanitarian cause which, in my opinion, gives our Canadian Parliament the duty to pass Bill C-33 amending clause 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which is a complement to the Canadian Charter of Rights Act and Freedoms and, consequently, plays a major role in this country's Constitution.

So we're talking about adding sexual orientation as a forbidden motive of discrimination. As the chair pointed out, in 1975 Quebec was the first province to have a charter of rights to which sexual orientation was added in 1977. I had the delicate duty of supervising this matter for the Human Rights Commission and thus sending the relevant recommendations to the National Assembly.

.1700

First, I'm here for ethical reasons. There are no rights, whether granted under a charter or not, that can be recognized as rights before having been values first.

The area of rights is essentially based on values which are as universal as possible. I have worked a lot in the area of rights, but today I'm acting more as an expert advisor in the field of ethics and I think that's a perfectly normal conclusion.

Secondly, I'm here to emphasize a major distinction that has specifically to do with rights.

Bill C-33 does not require that you address the value of homosexuality as a personal choice or as a social value. It requires that you decide about the fundamental value of the equality of persons before the law. It requires that you protect homosexuals from discrimination as human beings, as people having the same rights as heterosexuals and to be treated the same specifically with regard to their integrity.

I'll have more to say about this matter which, in my opinion, is the main question and I will have a lot to criticize about the preamble which concerns the family and sets a trap for Parliament by involving it in legal questions that could become extremely complicated. Thankfully, our courts don't give much weight to preambles. Some law schools don't even look at them.

Thirdly, I'm here to... Allow me to draw away from my presentation which I must change in view of the free vote held on Bill C-33 this morning.

This morning, I was ashamed of being part of this country. This free vote is a scandal for Canada, for justice and for the advancement of civilization. As such, the free vote is discriminatory because it gives special treatment to this question and the elected representatives of the people, who are trustees of our collective will, are fundamentally required to set an example.

The free vote is the consecration, within Parliament, of a fragmentation and a distinction which in essence is discriminatory.

The free vote serves as justification to those of the non-official opposition personified, notably, by the unfortunate position of MP Bob Ringma. I'm sorry I had to name him.

Fourthly, I'm here as an individual who has the right to be fully informed about Parliaments' actions to be able to obtain guidance to form an enlightened opinion on fundamental questions of rights, values, social issues and ethics.

If the debate on Bill C-33 is simultaneously so poor, so pernicious and so false that its preamble seems to be an apology - that's why the definition of family is inserted - it's because parliamentarians from all across the country, including those of Quebec's National Assembly which has recognized sexual orientation for the last 20 years, are derelict in their duty as trustees as our collective will, which is to promote and encourage the population in expressing its knowledge and opinions.

.1705

I'm scandalized to see that the guardians of knowledge in our universities and professional organizations have just about no contribution to make on this extremely important question representing one of the greatest changes in the history of humanity. Our academics and intellectuals are even more hesitant than our parliaments.

The social debate occurring in Quebec and Canada concerning the rights of homosexuals and the relation between homosexuality and heterosexuality constitutes a real laughing matter whose importance is proportional only to the extreme importance of this issue for civilization. Maybe it is so because in this country - let's call a spade a spade - the hypocrisy of political correctness has more weight than expressing values. We can't even talk about real things any more because we have to look good. We never know when to say yes or no when faced with a given value. Political correctness has become an awful style.

Fifthly, I am here to invite you to take on this duty that has slipped through your fingers so far and that is slipping through them again today. Today, you have to decide about the protection of homosexuals and their equality before the law. No legal link exists between this and the life homosexual partners live or the role they play in their families. The matter has only a social scope and if, in the future, it might have some bearing on other aspects of the recognition of homosexuals, it would be social in nature and certainly not legal.

Out of respect, I shall not quote the great legalist whose many colleagues are now judges in our courts and who would say the same things I do. You will have to decide about the homosexual couple and the heterosexual couple. At that time all kinds of dimensions and questions will surge forth although one fundamental principle for a couple will remain that of recognizing what consenting adults do amongst themselves.

There will be a great debate that will have to take place on the value of heterosexuality, homosexuality and the relation between culture and nature. The heterosexual couple has something that is based in nature. The homosexual couple is basically a cultural decision, a particular assumption of nature. No one on the face of this planet can tell you where homosexual behaviour stems from. Is it something one is born with or is it acquired? No one can seriously tell you anything about that.

In this country, we should put an end to the confusion between couple and family, which is the view different religions have unfortunately made us used to. I often joke that in Quebec the by the couple. You can imagine what happened when their couple ran off tracks.

.1710

There is no breaking up of the family in this country, but there is a breaking up of the relation between man and woman! That's for sure! The breaking up of the couple is responsible for the breaking up of the family. Otherwise, you wouldn't have any breaking up. People deeply believe in family, different kinds of families, and we can come back to that, because I did hear some of your questions before. The problem with the family is the problem with the couple, the problem with the man-woman relation in our society.

If this confusing of couple and family were to end tomorrow, you'd have to address sexual "parentality". There's your third problem. Today we talk about persons, tomorrow we'll be talking about couples and the day after tomorrow we'll have to start talking about "parentality". That is infinitely more complex in terms of law and culture because we're not at the consenting adult level any more. We're looking at the relation between adults confronted with an idea of fundamental right in this country in particular where we show considerable advance as compared to many other countries in this world and that is the superior interests of the child.

Personally, I don't know if it's in the interests of the child to have parents who made a choice based on discrimination by showing preference for one sex rather than the other. I don't know that and I don't think anyone knows that, but it must be addressed. I could raise many more questions still. Are sexual ties more important than blood ties? And this question doesn't arise simply in the case of homosexual or heterosexual individuals.

I know feminist groups who refuse to grant rights to homosexual couples. They wonder why rights should be granted based on sexual ties while they're not granted, in pension plans, for example, to people who simply have family ties like a brother or a sister or to old friends who might ask the state or an insurance plan to share out the benefits or to be eligible to such or such a social benefit.

The question is enormous and that's why I am scandalized to be in a country where we have established this lie about homosexuality. I wonder what's going to happen in a society lying to itself, a Parliament lying to itself, as was so clearly proven yesterday during the free vote. In any case, they're not at all worthy of human rights. We're lying to ourselves as a community from one end of the country to another about the huge ethical stakes of Canadian society.

In this context, I strongly emphasize that Parliaments, as depositories of the will of our communities, and not the courts, must make the choices in the great ethical debates like abortion. Of course, the fate of abortion was settled because of the tenaciousness and convictions of Dr. Morgantaler. Dr. Morgantaler's victory, in a way, is the victory of juries over tribunals and judges. Besides, I've always maintained that abortion was not a right but rather an exceptional provision legitimized by the right of a woman to control her pregnancy.

There is a major nuance to be made when one speaks of rights and people don't seem to give a rap about it even in the universities!

So, abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, unassisted suicide, the new reproduction technologies, homosexuality, because the news is awfully hot on that, I would add the rights of people and the nations who make up this country from one end to the other, none of that concerns the courts.

.1715

I'm sure that the honourable Chief Justice Lamer would tell you the same thing if the question were put to him.

A charter is interesting. That is what has allowed the political powers that be to slough off much of their responsibilities before the courts to such a point that I have noticed that there is often an inversion of those roles and powers that are at the very source of our democracy. The judiciary is stripping away the powers of our politicians and parliamentarians. That's another story, but I think it should be debated together with this question.

Finally, I have come before you to remind you a major distinction. I think I have gone beyond the time I was allocated, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Yes, but your presentation is so engrossing that we'll give you another five minutes.

Mr. Champagne: You're too generous. I'll try to summarize.

Number six, I am before you to emphasize a major, absolutely fundamental distinction which unfortunately is only too rarely brought up in law. Yesterday, I spent part of the day on the phone with legal people to check things over a second time. Actually, I didn't know at the time that I was coming here. I only found out last night at 7 o'clock.

The legal experts tell me it's a major distinction, but it is so clear for the legal people! This is the distinction that is paramount in the examination of Bill C-33.

Twenty years ago, when I was given the responsibility of supervising the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Quebec Charter, when I was at the Human Rights Commission, I was quite conscious that in the area of rights there were two worlds, two thrusts, two major levels.

The first level that I would call the primary level of intervention in the area of rights is exactly that of the fight against discrimination based on this very broad objective which is the equality of all before the law. But it's equality before the law that is important for people, no matter who they are.

The second level, which is much more difficult amd that I call the secondary level, is that of promoting rights as social values. Bill C-33 deals strictly with the first level. In the legal world, this makes for a fundamental distinction. Do not be concerned, you do not need the preamble because they know their job and will never consider the provision dealing with freedom from discrimination as a social value. That is another matter.

Moreover, it is not for nothing that in charters, there are hierarchies of rights, of fundamental rights and articles on discrimination. Besides, there are dangerous differences.

If I were a lawyer and a judge, I would be very concerned about having to state an opinion on the issue of homosexuality, given the vocabulary that one finds in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in Canadian Law, and in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, for example. I'm pointing this out to you because there are enormous problems.

It is therefore important to distinguish between these two levels of law before disposing of the bill.

I would like to make a few remarks in conclusion. My first remark will deal with the preamble of the bill, given what I have just said with regard to the basic distinction that lawyers make automatically, but that they don't mention.

Often, lawyers don't speak enough. This is a rule of law. Sometimes, there are advantages to not talking enough. Personally, I talk too much, and this is why I am not a lawyer, but I have spent my life with them.

I feel that the paragraph of the preamble in which Canada recognizes and affirms the importance of family is a serious mistake. My first reaction when I read the bill was that this did not seem honest.

.1720

I think that they're ill-at-ease with the issue of homosexuality. It's like an agnostic saying that he believes in all forms of divinity while others only believe in God.

First of all, preambles are not important from a legal standpoint. What is serious, is not simply looking bad, but rather the fact that you're introducing into a bill a provision that invites the legal world to confuse the first level that I mentioned earlier, that is the fight against discrimination, with the second and third levels, where we will have to deal with protection not only of homosexual people, but of couples and of "parentality".

This seems extremely serious to me. My greatest desire is that you consult with lawyers on this matter. I had also asked that qualified lawyers be asked to draft this bill. This seems essential to me because, in my opinion, there is an enormous error there.

In conclusion, I would simply like to say that no one holds the truth to this question as is the case for all important questions of rights and values.

I believe that the most authentic stand for the government to take could be the following: it is not because one has political power that one should always seem sure of oneself.

The great intellectuals or great professionals are not the ones who have marked me the most in my life and continue to mark me. Rather, the people who have a sense of intellectual concern and who do not hold the truth have impressed me.

I think the debate is at that level and that we have a long way to go yet. I repeat that no one, on this planet, can draw the conclusion in ethical, legal or scientific terms, on what homosexuality is as compared to heterosexuality.

My last word would be to hope, Madam Chair, that our society be more honest in this matter and, as I already said, that Parliament does his job for the future in the areas of information and knowledge.

I say to you over and over again that these important ethical questions are not the responsibility of the courts. It is not up to nine judges, no matter how brilliant they be - this is common sense - to decide on such fundamental questions for a whole country.

The decision belongs to the community. In democracy, human rights belong to the people and you are their trustees. representatives. But, in order for a people to be able to express itself other than through ridiculous polls where it must provide discriminating answers to simplistic questions, Parliaments must call upon people with knowledge, who are in universities, in the legal world, in legal organizations, in schools, in the media and who are the privileged ones, to speak out and participate in a public forum in a healthy, honest, real and true debate on these extraordinary human questions.

I thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Champagne. You have certainly brought up a lot of questions for discussion. I believe you know the first questioner, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Ménard: I would like to present my excuses to Mr. Champagne. I would like to say that, in the House, we are debating a bill on employment insurance presented by my colleague, the member for Mercier, and we have been asked to speak one at a time. I therefore present my excuses for having missed the beginning of your presentation.

.1725

I read your brief and I discussed it with my colleague. I found the part of the presentation that I was able to hear quite stimulating.

You have reason to be indignant. I think that in order to be involved in politics, one must like knowledge and have a sense of concern. I would add that sometimes one must have the ability to become indignant. There are a number of reasons for being involved in politics, but it seems to me that one must have a desire to change things and above all must lean towards a society where individuals are equal.

If I understood correctly, you find that we are not calling things by their names and that we are, at one level or another, hypocrites. I know that you find certain people are more so than others and I appreciate that you did not name them. As I am somewhat annoyed that this government did not have the courage to call a party vote on the matter, I hoped to be able to hear you speak again on this topic.

Madam Chair, I also have two other questions, because it's not every day that we get to meet with people who have opinions on ethics and values.

Mr. Champagne: I will quickly repeat what I said at the beginning of my presentation, which is in the text by the way.

In my opinion, a free vote is the consecration of discrimination because this free vote calls on individuals to vote in a distinctive manner on a question that must be clear and presented honestly. I am aware that there are people that claimed, in order to justify a free vote, that we had to respect moral convictions, etc.

But I don't believe that I am in a society where morals dominate. What are morals? I have my own morals. You have your own. The Catholic Church has its own. In the religious world, there are two worlds in catholicism with regard to homosexuality. I must admit that I am a Catholic-Anglican. I don't believe that there are many Sovereigntists who are Catholic-Anglicans in Quebec. I am a Catholic-Anglican because I believe that this religion is more open, more liberal, less authoritarian, less autocratic, and less papal, and that it is based on communities and that it has an enormous respect for men and women, for equality between men and women, and also a much greater respect for the whole issue of homosexuality.

We are no longer at a time where theories and moral approaches should contradict the law. We have progressed in the West and in the world since the Universal Declaration. It is not always obvious but we have nonetheless made progress with rights, haven't we. More and more, we are discussing ethics. The free vote on this matter embarrassed me and made me ashamed of this country. I said it at the beginning, but you were perhaps not here.

Since the game is played out in second reading in our parliamentary world, we are certainly not going to change things at third reading. In my opinion, this is a serious mistake, much more serious than the GST.

Mr. Ménard: Allow me one short question, madam Chair.

You know that there is a lesson behind what our witness has said. I completely agree.

As well, in politics, we are obliged to transmit a clear message when we have the opportunity to represent people. This does not mean that we hold the truth, you are right. It would be extremely pretentious for one of us to pretend to hold the truth. But when we vote freely on an issue, we are indicating to the people that we don't consider it to be, first and foremost, an issue of law. If I understand your message correctly, beyond any other consideration, the issue is above all putting an end to discrimination. This does not mean that there won't be other postulates following from this, such as recognizing same sex spouses. In fact, we're coming to that.

Mr. Champagne: Yes, that's another matter.

.1730

Mr Ménard: But this is not the question that I wanted to ask you. We have heard from psychiatrists since the beginning of our hearings. We have not heard form any lawyers and things went rather well, I must say, but we have heard from a fair number of psychiatrists, and people from the medical field. We have even heard from churches, some more captivating than others, but all claiming to work for the Eternal.

What I want to say to you, is that there is two streams of thought in this committee. With regards to the preamble, there are people who say that we must not define, because if we don't define then it will be less restrictive. There are also people who say that we must define because by taking on a legal aspect, we are protecting ourselves from subsequent situations of potential discrimination.

Should I understand that you are asking us to eliminate the preamble? You are saying that there is something ill-mannered about recognizing homosexuality and then right away donning a sort of intellectual condom by proclaiming the supremacy of the family, if I understand your point of view correctly.

Mr. Champagne: I think that I have expressed this clearly earlier. Under Bill C-33, you must speak out in a legal manner and about rights. I make the distinction between "rights" and "the law". I often say that lawyers have tried to recuperate the area of rights. This is why things are going quite badly, actually. It's a terrible simplification.

Therefore, from the standpoint of the law and of rights, your responsibility is to recognize that homosexual people in this country have the right to be treated the same as all other citizens under the law, especially with regard to their integrity.

I am talking about honesty, and you've allowed me to open a parenthesis. We can't really pretend that civilization or heterosexual civilization, in Canada and elsewhere in the world, taught us virtue and the respect for human beings. I do not believe that homosexual people invented rape of women and violence against women and, yet, this is one of the most shameful acts in all civilization on this planet.

We must be honest and frank here. How can we pretend that heterosexual people... In fact, when we look down on homosexual people, it is because we believe that heterosexual people are better, or more normal, as we say. This is the famous question of "normality". No.

I will close this parenthesis to say that, in my opinion, it is clear that this bill aims at discrimination and that you do not have to mention the family, because you are then asking the judicial and legal world to break with a classical interpretation, which is that of all lawyers.

You say that few lawyers were here today. That is unfortunate. I think that you would have needed lawyers much more than moralists. This is strictly a question of law and I would like to repeat the following: consult with as many important lawyers and judges in this country and they will tell you that, in their opinion, there's no legal link between the idea of discrimination, the protection from discrimination of homosexual people and the recognition of homosexuality as a value in the area of couples or "parentality".

The Chair: Do you think that this will have a negative effect on our goal?

Mr. Champagne: Well, yes. If you keep this preamble with the family...

Mr. Ménard: We will eliminate it.

Mr. Champagne: First of all, in my opinion, it seems wrong.

Mr. Bernier: Exactly.

Mr. Champagne: It seems false. I don't want to say any unkind words, but when I read it, I thought it was hypocritical to use the family in such a manner. We know that we don't have much respect for the family. I spent many years of my life trying to have Quebec adopt a family policy, which Canada still does not have.

.1735

Mr. Ménard: May I ask you one last question?

I first heard of you when I read an article on the family in the magazine Critères. This committee should perhaps consider eliminating the preamble on the family, thus eliminating all distinction.

As an homosexual, I can tell you that in my public life and in my speeches I have tried to include myself in a family. I say to people that, in my opinion, there is no biogenesis. I come from the family, a family that I loved, that I continue to love and that loves me as well. Is it not in our interest to create links with the family when we promote human rights?

I will give you my definition of a family. It is a place where people love, take care of and protect one another. Where there are these three ingredients, there is a family. With all due respect to my colleagues of the Reform Party. Between these two, everything is possible.

I am not convinced that we wouldn't be well adviser to do so, like the people who truly want to actively promote homosexual rights. I agree with you that we are not dealing with an issue involving rights. It would be dangerous to give our citizens an idea somewhat ethereal, somewhat evanescent...

There are links to be made with the family. Perhaps we should run the risk of being blamed for having an interpretation where the traditional family is automatically referred to. It would not be to our advantage. I am still not convinced that the family should not be referred to. I'd like to know your opinion on the matter.

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me for one moment, please. This is a very profound discussion, but the time has run out.

I know it is one of the most preoccupying discussions on the part of the Reform Party, and it has been part of the discussion within our own party. I wonder if those of you who are waiting your turn to come to the table as witnesses would have some patience. I would like to see a little bit more of this discussion take place, and I would ask you...I'm so tired, I...

Listen, I've been going at this since 7:45 this morning, I can't say the names...would you like to say what you have to say, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Champagne: To save time, you might perhaps ask a number of questions to which I would provide only one answer.

The Chair: He would like to add one point to the question.

[English]

The Chair: It's on the same subject.

Mr. McClelland: Yes. First of all, I -

The Chair: It's only your add-to-the-moment time, and then you're going to get your question time.

Mr. McClelland: First of all, I want to say that I see where Réal must have learned some of his oratory. I think that to keep us in our seats so long, and to speak as passionately as you did, is quite remarkable.

A Toronto group of churches came together...and in the ethics column of The Ottawa Citizen recently, the idea of a registered domestic partnership was brought forward. This partnership would say, then, that rights and benefits that accrue to a family would be based upon mutual dependence of any two people, that the sexual relationship would have no meaning.

And in the article, they said this would require people on both ends of the spectrum to put a little water in their wine. It would cause the people who feel most threatened by same-sex relationships to understand that there are many different kinds of families, families of father, son, mother, brother, or whatever; and it would also require the people on the homosexual side to put some water in their wine, and it might be a good solution not to bring in the term "marriage" for a same-sex relationship. That term could be replaced by "registered domestic partnership", which would then have legal standing.

Would you be kind enough to comment on that?

[Translation]

Mr. Champagne: I wouldn't want to delve into this question because this could lead us quite far. We are dealing with sociological attitudes towards the family.

.1740

I want to reiterate that legally and morally the issue of protection and discrimination and the issue of couples and families must not be mixed, regardless of the homosexual issue.

Mr. Ménard, you have a good conception of the family: people who love, who protect one another, etc. A renown family expert wrote, however, that the most dangerous place in society is the parents' bedroom. That is where most homicides are committed, according to statistics.

I'm hardly joking. Ideally, a family should you be the way you expressed it, but for me, from a technical point of view, a family is a group of parents and children. They live together to love each other, of course, but in this country of couples, this distinction must be made.

Mr. Bernier: That's right.

Mr. Champagne: That's why when I talk about heterosexual or homosexual people, I consider them first and foremost people, full fledged human beings, then I consider both of them in a relationship as couple, and finally, I consider them in a family relationship.

Moreover, it is a pity that even the Quebec Civil Code is, in my view, completely outdated. It was revised and still refers to the family on the basis of the couple and marriage.

What do you expect, that's ridiculous. The reality of the family is reflected in the parent-children group: the single parent, both parents, the parent plan.

Let's return to as big a family as possible. I could go on at great length on the problems of the family which are due to the fact that families are so small. There is nothing worse than a family with only one child; it gets a bit better with two children, with three, it's even better, and with four, it starts to be possible.

I'm hardly joking. I draw your attention to certain things that are happening in the world, especially in countries which are said to be the most "progressive" in the world, including the scandinavian countries.

Sweden, Norway and Denmark enacted legislation to recognize spousal rights and homosexual marriages and to grant them social benefits. Nevertheless, they banned adoption and in vitro fertilization. Perhaps they moved too quickly and mixed things up. That occurred between 1993 and 1994.

The other provision, which is the most recent and the most progressive in the world, is that of the state of New York. I believe it was in November of 1995. I remember that the media scorned the fact that the very same day, England took a regressive stance and New York took a so called progressive stance. The right of homosexuals to adopt their own children was recognized.

Do you think the right to adopt a child because you are homosexual is progressive? It is ridiculous. There is no progress there. It goes without saying that homosexuals can adopt their own child or their spouse's child from a previous union.

During the year when I did a considerable amount of counselling - what some pompous people call therapy - 60% of the couples I've met were there because one of the spouses had decided, at age 30, 40 or 50, to live his or her homosexuality and to no longer suppress it.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Do you have another question?

Mr. McClelland: No. Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Robinson: I would like to clarify that British Columbia enacted legislation long before New York and that it is not only couples that can adopt their own children, but also gay couples, lesbians and individuals.

Mr. Champagne: Yes, and it is another legal scene.

Mr. Robinson: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Is there anything from anybody on this side?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: At least, the second paragraph of the preamble will have to be removed.

.1745

Mr. Champagne: With respect to the specific text we already have, I think that it has to be rewritten and greatly simplified by good legal specialists. The vocabulary is always included in the Canadian Charter, but it has been reformulated unnecessarily. We must absolutely eliminate the mention concerning the family. This preamble on the family will give rise to difficulties which will be specifically invoked by the opponents of the bill.

Mr. Ménard: Do you share my speculation that the government included it from a parliamentary perspective to rally people who might see it as a violation of the sacrosanct family? Beyond the legal text, do you see a political strategy in this reference in the preamble?

Mr. Champagne: Yes, but the strategy is not at all clever, it is not frank and it gives adversaries ammunition.

The Chair: That is what was said when the bill was printed.

[English]

Does anyone else have a question?

Mr. McClelland: Madam Chair, very briefly because I know...and since others didn't...

Ms Augustine: That was just because of time.

Mr. McClelland: Yes, because of time. I'll be very brief.

The Chair: I just want to ask one question. Is Mrs. Landolt from REAL Women in the room? Is John Polanyi here?

Ms Diane Watts (Researcher, REAL Women of Canada): I'm here from REAL Women.

Mr. McClelland: That's fine. I'm finished.

The Chair: Mr. Champagne, if you care to stay, I think you might enjoy hearing Mr. Polanyi, who will speak following the REAL Women presentation. You should introduce yourselves to each other. You come with similar backgrounds.

Mr. Champagne: Merci.

Mr. Ménard: Merci beaucoup.

The Chair: Merci, merci, merci.

John Polanyi, would the two of you like to get together to just say hello, please? I think it would be worth while.

Welcome, Ms Watts. I'm sorry we kept everybody waiting a little bit, but these are not exactly easy issues. Do you have a presentation or opening remarks?

Ms Watts: Yes, I do.

I'd like to thank you for inviting the REAL Women of Canada to appear before you today. Due to the fact that we only received the invitation 24 hours ago, our legal counsel and national vice-president, Mrs. Gwen Landolt, is regrettably unable to appear.

.1750

First, I would like to respectfully state our objection to the undemocratic process in which this amendment is being rushed through the House of Commons, without enough time for all Canadians to be heard. This indicates a lack of respect for the democratic process and for the views of Canadians on an issue that is complex and could have serious ramifications for our country.

The hearings were not advertised, and groups were not given enough time to prepare and make arrangements to travel to Ottawa. This further indicates a capitulation to pressures from special interest groups and a disdain for the parliamentary system.

The proposed amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to provide protection on the grounds of sexual orientation is a complex moral issue. It is not a human rights issue, as argued by those activists who identify themselves as homosexuals. Even the UN's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which sets out the international standards of protected human rights, does not include sexual orientation as a protected right. That declaration does, however, specifically protect the natural family, which is described in the document as "the fundamental group unit of society"; that's in article 16.3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

At the Beijing women's conference in 1995, the women of the world rejected the inclusion of the term "sexual orientation" in the UN platform for action. Universally it was rejected.

We believe people who identify themselves as homosexuals or lesbians are not a true class in need of protection, because they are united only by certain practices that alone define and distinguish them from others. They claim, however, on the basis of their behaviour that they are no different from blacks or females.

However, ethnicity and gender are different from behaviour or desires, because they are immutable, morally neutral, distinguishing characteristics. They are immutable, which means they do not change, whereas behaviour changes. The behaviour or conduct of those in protected groups based on gender, race or lineage is irrelevant to their identification. Sexual preference or lifestyle and behaviour are the only unifying characteristics among those who identify themselves as homosexuals or lesbians.

We believe if this proposed amendment by Mr. Rock is passed into law, it will lead to fundamental changes to society. This conclusion is based on the fact that the undefined words "sexual orientation" in the act, according to Max Yalden, the chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, will lead to the expansion of the definition of "marital status" or "spouse" to include couples who identify themselves as homosexual or lesbian.

It can be expected that Mr. Rock's legislation will attempt to get around this by placing in the preamble or elsewhere a provision to the effect that the amendment will not affect the definition of "spouse" or "marital status". A court, however, will inevitably subsequently strike out or read down Mr. Rock's provision, saying this was written before this act really took place. The aim of Mr. Rock and the special interest groups that support him will therefore be achieved.

Certainly the addition of the words "sexual orientation" is not merely symbolic. Ontario courts have interpreted these words in the Ontario Human Rights Code so as to give to couples who identify themselves as homosexual or lesbian the right to adopt children and to receive family benefits, even though the code specifically refers to couples of the opposite sex only. So many things are read into legislation that were not intended by the legislators.

If the Canadian Human Rights Act is amended to include the words "sexual orientation" in the federal act, over fifty statutes will have to be amended, according to our legal counsel and according to our organizations. These will include, among others, the Income Tax Act, which would permit pension benefits for people who identify themselves as homosexual couples; the Immigration Act, which would permit people who identify themselves as homosexuals to sponsor their partners into Canada and a change in refugee policies for people who identify themselves as homosexual; and special hiring practices and quotas for employment of people who identify themselves as homosexuals under the Employment Equity Act.

.1755

This amendment could also lead to legal difficulties for churches or for individual Christian, Muslim, or other religious persons who believe homosexuality is wrong, based on their religious teachings. This is due to the fact that the Criminal Code has restraints about speaking out against designated groups, and the list of designated groups will be extended to persons who identify themselves as homosexual. Churches and individuals will then be required to defend themselves in court over their public statements on this issue.

It is significant that this proposed amendment was not included in the Liberals' red book or in either the 1994 or 1995 Speech from the Throne. According to a May 1992 Gallup poll, 61% of Canadians specifically opposed legal recognition of homosexual relationships. So this is unpopular among Canadians. In a 1994 Angus Reid poll, 67% of Canadians opposed the introduction of special benefits to same-sex couples. When the question includes family, even higher percentages of Canadians oppose changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The legislation is based on the demands of the special interest groups, of activists who identify themselves as homosexual, and of the media, not the taxpaying public. It is well known that this is not popular with Canadians.

Due to the hurried nature of the process, we were unable to prepare and present you with a brief, so I will give you some information from a brief we presented to the Senate committee on Bill S-2.

As an organization deeply concerned about the natural family, which we believe is the foundation of society, REAL Women has understandably grave concerns about the long-range implications of Bill C-33. We would like to state at the outset, however, that members of our organizations do not want anyone to experience unjust discrimination.

However, Bill C-33 has implications far beyond what would appear to be its prima facie intent of providing equality for persons who identify themselves as homosexual. This bill will lead to fundamental changes in society far beyond anything intended by the legislators. This is what our organization believes and this is the concern of many Canadians across the country.

Max Yalden, chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, stated that these changes would expand the definition of "marital status" and "spouse". Recent court decisions under the Charter of Rights indicate that the addition of these words is not merely symbolic; they have already led to changes in the Ontario provincial court, which has given homosexual couples the right to adopt children. Many Canadians are concerned about this.

Chief Justice McClung stated in the Vriend case:

When judges legislate, their product is assented to by them alone. All of these formative [parliamentary] resources stand suspended when rights-restless judges pitchfork their courts onto the uncertain waters of political debate.

We have political decisions that should be decided in the legislature being decided in the courts and we are concerned that there will be many conflicts here. It is up to Parliament to determine the definitions of "family" and "marital status", not the courts. However, we believe the latter will do so if the undefined words "sexual orientation" are included in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

It should be pointed out that court challenges to change the definitions of "spouse" and "marital status" are inevitable, since section 91.26 of the Constitution Act includes marriage and divorce as matters of federal jurisdiction. Some would state that this law will not do so, but many others state otherwise.

.1800

During the constitutional debates in 1982, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, then justice minister, stated:

It is because of the problem of definition of those words - sexual orientation -

that we do not think they should be in the constitution. Do not ask me today to tell you what it is, because those concepts are difficult to interpret, to define, and that is why we do not want them in the constitution.

It is noted the Quebec Human Rights Commission has interpreted the words "sexual orientation" as including "all tendencies or directions taken by one's sexuality including the behaviours generated thereby".

At a sexology conference held in Guelph, Ontario, Dr. Sharon Satterfield stated:

Pedophilia - a condition where adults are sexually attracted to children - may be a sexual orientation rather than a deviation.

More confusion. That is, even though a variety of sexual orientations are not acceptable, including pedophilia, and are regarded now as illegal, they may well subsequently be defined as legal by the courts. Many Canadians are concerned about this.

In short, although the Criminal Code, for example, supposedly protects children from adults sexually preying on them, this protection may be overturned in the courts by pedophiles arguing that the words "sexual orientation", undefined in the Canadian Human Rights Act, include their particular orientation and therefore they're being denied their orientation - that is, sex with children. These are facts that must be considered.

Historically the courts and civil rights authorities have applied three criteria to provide special protection status to disadvantaged minorities. These criteria include: economic, educational or cultural discrimination; immutable group characteristics; and political powerlessness. We believe, according to the information we have - and we have a table that could have been handed out to you if we had been given enough time - that none of these categories applies to homosexuals in Canada, or to people who identify themselves as homosexuals.

According to this research, homosexuals have very high average household income as compared to others. They have very high educational backgrounds and status as compared to Canadians in general. If you want that information, we have it available. We also have information that indicates that recent surveys show that persons who identify themselves as homosexuals, although comprising only 1% to 3% of the population, are highly educated and affluent.

So again, to conclude this section on the identification of disadvantaged groups, ethnicity and gender are different from behaviour or desires because they are immutable, morally neutral, distinguishing characteristics. The behaviour or conduct of those in a protected group based on gender, race or lineage is irrelevant to their identification. Sexual preference or lifestyle and behaviour are the unifying characteristics among homosexuals, as opposed to immutable, morally neutral, distinguishing characteristics. This is the concern of Canadians. It is not morally neutral. It is a moral issue.

It is clear that homosexual activists pushing for special recognition and protection are a powerful special interest group that are using their considerable wealth and political clout to piggyback on the legitimate claims of others. There's a confusion of true rights. It should be noted that to exclude sexual orientation from the Canadian Human Rights Act does not deprive homosexuals or people who identify themselves as homosexuals of one single constitutional right. We believe that all Canadians should have equal rights before the law.

.1805

To exclude sexual orientation from the Canadian Human Rights Act does not discriminate against them for their sexual practices since they already share all the fundamental rights of other Canadians and, in fact, have far more economic, educational, political and cultural advantages than most Canadian citizens do.

Persons who identify themselves as homosexuals are not being singled out for unfair treatment. In fact, they have singled themselves out for privileged treatment by aggressively pursuing special protective status to which they demonstrably have no valid claim.

In conclusion, we would like to say that amending the Canadian Human Rights Act by merely inserting into it the undefined words "sexual orientation" will have unexpected consequences that cannot now be foreseen. Moreover, this whole issue is a very complex matter with ramifications far beyond the so-called "simple solution" of providing equality for homosexuals or persons identifying themselves as homosexuals.

An in-depth, measured study of the issue is essential. Unfortunately, however, the established process of setting aside only one day for public consultation indicates a lack of respect for the views of the Canadian public and for the parliamentary system.

Our recommendations are that the Standing Committee on Human Rights recommend that Bill C-33 be withdrawn because of its unforeseen social and political implications, or alternately, that the Standing Committee on Human Rights recommend that all further consideration of this bill be delayed until such time as extensive and thorough public consultation can be held on this bill.

I'll just tell you something about our organization before we go on to questions.

The Chair: I want to advise you that you've got about seven minutes left.

Ms Watts: That's fine. Thank you.

Realistic, Equal, Active, and for Life Women of Canada is a non-partisan, interdenominational organization of independent women, federally incorporated in 1983. We come from all walks of life, occupations, and social and economic backgrounds. Some members are employed outside their homes, some are employed in the home, and some are both.

We represent a broad spectrum of Canadian women who are very concerned about this issue. We promote equality for women, the concept of which is expressed in "E" in our acronym, REAL. One of our objects is to support policies for women that provide equal opportunity in education, employment and retirement.

Our view is that the family, which is now undergoing serious strains, is the most important unit of Canadian society. Our definition of the family is two or more people living together who are related by blood, marriage or adoption.

The Chair: So if I have two adopted children and they marry adopted people, they're not a family when they get married. Is that what you just said to me?

Ms Watts: It's defined as two or more people living together related by blood, marriage or adoption. If two people marry, they are the beginning of a family.

The Chair: And they adopted two children.

Ms Watts: Do you mean two children from the same family?

The Chair: I said that they adopted two children. I don't care where...I don't know where the two children that they adopted came from.

Ms Watts: So they adopted two children.

The Chair: That's right.

Ms Watts: Were they from different families?

The Chair: Yes, of course. I think they're from two separate families. So what's the difference? They're adopted children. So now they're not a family according to... I want to understand if that's what you just said to me.

Mr. McClelland: She said adoption, Madam Chairman, and...please.

Ms Watts: The family is defined as two or more people living together related by blood, marriage or adoption. So if they're living together and they're related by adoption, they are a family. That's our definition of the family.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms Watts: Do you think we would say that parents who adopt children don't -

The Chair: I didn't know. I guess I misunderstood you.

Ms Watts: Do you really think that? That's rather interesting.

The Chair: No, I don't think that at all. I don't think it has anything to do with the project in front of us either.

[Translation]

A question?

Mr. Ménard: To be honest with you and since it is the first that we meet, I would like to clarify two things about myself.

.1810

First of all, I'm the member for Hochelaga - Maisonneuve, a riding in Montreal's east end, and secondly, I'm an openly avoived homosexual, very happy to be so and I feel very good about myself.

I admit that it has been a long time since I've heard comments like the ones you're making. You are clearly entitled to make them. I would even go as far as to recognize that, in a democracy, it represents a school of thought.

There are two things that you have said that I do not understand and I would like to discuss them with you. This afternoon, we heard from two witnesses who are professionals, people who earn a good living, and who, as far as I could see, are involved in their communities. One of them was a pediatrician. So he deals with children. He is an academic by training, and as far as I can see a man who has done very detailed work. The other was a psychiatrist from Toronto, from what I understood. Both of them came to tell us one thing. I would like to hear your opinion on it.

At present, as we speak, in 1996, there are young people in Canada who are discovering their homosexuality. We could get into a discussion on what makes one homosexual, but let's assume that it exists.

There are young people who discover their homosexuality. Thirty percent of them commit suicide because they live in an environment or in a society hostile to their lifestyle. This premise does not come from the committee nor from me, but from two professionals who earn their living dealiny with the situation I have just explained.

I have two questions on this. Do you believe that there is discrimination in life? Do you believe that there are young people who feel that they have no place in society to the extent that they commit suicide, or do you believe that these witnesses were slightly deranged and appeared before the committee to make false representations?

[English]

Ms Watts: I think it's important that within the professions there are a great many different opinions. I don't think there's a homogeneity of interpretation of why young people commit suicide. It could be because of all sorts of things. They are choosing to interpret it according to the victim status of the person who identifies himself as a homosexual. It could be something else. It could be a difficulty with accepting this identification. It could be guilt. There could be many reasons why these young people commit suicide.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Yes, that is correct. I think you are an open minded woman, a woman with the desire to serve her community, who wants to participate in a democratic process. At some point in the future, without determining when today, would you be available to sit down with me and look at the video and the information that the committee was lucky enough to obtain?

I have two facts for you to analyze. In life, you can disagree with the recognition of homosexuals. That is a point of view that exists and one that I do not share. You understand that. However, I think that we have to be honest with ourselves and recognize that in today's society, in 1996, there are young people who committed suicide when they discovered that they were homosexuals. We receive this information from two professionals. In today's society, there are conditions surrounding them that lead them to commit suicide.

Do not tell me that it may be for some other reason. Of course, it may because they have an ingrown nail or because their father did not give them a BMW. What the professionals told us is that young people commit suicide because there is intolerance and because in their community, people do not accept that they are homosexuals. I'm telling you this.

Perhaps you believe that all this is unfounded, but if you would like more information, contact people who can reconcile you with this. For the rest, it's a question of values. It's up to you, and as an homosexual, I will not try to convince you that my values are superior to yours.

Mr. McClelland, you seem a bit tense, and I would like to be able to address my question to the witness in peace, and with respect for who we are mutually.

.1815

I will not try to convince you that my values are superior. I will not try to convince you that my lifestyle is superior. I want to wrap up my comments by telling you that I am happy and that I feel good about myself and if there were a pill which would enable me to become heterosexual, I would not take it because I think that you can be homosexual and feel good about yourself. I would like you to give that some thought. Do you admit that there may be people who are homosexuals, whose sexuality is self-fulfilling and who feel good about themselves? Will you admit that that is a possibility?

[English]

Ms Watts: I'd like to go back to your previous question about the psychiatrists. They have every right to have a sociological interpretation of the suicide of young boys, but as far as some are concerned, if this act leads to the promotion of homosexuality, this may lead to the increase of young boys committing suicide. This is another concern.

The Chair: Boys and girls.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I have no further questions, Madam Chair. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. McClelland.

Mr. McClelland: First of all, thank you very much for coming here today. I would like to ask whether your organization could support the bill if you were assured or if you felt confident that it dealt exclusively with the prevention of discrimination.

Ms Watts: Well, how do you define the word "discrimination"? Are we going to have a society where we make no distinctions between groups of people or families? We value the family very highly. We think the family is essential for a stable society. If we're going to level everything to equality and not make distinctions that will help promote the family, we believe that will be a detriment to society, because the future of our society, we believe, depends on the strength of the family. Many Canadians believe that.

We don't think anyone should be discriminated against unjustly. We're against people being beaten up for whatever reason, be it the colour of their eyes or their behaviour or people imagining particular behaviour. We're against violence.

Mr. McClelland: I have a comment just for purposes of clarity, then. In previous testimony I have raised the concerns of people who feel threatened by this legislation in exactly the changes you have given voice to. If it were possible - I'm not suggesting for a moment that it is, but if it were - to amend this legislation so as to define sexual orientation or to limit sexual orientation and to put to rest some of the concerns that some people have about the potential of employment equity or affirmative action as a result of this, then you would still not be in favour of adding sexual orientation as a protected category in the Human Rights Act.

Ms Watts: I think that would take a very long time, and with the speed at which this is being rushed through, I think that's quite an impossibility.

Mr. McClelland: I agree that it's not possible. I appreciate that it's a hypothetical case.

Ms Watts: We've explained our objections to the term "sexual orientation". It's too vague and it can include all sorts of things, and then the courts take it from there and we have further divisions in the country, divisions upon divisions.

Mr. McClelland: For further purposes of clarity, in your comments I think I heard you say that pedophilia could be classified as a sexual orientation. I want to be absolutely clear that you are not imbuing any suggestion that pedophilia had any particular propensity to homosexuality or heterosexuality. Pedophilia is distinct unto itself.

Ms Watts: There are pedophiles who are attracted to their own sex and there are some who are attracted to both.

Mr. McClelland: Yes. So it has nothing to do -

Ms Watts: One who is attracted to his own sex could claim to be of this sexual orientation. It's pedophilia as itself that we are afraid could be included in sexual orientation.

Mr. McClelland: I understand, and thank you very much.

.1820

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Point of Order, Madam Chair. The witness must be reminded of a fact she already knows. At present, pedophilia is a crime and we should perhaps give REAL Women of Canada a copy of the Criminal Code. That would allow them to note that no one can intelligently and with full knowledge of the facts draw a link between sexual orientation and pedophilia. I find it very dishonest on the part of the Reform MP for asking the question and on the part of the witness for drawing such a link.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. That really wasn't a point of order.

Ms Watts: We were talking about transsexual orientation. There are many people who are concerned that this will be included.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: That is called ignorance, Madam.

[English]

Ms Watts: No, it's a deep concern for what's going on in society and for what we read about in the newspapers every day.

There was a recent case of a pedophile who was convicted and who claimed that this was his orientation. It's a legitimate concern.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Madam, are you aware that...

[English]

The Chair: The point is that he committed a criminal act. That's the point that's being made. That's the issue. I think we'll move on. That's not part of the discussion.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: But it is, it is.

[English]

Ms Watts: He identified himself as having that as a sexual orientation.

Mr. McClelland: Madam Chair, for the record, may I clarify that I was making no such suggestion? I wanted to clarify that it was strictly a Criminal Code offence. It had nothing to do with it.

The Chair: I think we understood that.

Mr. McClelland: My colleague, I think, didn't know that.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, did you not understand that Mr. McClelland said that?

Mr. Ménard: That is not what I understood. Instead, I understood that he was drawing a link, but in the end, I'm happy that you're making a distinction.

[English]

Mr. McClelland: Absolutely not.

Ms Watts: We should point out that there is a controversy within the so-called homosexual community. When you read the homosexual newspapers, which are available in Ottawa, there was a controversy within that community about whether pedophilia is a good -

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: May I ask you who your contacts withus the homosexual community are? I belong to that community, and I read a lot of the literature and frequent the places available to the community, always within the limits my values permit, and I have never heard people claim that homosexuality should be associated with pedophilia. Pedophilia is a criminal act. Why is it criminal? What is the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality? Tonight, if I sleep with a man, I want to sleep with a man who is a consenting adult. Pedophilia is criminal because there is exploitation. None with any sense of clarity can say that having sexual relations with a 13 year old child is not exploitation. That's the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia.

I challenge you to find someone in scientific journals or elsewhere who suggest that pedophilia is part of sexual orientation. You have to understand the difference.

[English]

Ms Watts: Well, I will send you the article -

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms Watts: - by people who identify with that community who support pedophilia.

The Chair: We'll move on to Andy Scott. Miss Watts, the intervener is now Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott: Thank you very much. I'd like to explore this. I genuinely want to understand the position, so please be patient with me. Maybe we'll start right from the core or the essence of this.

Do you believe that I should be able to release Mr. Ménard from his employment because I know he's homosexual?

Ms Watts: Our position is that if there are no incidents that interfere with proper employment, a person should not be released because of private acts. A person's private life is private.

Mr. Scott: So we're trying to protect the circumstance... The word that has come up most often today, for me, has been "fear". Every person who has appeared here has talked about fear. Parents are talking about fear for their kids. Kids are talking about fear -

Ms Watts: Well, I didn't speak about fear; I spoke about concern.

Mr. Scott: I'm getting to that. I'm genuinely trying to... One of the things that struck me was the fact that one of the fears is that a person can't...

For instance, if a person was beaten up, they can't tell the police that they were beaten up because the person who beat them up thought they were homosexual. That's because they're fearful they could lose their job if their employer finds out. So we're trying to take an action that will in some small way eradicate that fear. The fear that has been expressed to us is real.

.1825

The reason I asked the question of you was to find out whether or not you shared our desire to take away the fear of loss of employment that would then allow... I know you think there may be more to this, but I'm trying to get to the essence of what I think we're trying to do. I'm trying to find out whether we agree on that point.

Ms Watts: Are you saying you're trying to legislate the elimination of fear of loss of employment?

Mr. Scott: I'm trying to minimize it, I guess. Fear's a bad thing -

Ms Watts: You can't do that through legislation.

Mr. Scott: You can minimize it.

Ms Watts: If people are afraid, they could be rationally afraid for something that's really there, or irrationally afraid. I don't think you can find a legislation that's going to eliminate fear.

Mr. Scott: I'm not afraid that I could be fired because I'm a Protestant, because I couldn't be. I couldn't be fired because I'm a Protestant because I'm protected in this piece of legislation. What we're trying to do is establish whether or not we shouldn't offer that same protection to Mr. Ménard.

Witnesses have appeared before us to say that they're fearful about telling the police that this happened to them because they're afraid for their jobs. A women from national defence was here yesterday. She was released from her job because of her sexual orientation.

So I'm really getting to the point at which I'm trying to determine quite honestly whether we agree, as you say... I'm pleased to hear that you think someone should not be dismissed from their job because of their sexual orientation.

Ms Watts: No, I said because of their private acts. That's if their private acts don't interfere with their work.

Mr. Scott: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: No other interveners. Bill.

Mr. Graham (Rosedale): Very quickly, I have a couple of questions, Madam Chair. Thank you.

You said you were concerned about the speed with which this is being handled. You're aware, of course, that this was the subject matter of an all-party committee report in 1985. It was studied in depth by Parliament at that time. Are you aware of this? Did REAL Women of Canada appear before that committee process?

Ms Watts: I think we were involved, yes.

Mr. Graham: You participated in that process, did you not?

Ms Watts: Yes.

Mr. Graham: Did you not participate before the Senate?

Ms Watts: We did, yes.

Mr. Graham: You know those documents were available to the members of the House, which is part of the Parliament of Canada.

Ms Watts: We find it rather strange that we're phoned at 4:30 p.m. to appear the next day at5 p.m. We find that rather unusual.

That's never happened to us before. We've appeared before many committees, and we've always been able to phone our legal counsel, take time for preparing a brief, and make copies for the committee. We need to research them because every piece of legislation is different. It has to be approached separately.

Times change and the political circumstances change. We respond to that. We found it very strange that we were phoned at 4:30 p.m. one day to appear at 5 p.m. the next day. As a result, you do not have our legal counsel here.

Mr. Graham: That's unfortunate, but that is basically the problem. It's not a lack of an opportunity to present your brief. In fact, the brief you presented would be substantially the same as the one you presented before the Senate within the last few weeks.

Ms Watts: We believe the rush is a disdain for Canadians and the parliamentary process.

Mr. Graham: But you have participated on several occasions on this issue before.

Ms Watts: Yes, we have.

Mr. Graham: Thank you.

I would like to revisit this issue of the possibility of the term "sexual orientation" being used as a justification for criminal behaviour and therefore preventing the successful prosecution of someone for criminal behaviour.

I can appreciate that all sorts of defences are raised in cases to defend oneself against a charge raised by the Crown, but is REAL Women, or your legal counsel, with all the research you have done on this - you have made quite a point of this issue - ever found a case in Canada in which any of the other grounds of non-discrimination referred to in the act, namely race, religion or any of the other grounds that are referred to presently, have been successfully used by a criminal defendant to justify his or her criminal act in such a way that they were not convicted? It would be because of a claim based on the human rights code.

Ms Watts: We're concerned about the future. We're looking to the future, and we are concerned -

.1830

Mr. Graham: I'm asking you, with all the legal research you have done with your organization, have you ever found a case in which it has successfully been argued that the Canadian Human Rights Act serves as a defence for a criminal charge?

Ms Watts: We are concerned that someone will use this vague term to change the Criminal Code and to have their acts, which are considered criminal today, accepted because they're just another sexual orientation.

Mr. Graham: And you wouldn't be concerned that someone might argue the same thing if I said my religion was cannibalism? Might that not serve equally fancifully as a defence? Wouldn't it be as equally fanciful? That might happen.

Ms Watts: I don't know the future. We're just concerned about this.

A voice: I'm such a case. I'm a case that you have asked. I've been acquitted of a criminal charge, namely public mischief, on the basis of the defence of my religion.

The Chair: Please.

Mr. Graham: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Watts. We had much more time accorded than anticipated. Thank you for your participation.

A voice: The last presenter had 50 minutes.

The Chair: Yes, and I made an observation at the very outset that this was a very special and particular person and a particular instance. It was one of the very few representatives from Quebec, and it was important that we heard it.

We are going to suspend for a supper break for 15 minutes. I am sorry for those of you who came for whom we are about 45 minutes late. I hope it won't inconvenience too much.

.1832

.1907

The Chair: The session will recommence.

The documents you are about to receive are not from our next witness, Dr. Polanyi, just so you know that's not what we're going to follow right now.

Dr. Polanyi, we are really very honoured that you're here.

The members of our committee know, and perhaps the people who are listening don't know, that Dr. Polanyi is a Nobel Prize winner. He's brought so much honour to Canada.

We're very pleased that you have found the time to come and listen and to make this special trip to appear before us. I welcome you and I welcome the patience you have shown.

Do you have an opening statement, Doctor?

Dr. John Polanyi (Individual Presentation): Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

The patience I think is all around this table. You are working incredible hours, and I come as a citizen to thank you for that and also to give evidence of the fact that there is a broad constituency that is interested in this legislation and, as you will find from my remarks, enthusiastic about it.

I'm not here as an expert. I should tell you that my history does include some involvement with human rights discussion. I am a founding member of a couple of committees devoted to human rights, and I might take the opportunity to mention their existence.

One is the Royal Society of Canada's committee on human rights, and the second one is a committee of citizens across the country who can be counted as scientists or scholars, and they call themselves the Canadian Committee of Scientists and Scholars. Actually I have a list of them here, and I am currently the president of that group.

It would be perhaps improper for me to distribute that list, because those organizations both, the Royal Society one and the Canadian Committee of Scientists and Scholars, are concerned with gross violations of human rights - imprisonment, torture and such horrors - but it's through sensitivity to violations of human rights in their broad generality that we can hope to cut off the gross violations at their source.

.1910

To my shame I haven't previously been involved in the question of gay and lesbian rights that concerns us all in this room, but I'll make some comments as an inexpert witness.

First, we're all conscious here that ideas develop and attitudes change, and it's in the context of that development and change that you have your important debates. We're all anxious to assist those changes to be changes for the better.

The establishment of rules of conduct, which is what the Canadian Human Rights Act is about, is a step along that path. The establishment of rules is seldom the first step, and the amendment before you, Bill C-33, comes late in the development of more civilized attitudes to gay and lesbian rights.

Bill C-33, I hardly need tell you, would formally prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. I've written down a few questions that are in my mind and in the minds of other observers of these events.

The first that seems relevant is what is the public attitude to this sort of endeavour? My response to that is who is there among us who would regard discrimination against gays and lesbians as acceptable? No one - or indeed so few, let us say, that over the past twenty years now province after province, starting, as we heard this afternoon, with the province of Quebec, has formally prohibited such discrimination.

What that means by this time is that 90% of the population of Canada is already protected against this type of discrimination insofar as it lies in the power of the provinces to provide protection.

The question that leads me on to is what sort of quixotic circumstance has us as a country debating today a question we've already debated and decided one to two decades previously in our various provinces and territories? Is it even seemly that the federal government should lead from behind?

All I can say is that it's better that it lead from behind than that it not lead at all. The political machinery would surely be out of joint if we were unable to agree together on what overwhelmingly we've agreed to separately.

What is there to debate? Why should we not include in a law that requires respect for the dignity of all respect for gays and lesbians?

Well, some say the law will not change attitudes. My response to that is then let it change behaviour. Attitudes can be expected to change as a consequence.

Some say or think that being homosexual is a choice people make - a choice some, moreover, find unnatural. It is not, therefore, they would say, to be compared to being black or female or old - something people cannot alter. The people who say this - and we've heard it this afternoon again - have some thinking to do. Being homosexual is for the most part not a choice, and it's certainly not unnatural. And even if it were a choice, what of it?

.1915

Religion is chosen. Some tenets of some religions dismay us, and dismay me, but I respect the rights of individuals to choose their religion, and I support human rights legislation that recognizes their right.

Some feel that a prohibition of discrimination will lead to the granting of all sort of benefits, and that's been hinted at this afternoon too - benefits such as, to be specific, health benefits, or pension benefits to same-sex couples. And it could do so. Personally I believe it should, but that is a separate issue and, as I understand it, a separate jurisdiction. And one sees how separate it is in the fact that the pension issue is, I think, now before the courts in Quebec twenty years after the type of legislation we're here to debate came into effect.

My general comment on hearing this sort of argument I've just been making - that there may be further ramifications from protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination, that there may later be further ramifications... My general response to it is that for us to be fearful of doing one decent thing on the grounds that it might subsequently persuade us of the wisdom of doing another is an unworthy argument that blocks the way to the development of more civilized practices, the very sort of development that this committee exists to foster.

I'm going to try to make this short, so let me say finally that there is a group of decent people who we've also heard a little from this afternoon, who see the recognition of other sexual orientations, of other lifestyles, as constituting a threat to the family. I can only say...

The Chair: Dr. Polanyi, there was just a question of...you are a doctor of what?

Dr. Polanyi: Yes...variously, but mostly I work at the boundaries of chemistry and physics, not medicine.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: We thought you were a lawyer. Imagine how versatile you are in expressing yourself.

[English]

Dr. Polanyi: Just a minute, please.

Mr. Ménard: We believe you are a lawyer.

Dr. Polanyi: I'm deaf in two different languages. That's why I wear this...

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Polanyi: I was just going to close my remarks by referring to the people who have expressed their concern this afternoon that if we go along the path of recognizing other sexual orientations we will create a threat to the family. I can only say that as I see it - and I think on this one occasion I will speak for my family and say, as my family sees it - the precise opposite is the case. It's to the extent that we can see the value of each other's differing desires, priorities and lifestyles that we're able to exist happily and advantageously as a family. If the nuclear family - which we're talking about - tries to insulate itself from the wider human family, it's the nuclear family that will be destroyed. This bill is not a threat to but a part of most families' values.

.1920

I'll conclude with one sentence: what I see as being at issue here lies at the core of this committee's concerns, namely, ensuring respect for the humanity that is present in all of us, of whatever age, colour, race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. With that, I will end. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Bernier: I would like to thank Dr. Polanyi for having accepted to appear before our committee. I agree with your comments and I am delighted to hear them. It is refreshing to hear you remind us of a fundamental truth.

For you, the bill before us has nothing to do with moral issues, but constitutes a true question of law. Can I attribute that affirmation to you?

[English]

Dr. Polanyi: There is no moral issue in the sense of passing judgment on the lives of gays and lesbians. There is a moral issue in prohibiting victimization and persecution.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Ian.

I wanted to call you Russ, and I know you're not Russ. I have to get myself reoriented.

Mr. McClelland: Thank you very much for your excellent presentation, Dr. Polanyi. Notwithstanding your comments and the comments of very many of the witnesses today and yesterday, there is still a very large body of Canadians that is very much threatened by this bill. It doesn't matter whether people on one side of the issue and on the other side of the issue feel that their concerns are valid or not. The concerns are real and need to be addressed.

I had asked the Minister of Justice, who said that my concerns were groundless, but if it were possible to amend the bill so as to put to rest the fears of those who feel this bill could, in some way, open the floodgates for unintended consequences, recognizing that it may well not be necessary... But if in fact what it might achieve is to make those people who feel threatened be supportive of the bill because of the positive aspects of the prevention of discrimination and, probably more important, the coming together of our Canadian community in common purpose under the value that we don't discriminate against anybody for any reason, including those who are homosexual, in your opinion, would that be worth while?

.1925

Having said that, the Minister of Justice says it would be a waste of time.

Mr. Polanyi: Mr. McClelland, it's a very general question that you pose. From what I know of the document, I wouldn't know how to modify it in order to allay those residual concerns. I'm used to the fact that, as was said over here, people are fearful of change, and I'm therefore very much impressed that there is such a huge support in the country for this type of legislation. I think it's an overwhelming support.

I don't know what number to use, but there may be 20% of the population that has fears that this will produce terrible consequences for the future of Canada. I don't know that one could change this legislation to meet their fears. I think one needs to talk to them about the changes that have occurred, usually in the lifetimes of those people, because they tend to be people of my age or older. Those changes in attitude are enormous and they haven't brought destruction in their wake.

The changes I have in mind have produced a more tolerant, more gentle, more generous, and more decent society, with the recognition of one form of human rights after another, which stop short of the right to break the law or hurt others.

Mr. McClelland: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Svend.

Mr. Robinson: I too want to join in thanking Dr. Polanyi for appearing before the committee. He's someone for whom I have enormous respect.

I want to say as well how affirming it is, certainly for me as a gay man, to hear the wisdom and the leadership of Dr. Polanyi on this issue. I'm reminded of the words of Martin Luther King when he talked about the history of the struggle for justice and equality for blacks in America. He said that when the history of the struggle for blacks in America is written, what will be most striking is not the hatred of our enemies but the silence of our friends. I want to thank you for helping to break that silence and for speaking out so eloquently.

My colleague Mr. McClelland talked about the possibility of meeting people's fears by amending the legislation. One of the fears I assume Mr. McClelland is talking about is not one that he personally has promoted. It's certainly one that a number of his colleagues have promoted, but not one that he personally promoted. That is the linkage between pedophilia and sexual orientation. There's a suggestion that unless we define sexual orientation, somehow we might be encompassing pedophilia. We heard that from the previous witness.

I just wanted to note that the words "sexual orientation" aren't new in jurisprudence. These words have existed in legislation in Quebec since 1977. They've existed in other jurisdictions in America, in Europe, and elsewhere for well over 25 years. Never, not once, anywhere in the world, has it ever been suggested, let alone upheld by any tribunal anywhere, that sexual orientation covers illegal activity.

To suggest that we should be responding to this irrational fear I suggest is utterly ludicrous. Rather, Mr. McClelland and others in positions of leadership should be going out there and saying this is a hateful lie. Mr. McClelland should be educating his colleagues. Mr. McClelland should be helping me to educate Liberal members of Parliament like Tom Wappel, who again today distributed hateful literature making that same link.

.1930

So I'm glad and I'm honoured that you're here before the committee to help to enlighten not just members of this committee but the public as to the reality.

My one question is with respect to the issue of family. Here again it's been suggested that perhaps we should somehow make it clear that we are talking about, as some witnesses have said, "the traditional family". I'm not sure exactly what "the traditional family" means.

Probably the best-known family in the world is the family that was made up of Matthew and Marilla Cuthbert. Well, they were an older brother and sister. They were never married. They had an adopted child named Anne - Anne Shirley. Anne Shirley in fact is also known as Anne of Green Gables. That's probably the best-known Canadian family around the world.

Interestingly enough, the brother, Matthew, died. After Matthew died, Marilla's friend Rachel came to live with the family and they adopted twins. That family was a loving, committed, caring family. It didn't meet the definitions of some people, but I would argue it is one of the families that should be affirmed in Canadian society.

I appreciated your final words on that, and I wonder if you might just pick up on that point about perhaps celebrating the diversity of families in Canada instead of feeling threatened by it.

Dr. Polanyi: I certainly celebrate the beneficial changes I've seen in my life, not just in the human rights area but in reaching out to people outside the boundaries of one's own country and so on. My cast of mind is very much in favour of that.

As far as the family is concerned, I've seen a lot of changes in my lifetime. I probably can't repeat verbatim your definition of what a family is, but it was beautifully expressed.

That is a definition that people would widely recognize and accept, because it is no longer necessary that the senior partners of a household should have been blessed in a church or blessed in a court of law if the commitment is there. Not only do we recognize it in casual parlance but we recognize it in law, as far as I understand. We call it a common-law relationship, and there's a box you can tick on your tax form. That's real progress, and it isn't going to stop, which gives me a bridge to your other comment.

I shouldn't read your mind, but I think I'm as puzzled as you are at the level of fear some people have over this civilized and timely, if not overdue, piece of legislation that we're here to discuss. It's being looked at as if, as soon as it's passed, everybody's going to lose their senses and their sense of proportion and go insane. If you look at any document in that light, examining every word as to how it might be distorted and misused, then you'd better not have any legislation. In fact, you'd better never open your mouth. We have to get over that.

Mr. Robinson: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Russell MacLellan, followed by Jean, and that's the end, please.

Mr. MacLellan: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Welcome, doctors. Thank you for coming this evening.

A great many gays and lesbians have been very valued and brilliant members of the scientific community. Fortunately the scientific community left on its own does not discriminate, but sometimes, with administration and other agencies involved, discrimination can of course enter the picture. Have you known of any incidences where tremendously capable scientific minds were hindered in any way by discrimination because of their sexual orientation?

.1935

Dr. Polanyi: My experience of science is limited to academic laboratories where I can't imagine that discrimination playing a part, at least not in recent decades. In my father's generation I can readily imagine it. Yes. We've come a long way in what - to me, at least - seems to be a short span of time and we should expect to go further in the future.

Mr. MacLellan: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Jean Augustine, please.

Mr. Robinson: Madam Chair, if I may, very briefly...Mr. McLellan asked a question about scientists. I just want to point out that Alan Turing, one of the most brilliant physicists, who actually broke the German code in World War II, ultimately committed suicide in the mid-1950s because of the profound sense of discrimination that he as a gay man endured in his own country.

The Chair: Thank you.

Dr. Polanyi: Madam Chairman, that should have been a rebuke to me, because Alan Turing was a friend of mine, a good friend. I should have thought of him.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Jean.

Ms Augustine: Madam Chair, you know that I've been grappling all day, and going back and forth as I listened to some of the arguments that are placed before us. But I'm confirmed and I know of something...and I want to welcome Dr. Polanyi and thank him for being here with us. His is one of the most brilliant minds in Canada.

Before you, Doctor, we've had a number of people come to this table who are excellent and outstanding Canadians, and we've had some back and forth discussion about human rights and our national commitments. We're signatories to so many things in the international arena. We talked a bit about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and about the Human Rights Act that is before us.

For me, it seems that the argument is clear. I'm reading the legislation clearly: we're talking about discrimination. We have evidence that there is discrimination meted out to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. We also have recent polls that show that the majority of Canadians do not tolerate and will not tolerate or support changes that would not...permit discrimination on any basis whatsoever. And so we have the arguments going back and forth...

At the same time, it seems to me that the arguments or the lines that go along are seeing the legislation not in terms of an amendment to the Human Rights Act but in terms of morality and religion. And that seems to me... In looking at the bill and going over all the discussions that we've had back and forth, I cannot see a whole series of what could be called the "floodgate things" pouring in.

We have also a working document or fact book with some questions and answers. We had the minister here yesterday who said that there definitely won't be any changes to federal statutes as a result of making the human rights amendments. The questions here ask quite explicitly if it would give special rights, and the answer is no. Won't this amendment lead to benefits for same-sex partners? The answer comes back... This little booklet again sets out quite clearly the intent of this piece of legislation.

So it seems to me that a lot of the discussion...and when you ask what there is to debate, I tend to agree. That is the question that's circling around in my own head as I sit here as a member of this committee. What is there to debate? I see it strictly as an amendment to the human rights code.

Dr. Polanyi: I did remark in passing that when people say that if we make this particular modest step in thinking and civilized behaviour it may lead to further steps, one has to concede that it easily may, but each of those steps will be debated among citizens, and citizens and governments and legislators and so on, as they are taken.

.1940

So not to dare to take step one, which is thoroughly indicated, on the grounds that it may educate you to take, at a later date, step two, is I think a rather shameful piece of cowardice, really. I'm just saying I would concede that more will follow from this, but not outside our control. It's just that we grow and we learn through doing things.

We cannot fail to do anything that might subsequently lead us to see the world afresh and to take further steps.

Ms Augustine: If I may, I'd like to finish off with one small point.

The Chair: You may finish off with one.

Ms Augustine: I remember being part of several debates and discussions, things we take for granted right now. In 1977 I remember the debate that went on in terms of the formulation of the Canadian Human Rights Act. I remember 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 15, and all the discussion that went on as to what should go in there. I also remember 1986 and beyond, even to this Parliament, the discussion around employment equity and the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, the whole series of things where we struggled with the debate.

At the end, as Canadians we did the right thing. Those are now the signal pride of our country and our nation. It seems to me this is one debate where, hopefully, when we get to the end, as Canadians we'll be the better for it.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Dr. Polanyi, I want to thank you very much for being with us and for contributing to the thinking around this particular amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Dr. Polanyi: Thank you for inviting me.

The Chair: I now call the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. I welcome Mr. Bruce Clemenger, Madame Danielle Shaw and Mr. Robert Nadeau. I thank you, too, for your patience.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger (Director, National Affairs, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada): Thank you for your patience.

It's a challenge for us to follow someone of the stature of Dr. Polanyi. However, our approach to this issue will be somewhat different.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada is a national association of Protestant evangelicals. Our membership consists of 28 denominations as well as individual churches, para-church organizations and individuals. The Evangelical Fellowship was founded in 1964. One of our goals or purposes is to represent our constituency to Parliament, the courts and other government bodies.

We affirm the value and dignity of every human being. We were all created in the image of God. We also believe the marriage relationship between a woman and a man is the only appropriate form for sexual intimacy. Thus, we believe, or our member denominations believe, homosexual practice is wrong. We also believe, however, no individual should be subject to arbitrary discrimination based on irrelevant personal characteristics.

We are concerned that this amendment will do more than simply protect particular members of society from discrimination in areas of employment or provision of government services. We are concerned that the amendment may lead to a redefinition of terms, such as "marital status" and "family status" within the act, and terms such as "spouse" in other legislative areas of federal jurisdiction.

Ms Danielle Shaw (Evangelical Fellowship of Canada): When the Haig decision was released by the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1992, the court was obviously faced with a difficult question: should gays and lesbians be provided with an avenue of redress where they are denied access to employment, promotions and job training where Parliament has declined to do so? The court answered that question. The answer to that question was, yes, and the result was that the grounds of "sexual orientation" were judicially added to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

We feel the difficulty with the ruling in Haig is that it didn't set the parameters for the equality rights protection afforded by the Canadian Human Rights Act. That decision is now being interpreted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to mean that it would be discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation not to extend spousal benefits to same-sex couples.

.1945

To date, Canadian courts have consistently upheld the right of legislators to exclude same-sex couples from the definition of "spouse" in federal legislation and benefits packages. A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in Egan ruled that the exclusion of same-sex couples from the definition of spouse, as contained in the Old Age Security Act, was consistent with the Charter.

Mr. Clemenger: The Canadian Human Rights Act pertains to all laws coming within the purview of the legislative authority of parliament. Its application extends to both private and governmental activities. The Supreme Court of Canada has described human rights legislation as:

public and fundamental law of general application [which] prevails where there is a conflict with other specific legislation

Due to this quasi-constitutional nature of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the possible implications of amendments must be carefully weighed. For example, the Canadian Human Rights Act applies to telephonic communications messages likely to expose people to hatred or contempt. The act does not define contempt; however, the term has been judicially interpreted to mean a mental process of looking down upon or treating inferior the object of one's feelings.

We would ask, would a religious person or any other person motivated by a moral conscience who, on the basis of his or her beliefs or conscience, publicly maintains that an active homosexual lifestyle is sinful be guilty of inciting contempt for homosexuals? How does one reconcile the freedom of conscience and religion of those who have moral objections to an active homosexual lifestyle with the desire of homosexuals not to be the subjects of contempt because of their lifestyle?

The complexity of the act was exemplified in Bill C-108, proposed amendments to the act introduced by the Hon. Kim Campbell, the then justice minister, in 1992. When proposing the inclusion of sexual orientation in the act, the justice minister anticipated a need to confirm the opposite-sex definition of marital status. She also allowed for exemptions with respect to hiring by religious organizations, and she had limits on provisions of the act that paralleled section 1 of the Charter.

Bill C-33 would simply amend the Canadian Human Rights Act by adding two words - namely, "sexual orientation" - to sections 2 and 3, without any corresponding amendments, to safeguard against potentially undesirable social policy consequences.

Ms Shaw: The EFC is concerned that a formal amendment to the act may lead to a de facto redefinition of the terms "marital status" and "family status", as contained in the act. Over the past few years, two justice ministers and the chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission have had different interpretations of the effect the amendment will have.

The EFC has consistently expressed the view that the failure to explicitly describe and limit the scope of the amendment could ultimately result in a redefinition of the terms marital status and family status, as well as spouse, as interpreted under the act. We are strongly opposed to any such incursion on the sanctity of marriage and spousal status.

The Supreme Court of Canada in Mossop ruled that the exclusion of sexual orientation from the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination was evidence of the government's intention not to protect same-sex couples under the umbrella of family status. The court stated, however, that had the grounds of sexual orientation been added to the act, along with family status in the 1980s, the outcome might have been different.

Subsequent to the inclusion of the grounds of sexual orientation in the Ontario Human Rights Code, an Ontario board of inquiry in Leshner v. The Crown (Ontario) (1992) ruled that the opposite-sex definition of marital status contained in the Ontario Human Rights Code was discriminatory.

We would ask, would a similar finding flow from an amended Canadian Human Rights Act? If sexual orientation is included in the act, it must be accompanied by an opposite-sex definition of marital status and family status to indicate the clear intention of Parliament in amending the act. The amendment should also contain a provision similar to section 1 of the charter so that public policy objectives intended by Parliament will not be undermined.

Mr. Justice Sopinka stated in Egan v. Canada:

government must be accorded some flexibility in extending social benefits and does not have to be pro-active in recognizing new social relationships ... This Court has recognized that it is legitimate for the government to make choices between disadvantaged groups and that it must be provided with some leeway to do so

Where section 1 of the charter provides checks and balances where there are competing interests in society, human rights legislation does not. Where the Canadian Human Rights Commission finds that a discriminatory practice, as defined in the act, has occurred, there is no room under that act to consider the underlying policy objectives.

.1950

Mr. Clemenger: We're also concerned that the amendment to the act will result in de facto, if not express, redefinition of spouse and extension of benefits to same-sex couples as spouses. Justice Minister Allan Rock has stated that the amendment will not result in the extension of benefits to same-sex partners. The question of benefits is a separate matter and is already the subject of litigation under the charter.

However, the chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission has stated:

We are strongly in favour of an amendment [to the CHRA] that would prohibit any discrimination based on sexual orientation. That means that if benefits are paid to a heterosexual couple living common law, the same benefits should be paid to a couple living in the same situation, except that they are two men or two women.

If the chief commissioner of the Human Rights Commission, the body to which the administration of the act has been entrusted, equates the Canadian Human Rights Act amendment with the ability to extent benefits to same-sex couples, how can the justice minister be confident that the amendment will not have this effect?

If there are other forms of relationships in society that should be afforded benefits, then these should be examined by Parliament. We believe the redefinition of spouse, martial status and family status is not the appropriate means to extend benefits to other types of relationships.

Ms Shaw: The inclusion of sexual orientation in human rights legislation and federal legislation generally, we believe, threatens the definition of marriage. The constitutional validity of the definition of marriage has already been challenged. Given the scope of the act, the inclusion of sexual orientation will make it more difficult to retain the current common-law definition of marriage.

The opposite-sex definition of marriage and spouse reflects a long-standing tradition of English and Canadian common law as well as European law, which restricts marital and spousal status to heterosexual couples. It is also consistent with the definition of spouse in over 50 federal statutes and hundreds of provincial statutes throughout the country. Any legislative amendment that would alter this definition should not be undertaken lightly, but with the greatest of caution.

Mr. Clemenger: We are also concerned that the failure to define the term "sexual orientation" may have unwanted results both in terms of the types of groups protected and the scope of the activity protected under the auspices of "sexual orientation". Where definitions have been offered, they are troubling, and indicate the problem with the term.

In a letter to EFC, Justice Minister Allan Rock stated:

Some people have expressed a concern that this term might be broad enough to include protection for those engaging in sexual behaviours which are contrary to the Criminal Code ... I do not believe this is a valid concern.

However, in May 1995 one of three Ontario Court of Appeal judges ruled that the prohibition against anal intercourse between minors denied their choice of "sexual expression". Thus, by interpreting sexual orientation to include sexual expression, the courts made legal a sexual behaviour that was previously contrary to the Criminal Code.

What exactly is protected under the umbrella of sexual orientation? Is it one's disposition or inclination or does it extend to any and all forms of expression that flow from one's inclination or disposition? If it is the expression, does it encompass behaviour or lifestyle? Is this the sort of protection that was intended when the list of grounds was developed for the charter and human rights codes? The charter and the human rights codes seek to protect persons from unequal treatment because of who they are rather than what they do. A precise legal definition of sexual orientation would avoid the possibility of court challenges that might result in a broader definition of the term than the legislators intended.

Ms Shaw: The EFC acknowledges that there are several types of relationships not currently recognized under federal legislation and benefit schemes. In seeking to address what some consider inequities in the provision of benefits, in the absence of alternative categories the inequities have been addressed through the expansion of existing categories such as marital status and spouse.

Marriage and family have been given distinctive status, which affords certain responsibilities, privileges and benefits because of their unique role in providing a stable and committed relationship between woman and man and a setting for the procreation, raising and nurturing of children. Amending the Canadian Human Rights Act prior to a comprehensive review of existing benefits structures and relationships of dependants, without building adequate definitional safeguards, may very well lead to an ultimate redefinition of spouse and marriage.

The EFC urges that definitional safeguards that would clearly define marital status as referring to heterosexual relationships only; exemptions for religious organizations that may be affected by the Canadian Human Rights Act; and limits on equality rights similar to those in the Charter, as well as a precise definition of sexual orientation, be included if the amendments are to be enacted. To do less would be to abdicate the true responsibility of Parliament by ducking the tough issues and further allowing the courts and tribunals to set the public policy agenda.

.1955

Mr. Robert Nadeau (Evangelical Fellowship of Canada): Perhaps I could add just one thing. We do have comprehensive briefs we'll be presenting to you so you can follow the arguments in more detail. I'll really summarize our fundamental position in maybe just 30 seconds.

We are opposed to discrimination against homosexuals in employment, in the provision of goods and services, where their sexual orientation is not relevant. We do not believe that homosexuals should be taken to the back of the shop. We're not here arguing against the amendment you are proposing.

What we are doing is arguing that you need to add safeguards to protect against undesirable consequences by allowing that term, undefined as it is, to be used by the courts and tribunals to redefine spousal status, marital status, family status.

We have cited a number of cases in which it has already been done. Provincially it's been done. The term "sexual orientation" was added to the Ontario Human Rights Code about ten years ago.

At that time, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada argued that to do so would eventually lead to the adoption of children by homosexuals and to the teaching of homosexuality and alternative lifestyles in the schools. We were told at that time that we were overreacting and that it would never happen.

History has proven us correct: it has happened. We are saying that the Supreme Court of Canada itself, in the Mossop case, has said that if sexual orientation was in the Canadian Human Rights Act at the time the Mossop case came before it, then it might have ruled differently. The implication clearly from Chief Justice Lamer, if you read his judgment, is that he would have ruled differently, such that family status would include homosexuals.

So we're urging you to adopt some sound amendments. If in fact the government is being truthful when it says its intention is not to go beyond the protection of homosexuals against discrimination, then what is the peril of adding definitional safeguards for marital status, spousal status and marriage in this statute, which will put to rest the minds of many Canadians who are concerned that this will lead to much more?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Nadeau.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: We are in the presence of two lawyers. You have concerns regarding the true scope of the act the committee is considering.

You started your presentation by saying that homosexual practices were harmful. You fear that one of the courts in this country will institutionalize and recognize a lifestyle you call alternative.

That is hard for us, as parliamentarians, who take to heart to ensure that no discrimination survives the turn of the century, because that is what we're talking about.

Before turning to the technical legal points, I would like to ask you what you are basing yourself on to say that homosexuality is wrong. On you knowledge? On your previous relationships as an individual? On your repressed fantasies?

Your statement to the committee has nothing to do with law or the act, but moral appreciation. Based on your personal experience, your contacts or your fantasies, I would like you to tell us why homosexuality is not an acceptable practice.

.2000

[English]

Mr. Nadeau: Even if I am a lawyer, I'll try to address that, if I may. We represent the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, which is an association of 29 evangelical Protestant denominations. These are Christian religious groups and organizations representing close to2 million Canadians.

There are 29 denominations and many churches. It is a moral precept adopted by the evangelical churches in this country that homosexuality is wrong. But if I may, that occupied 2 lines of perhaps a 600-line presentation to you. We felt it was fair and reasonable for us to tell you that we come to you as representatives of church groups and organizations.

In a pluralistic society - I'm sure you will agree with us - and constitutional democracy, we sit at the table representing a lot of different perspectives, value systems and world views. We come to you representing close to 2 million Canadians who belong to our churches to say that our constituency believes that homosexuality is wrong.

But that's not the purpose or the focus of our meeting here. We're not here preaching to you today about the morality of homosexuality. What we are saying is that we are concerned on a public policy basis, even if our religious beliefs or those of our constituents are that homosexuality is wrong. That's not in a vacuum; that is based on centuries of historical teaching by the Christian church.

But that's not why we're here. This is a legislative body. That's why we have spent 99% of our presentation on -

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Your conclusion is wrong, because your premise is false. To appreciate an act like this one, you cannot say from the outset that homosexuality is something wrong.

You cannot say at the same time that homosexuality is wrong and that you don't want any discrimination on that basis, or the words don't make sense. I do however respect your opinion.

How would you react if I were to say that religion is perverted? The term is generic, homosexuality or religion, and we say it's perverted. I can tell you that my religion is not the same as yours. I can tell you what religion is for me; it is someone who believes in mysteries, someone who sees problems where there are mysteries, someone who is superstitious.

In my religion, there are moral principles that we are not discussing here. I agree with you. We are legislators. We want to put an end to discriminatory practices. Each and everyone of us can give you examples of people who are discriminated against because they define themselves as homosexuals or because they look homosexuals.

You are appearing before us today and telling us that you are against discrimination. This is much to your credit. So why not admit that homosexuality may be a lifestyle to which people are free to consent? The minister of Justice rose in the House and said: "I have been married for 13 years, I'm happy to be married and I am heterosexual", but this bill that he introduced, as a heterosexual, as a minister who has a public voice, will not prevent him from living as an heterosexual.

Why not admit that in this country, there may be homosexual community that feels good about itself, that accepts to live as homosexuals and that is present in various sectors of society, and an heterosexual community that is entitled to experience things differently in the way that it thinks of starting a family?

Why, according to you, is homosexuality something wrong? Have you ever in your life met homosexuals who are happy, who feel good about themselves and who are happy to be involved to some sectors of activity?

[English]

Mr. Nadeau: I think the short answer to your question, since you're asking why we say homosexuality is wrong...

With respect, I wish we could move on from that, because that's not the purpose of our presentation. The reason is simple. That is the moral teaching of our church, of the Christian faith. That's the traditional, historic, orthodox, moral teaching of the church.

.2005

We're not here to discuss theology. We're here to discuss legislation and discrimination. The Christian church affirms the dignity, the humanity of every human being.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: So, we shall discuss the law. With all due respect, I find the argument a bit short, but I respect the fact that you don't want to discuss this with us.

In 1992, in the Canadian army, an officer told his superior that he was homosexual. That superior fired him. The officer in question, Mr. Haig, wanted to file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, but his complaint was deemed inadmissible. In 1992, the Canadian Human Rights Commission advised that officer who had been dismissed by the Canadian Armed Forces because he was homosexual to appeal his dismissal before a common law tribunal.

You are a lawyer and you understand the difference between administrative tribunals and common law tribunals. The case went as far as the Ontario Appeals Court. That court ruled that pursuant to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was declared unconstitutional because it did not guarantee equal treatment for homosexuals. That is the genealogy of the Haig affair.

Do you think the Charter should contain provisions guaranteeing equal treatment for all?

[English]

Mr. Clemenger: Yes, we do believe there should be protections for equal treatment under the law.

Here's another case. In Alberta, a lab instructor who was openly homosexual was dismissed from his position from a Christian liberal arts college. That's the Vriend case.

He then thought he was being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. He tried to appeal to the human rights commissions. Sexual orientation was not in the Individual's Rights Protection Act, so he complained to the court. In the lower court, Justice Russell felt that the Individual's Rights Protection Act was discriminatory by not including sexual orientation, and the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned that decision.

Again, going back, you raised the issue of Haig; we would raise the issue of Vriend. How do you protect persons against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and yet also allow say a Christian institution, which has definite moral views on homosexuality, to retain its integrity in its hiring practices? I think that's where we're trying to find the balance.

Mr. McClelland: I wish to thank you for a very good presentation. It's been a long day, and I think the presentation was very valuable.

I have three questions. If I may, I'll give you all three. Then answer them as you will.

The root of this is the prevention of discrimination. Virtually everyone agrees that the threat is the notion of giving the imprimatur to homosexuality by the federal government in a way that was not intended, but at the same time, there's the necessity of affirming the dignity of all people without making a moral judgment. That's because we're talking about law versus religion. But we have to be conscious of both sides of the equation.

I understand that it's difficult, everybody's tired and tempers are getting frayed. But I wonder if you could answer a question for me.

If people are born... You don't get up in the morning and decide you're going to be homosexual; you are homosexual or lesbian. If you're born that way, how could there, under even a moral precept, be any justification for dealing differently with people?

Second, if the amendments that you described were made to this bill, would you support it in order to support anti-discrimination, which we recognize and acknowledge does happen? At least I recognize and acknowledge it happens, and the vast majority of Canadians would agree that it happens. I think the proof of that is irrefutable.

.2010

My third one is this. A coalition of Christian churches in the Toronto area came together recently. It was reported in the ethics column of The Ottawa Citizen recently that in order to bridge some of this chasm, the term "registered domestic partnerships" could be used so as to provide a balance for any two people living together. Just take sex right out of it. Any two people living together - it's none of our business what their sexual relationship is - under a contractual arrangement would have status.

I realize that's a lot of questions. Madam Chairman, I hope you'll indulge the answers.

The Chair: We will indulge as long as the answers are a little bit shorter.

Mr. Clemenger: As for the idea of registered domestic partnership, to be fair, at least one of our member denominations has endorsed that to an extent. That's why in our oral comments and in our brief, which you'll see, we talk about the fact that a lot of people argue that there are other forms of relationships that are deserving of protection and that those perhaps shouldn't be defined in terms of sexual activity itself, but of mutual dependence, troth, economic dependence, and those types of things.

As a fellowship, it's been the subject of debate. There's no consensus on whether benefits should be extended or not to those other forms of relationships.

Some would argue that there should be some levels. Others would argue that full benefits should be extended, but just use a different name.

I think we would be interested in exploring those opportunities. We note that the justice minister, at least 18 months ago, indicated that this would be a possibility and had promised consultations on it. In our letters to him, and what we are urging here too, is that we should have that discussion first.

If we come to a consensus that there should be another category called "partner" or "registered domestic partnership" to which some benefits or some protections or status should be extended, then let's decide that first, and then include that category in the Canadian Human Rights Act to take the weight off marital status, family status or spouse.

The Chair: Excuse me. I'd like a clarification. In other words, without having these weighting measures, you're prepared to say no human rights protection and no protection against discrimination unless you've got all the other things. Is that what I just understood you to say?

Mr. Nadeau: No. I think we're saying that we agree with the justice minister on this. This legislation specifically deals with discrimination in employment, provision of goods and services. We're not disputing that.

The Chair: Are you accepting that principle?

Mr. Nadeau: We're accepting -

The Chair: I asked a question: do you accept that principle?

Mr. Nadeau: Yes, the answer is that we accept that principle with a qualification, and I think that's fair.

The Chair: That's why I asked you what I asked you.

Mr. Nadeau: Right.

The Chair: It's with the qualifications only. In other words, you're prepared to discriminate if there are no qualifications. Is that what you said?

Mr. Nadeau: No, I'm sorry.

The Chair: Then what are you saying?

Mr. Nadeau: Please don't put words in our mouth. I'll try again. It's probably my fault. It's a long day. I'll try to be a little clearer.

What we're saying is that we could support this legislation because we agree with the principle of non-discrimination in employment, provision of goods and services in federally regulated areas, but we are not prepared to support this legislation if the predictable consequence of that - I believe we have sound arguments for that - is a redefinition of spousal status, family status, and marital status. Okay?

Mr. Robinson: Thank you. I just wanted to seek clarification before asking a couple of questions. I want to seek clarification with respect to one matter that was included in a fund-raising letter that was sent out by a Mr. Brian Stiller. I'm not sure if he's still the executive director of the fellowship. Is he?

Mr. Nadeau: Yes.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Stiller sent out a fund-raising letter under the headline "Protect Family Values". The letter refers to the decision by the American Psychiatric Association to delete homosexuality as a medical term from its list of abnormalities and it includes this statement:

Nor have the media covered the fact that subsequent surveys have indicated that a majority of psychiatrists still regard homosexuality as abnormal sexual behaviour.

I'd like to ask what those surveys are.

.2015

Mr. Nadeau: I wonder if I can address that. I would be interested to know how long ago that was. I think that was probably a fairly long time ago.

Mr. Robinson: This was a year and a half ago.

Mr. Nadeau: The studies immediately following the vote... I believe the vote of the American Psychiatric Association took place in the 1970s. Is that correct?

Mr. Robinson: It was 1973.

Mr. Nadeau: That's right. Immediately following that there was a survey. It's been a long time, and you catch us by surprise with this, but in fact I did see those surveys about seven or eight years ago.

Mr. Robinson: Perhaps you could share that information, because I'm informed by at least one of the witnesses who appeared earlier, who is a psychiatrist, that this statement is without foundation, and there are no surveys of psychiatrists to that effect. If you have the information, I'd welcome receipt of it. Perhaps you could share it with the clerk.

Mr. Nadeau: We'll undertake to get that.

Mr. Robinson: I'd appreciate that.

I'm trying to understand, I guess, exactly where you're coming from here.

Madam Chair, the witnesses are saying they agree with the principle of non-discrimination in employment. We're going to be hearing shortly from the Conference of Catholic Bishops. They are urging the committee to amend the legislation in order that it allow employers to make the non-practice of homosexual activity a bona fide occupational qualification. In other words, you can be homosexual, but the non-practice of homosexual activity would be a bona fide occupational qualification.

Do you agree with that suggestion by the Catholic bishops?

Mr. Nadeau: I think you'll have to address that question to the Catholic bishops. Our position is that arbitrary discrimination against a person on the basis of their sexual orientation, where that sexual orientation is irrelevant to the employment, should not be allowed. It can be relevant. I think Mr. Clemenger earlier mentioned about the Christian college in Alberta, where it was very relevant to that institution that its employees follow a particular Christian lifestyle. That is relevant.

Mr. Robinson: I suppose that can be debated. Mr. Vriend was a well-respected and admired lab instructor. It's not clear that his personal sexual orientation affected his ability to do that job as lab instructor.

Let me ask you this, then. What you're saying is that individuals who are gay and who engage in homosexual activity should be protected by this human rights legislation.

Mr. Nadeau: What they do privately is irrelevant to their working at a shoe store, if I can use that example, or working for the federal government. They should not be discriminated against on the basis of what they do privately.

Mr. Robinson: So within federal jurisdiction, then, you don't have a problem with saying you cannot fire somebody unless there is a bona fide occupational requirement.

Mr. Nadeau: Of course, you know and I know how vague and loose bona fide occupational requirements are. We'd want to qualify what we mean by the principle.

Mr. Robinson: Okay. That's exactly what the present Canadian Human Rights Act specifies.

The Chair: That was going to be my point, too.

Mr. Robinson: That's precisely what the Canadian Human Rights Act specifies today. I assume at least two of the members, who are lawyers, and perhaps the third, know that. The Canadian Human Rights Act clearly states that if you can establish a bona fide occupational requirement, then in fact you are allowed to discriminate under the terms of the act.

There are many examples of that. The Catholic church is one. They don't hire women as priests, yet that's a long-standing principle of the church. Your member churches would be in the same position with respect to pastors, for example, and establishing certain criteria for behaviour. That is a bona fide occupational requirement. That's clearly been established in law.

The Chair: Wrap up, please.

Mr. Robinson: The question for you is this. Assuming that bona fide occupational requirements are already protected in the Human Rights Act, and we're adding sexual orientation, and it only applies, as you've suggested, to employment, housing and provision of goods and services, what's the problem?

Mr. Nadeau: I'm sorry, but you are misstating what we've said. We're saying that on its face that is all this act does. The reality, and the predictable consequence - and we've cited both Mossop and Max Yalden's statements - is that this act and these words will be used to change the definition of spousal status, family status, marital status and perhaps even marriage. That is the concern we have here.

Mr. Robinson: So with respect to employment, access to services and housing, if that's the ambit of the legislation, you accept it.

.2020

Mr. Nadeau: Yes. Therefore, if you can put those definitional safeguards in there for us, that marital status applies only to opposite-sex couples, family status and so forth -

Mr. Robinson: This is a revolutionary change in the Evangelical Fellowship's position.

The Chair: I think we have understood what you consider to be the undesirable consequences, and I thank you for flagging what you consider to be important in moving forward with this legislation. Your information was of interest to all of us. Thank you very much.

We will hear next from the Focus on the Family Association.

Mr. Jim Sclater, please go ahead.

Mr. Jim Sclater (Vice-President, Public Policy, Focus on the Family (Canada) Association): Thank you, Madam Chair, and committee members. I learned today the price many MPs have to pay in that I got up very early in the morning and commuted across the country to be here, having only heard yesterday at about 3:30 p.m. that we had been accepted - which I expect is the reason my name isn't engraved as others' have been.

The Chair: Where are you from, Mr. Sclater?

Mr. Sclater: I'm from Vancouver, from Focus on the Family's headquarters.

The Chair: Thank you very much for being here.

Mr. Sclater: Thank you for the opportunity.

Focus on the Family is a private, non-profit organization committed to providing information and support to strengthen Canadian families by encouraging and supporting the lifelong union of a man and woman in marriage, and assisting parents, including single parents, in creating a healthy, secure environment for child-rearing. As a Christian-based organization, Focus on the Family promotes an approach to family that is consistent with the historic, biblical Christian faith.

I'm also here because I'm a husband, a father and a grandfather. I am deeply concerned about the erosion of family in our society. I'm deeply concerned, quite frankly, about the failure of the Church to address these issues, even within its own community. I'm perhaps even more alarmed about the moral drift of many governments across the country on issues so fundamental to who we are. I'm deeply concerned about that.

I have to tell you, I've heard some incredible statistics from other witnesses here and from members of the committee that don't relate to anything I've read about the family. I remember appearing on a radio station in Vancouver one time. At the commercial break, the hostess turned to me told me that nobody lived in a family any more. I know she was totally, absolutely sincere in that. When I quoted the statistics, she was honestly shocked.

I don't have them all with me. I only gathered what I could and threw them in my briefcase and went home late last night to get on the early plane.

I've been deeply worried about some of the things that were said here. We seem to be working at cross-purposes in our society and even in our legislatures. We have a policy that could be called zero tolerance for sexual harassment in our society. At the same time, we're endorsing all kinds of sexual expressions, sexual orientations. These two are bound to collide. They already have collided, in some instances.

But our main concern, and what I'm here to represent today, is the case for the family. We don't have some cute little picture of the picket fences that are so often written about in the magazines by those who would like to denigrate the family. We believe the family and its base was described earlier. I have already said we want to strengthen families and marriages, heterosexual unions, a man and a woman and the children they may have, or may adopt.

We're not so naive as to be unaware that many changes occur to the family. If my wife died, I'd be a widower. I don't cease to be a family. But this is the kind of thing that's thrown to us. I find it a very surface and bothersome argument. We're saying we can't abandon what is fundamentally and historically sound down through the human race's history. As I asked the Senate a couple of weeks ago, where are the sociologists and people who study the human condition? Where are those people? Where are the other experts who could appear here?

.2025

Some of us come on the "pro-family" side. We're not experts in sociology, but we read the studies and we come here deeply concerned about what we see happening.

Our belief is that discrimination, in some situations, occurs for good reasons. The charter allows for reasonable grounds for discrimination, so surely we haven't come to the point of thinking, even at the human rights committee, or within the commissions across the land, that nothing should be discriminated against on any basis. We have some fundamentals in our country we believe in. Some of those things relate to the truth, which EFC referred to, given down through the centuries from the historic Christian position. Others just have been made into, I guess, an overriding principle in our country called tolerance. Tolerance is wonderful if it is has some moral informing, if it actually regulates on the basis of revealed truth and has something to say to us.

So you can't help but qualify groups and individuals in society, because in fact that's fundamental to defining how a society works. I had some examples, but I'll press on here.

Marriage and the family are fundamental to every national or ethnic group that's ever come to this country to build a future here. In our interventions in the courts - and there have been a number; I won't enumerate them - we've aligned with groups from other religions, other national backgrounds, including representatives from the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Muslims, the Catholics, and the evangelicals. We have shared the same concern, that the pursuit of so-called gay rights is leading to a systematic devaluation of heterosexual marriage and family in society.

That's something you only need to read the papers to be aware of. If you read beyond that, you'll read about people... I was reading on the plane today about a doctor who has spent 17 years in this field. He's writing with great concern about this whole area from his perspective as a psychiatrist.

I can tell you, and I don't think anyone here would disagree with me, that next week, if this passes as predicted on Tuesday, this very week coming there will be renewed demands by predictable people - who have the right to make their demands, by the way, and I respect the matter in which they make them - for equality in marriage, for equality in family, for equality in spousal status, for equality in immigration privileges and rights, and for changes to Criminal Code provisions where, in fact, spouse is mentioned some 51 times.

This cannot stop here. It would be foolish to think the human rights committee or a commission or the justice department could make this fundamental change and not have things begin to topple. That's a fundamental understanding any of us, I think, should have.

Those who demand or favour the inclusion of sexual orientation say it's a matter of fundamental rights and equality. They say it's time to give homosexuals all their rights and equality in such things as marriage and family status. I know this act only deals - we're told - with employment. We're told by the justice minister it affects only 10% of the workforce.

EFC made some excellent points along that line. I don't have time to stop at this point.

What is there, though, at this time in our country's history, at a time of weakness in our sense of national identify and unity and heritage, that would warrant the tearing down of thousands of years of wisdom and moral and religious conviction? What is there in 1996 that makes this the year to tear down the social and moral restrictions regarding human sexual expression that have existed throughout human history and are rooted in various millennia of philosophical and moral teaching? What is it? Why is it time?

We have to ask, how could this committee, how could Parliament, how could the justice minister keep his promise that this will not have an impact on marriage and the family? It's beyond his jurisdiction. What we're faced with - and I don't think anyone around this table would dispute this - is that it's the courts that will look at whatever is done by this committee, whatever is done by Parliament. They will decide. As EFC pointed out, we've been in court, with them in a coalition, on several occasions.

I know I'm speaking to elected representatives of the Canadian people, but I would challenge them to do what I would call the right thing in this regard and not send this bill as it is back to Parliament and then hand it to the courts to deal with in ways that already have been exemplified in the last few years.

.2030

If the government believes this bill should be passed, does it also feel it should try to protect heterosexual marriage? How would they do that? I've said the courts will be the ones to decide. How would they protect religion?

We know it's guaranteed in the charter. We know it's guaranteed even in the Canadian Human Rights Act itself. How can we believe Mr. Rock and others, perhaps among members of this committee, who say our present laws, for instance, against pedophilia will curtail the spread of that sexual orientation or other sexual preferences when in fact we are witnesses to the changing of laws in Parliament - that's Parliament's job - and by the courts? We've seen that over the last number of years on an increasingly rapid basis.

Even if such a restriction could be guaranteed, we want to know if those demanding inclusion of sexual orientation want only to have "their families affirmed", which is a direct quote from the December 9 Coalition, which met with Mr. Rock in Vancouver a couple of years ago. How could this be denied if these changes are made?

I have some other examples here. In truth, appearing before a committee like this, or even before the media, these days you risk being called a hatemonger. I find that very interesting, because sometimes I'm quoting literature from the gay community itself, yet I'm called a hatemonger for quoting their literature.

I'll quote one example. This was in Toronto when there was a large group called the National Leather Association International. It was to feature a workshop on - and I quote - "Family Values: Raising Children in a Sadomasochist Environment". The spokesperson said they thought it was important for them to be there talking about the family. If one answers that sadomasochistic people represent only a small minority, we would remind this committee that only 2% or 3% of our Canadian population is homosexual.

I would quickly just mention something that I know is controversial -

Mr. Robinson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the witness has referred to sadomasochism. I trust he's not suggesting that is an exclusively homosexual practice. I trust he recognizes -

Mr. Sclater: I'm certainly not. As you might remember, Svend, my whole context here has been simply sexual preferences. It has nothing to do with homosexual practice specifically.

Mr. Robinson: Thank you.

Mr. Sclater: I'm talking about expression.

It is no secret to anyone in this room, and certainly not to the medical profession, that any sexual lifestyle other than chastity and monogamy do produce medical, emotional and spiritual traumas, and sometimes disasters. That's not exclusive to the homosexual community by any means whatsoever.

Although our culture does its best to propagate the myth that alternative sexuality is fun and to be pursued, one need only read the safer sex guides produced by some people in the homosexual community or by our own civic authorities - for instance, in Vancouver - to see that there is much to fear in so-called freedom in this area.

It won't do to pretend that choice in this area doesn't cost us all on an enormous scale. No one on the other side of this debate denies this. In fact, they demand increased funding for protection and medical health and intensified search for cures for sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. Sexual freedom of any kind is a very expensive venture. Society has always had boundaries, taboos, customs and, yes, laws, to fence in the explosive dynamic of human sexuality - with good reason. Concern for mental and emotional health, as well as physical, should give us pause for thought in this whole realm. How did we come to the place that our governments and human rights commissions and committees would ignore the massive evidence against endorsing all sorts of sexual alternatives?

Focus on the Family does not believe individual or minority rights should triumph over every law and standard. We are a nation whose Charter of Rights and Freedoms affirms the supremacy of God and the rule of law. It's not enough to say that these are vague and symbolic terms - which they are - because even at their vaguest and most symbolic they affirm the concept of something higher than mere preference and the assertion of individual rights.

Again, no one should be hated or abused in a civilized society, but moral objections and desires to protect the family and marriage cannot be legislated out of existence without there being a very high price to pay. The flower that's produced in a society where historic morality is upheld is a very beautiful flower. Marriage between the sexes can be the highest expression of human love and commitment. Family life has the potential to produce men and women of character who know how to defer gratification in many areas of life for a higher good, and how to protect the weak from exploitation.

.2035

Recent studies on the social sciences have pointed out that children, to blossom, need the stability of a family, with a mother and a father, and the security of a strong sense of faithfulness and permanence in relationships. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a fact within the social sciences. Many of you have read about it. Even some of the popular journals have had articles along those lines.

It's not an argument in favour of leaving behind the standards, but some of the standards have slipped. A horse may be straying from its stall, but it hasn't yet completely bolted from the barn.

I would just finish by suggesting that there is tremendous power, symbolically and legislatively, even though the court is still trying to make up its mind where the Human Rights Act fits in the whole scheme of things, in what this committee is about to recommend to the House and what the House may vote on. There is tremendous power there.

This honourable body and the whole of Parliament have to decide whether the price is too high to pay to do this. It's not enough to say there has been years of debate on it, because today's debate is much different from what we had last week, certainly from the one we had last year. You have to wrestle with the fact that the December 9 Coalition, to cite just one of them, said they don't want tolerance; they want welcome into the world in every way. That's the pressure that got us to this point in the first place. Which of us, which of you, could say pressure won't push us beyond what we're being told this act is designed to do?

Some say you can't legislate morality. We still say all legislation is somebody's morality. In Canada, human rights laws are increasingly becoming the commentary on what our society believes about morality.

The motive to provide additional protection against discrimination may spring from legislative compassion and a desire to make all Canadians equal. It cannot, however, be justified if the price will lead to the loss of the institutions fundamental to the life of our country and to the majority of its citizens.

As I said to the Senate, where are the experts in these other fields who could talk about the ramifications of this? This is a watershed decision that will affect our society for the rest of our history. I plead with you, for the sake of the Canadians and their upcoming generations, for mothers and fathers and their young children, do not enshrine a lifestyle, not even defined, of some 3% or 5%, whatever percentage it may be, in the highest human rights code of our land. Do not open the door to teaching this lifestyle in our schools. It's already being taught. Don't throw the doors wide open. Do not make it harder for homosexuals to get the help many are looking for to leave this lifestyle. Do not make it harder for those who are seeking to leave the homosexual lifestyle to find the help they would like to have.

Please reconsider what this would do to our country and its future. At least recommend two things. First, recommend that the language in the preamble, which we know has no real force in law, be put within the act. If Mr. Rock or this committee decides that language is valid and should be there, then put it where it counts.

Second, in conclusion, at least strongly recommend that sexual orientation be defined so that we know what we're dealing with. But I would beg you not to pass this on to the House, which will simply be a means of passing it on to the courts to begin to undermine our fundamental institutions.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Sclater.

Russell MacLellan, please.

Mr. MacLellan: Oh, thank you. You caught me by surprise.

The Chair: I just thought I'd wake you up on that side. You've been a little quiet.

Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Sclater, I appreciate your testimony, and frankly, I appreciate the trouble you took to come before us this evening.

You mentioned that we can't legislate morality. I don't think that's what we're doing here. We're legislating human rights.

You also talk about this as leading to the downfall of the family. I don't agree with that. I wonder what brings you to that conclusion, where you see something happening that is going to bring this about.

Mr. Sclater: Thank you for the question. I alluded to it briefly in passing, to the demands of the gay community in particular. Remember, my remarks are not limited to the gay community. I'm talking about the undefined term "sexual orientation". The gay community has made these demands and we expect, as I said, that next week they will make them with a very loud voice if this amendment is passed as is.

.2040

So I am saying they will not stop, because they've made it very plain that they want in on family, they want in on marriage. There is a court case that may come up in the next year or so where that will be tested on the basis of Ontario having sexual orientation in its Human Rights Act.

Those are the pressures I see. Those are the realities we have faced in the court and expect to face again.

Mr. MacLellan: There is certainly no connection - really. It may follow in people's minds that if we pass this we axiomatically are going to pass something else. But that something else is totally separate from this. Because it's totally separate, it isn't axiomatic at all, and needn't necessarily occur unless through a separate initiative brought forward.

So this amendment itself is not bringing forward any new rights other than dealing with the discrimination faced on the basis of sexual orientation in the workplace.

Mr. Sclater: If I may interject, the point I tried to make, even to the point of overstating it, was that it's the courts that will decide. It will not be the legislature.

The Chair: There are several cases already before the court, Mr. Sclater, without even having this in the bill. I think you have to be aware of that.

Mr. Sclater: I am aware of it. That's why I said we should not throw the doors wide open. We know these things are happening.

The Chair: This change, which is a protection, non-discrimination, is not going to change what's before the courts. Is that right, Mr. MacLellan?

Mr. MacLellan: That's right. The cases before the courts are going to be before the courts. I would suggest that the decisions made in the courts - for instance, the example you mentioned, same-sex benefits - certainly could be made by the courts without any reference to this whatsoever.

This does not deal with same-sex benefits, nor does it deal with same-sex marriages, which of course is a provincial jurisdiction. There really hasn't been a lot of furore on that since, for instance, in Ontario the provincial act was passed. They have the same thing in the Human Rights Act in British Columbia. So we're not dealing with that here.

In British Columbia we're close to having a jurisdiction that doesn't allow us to speak about these things because of it being in the Human Rights Act. I don't think that's progress.

Mr. Robinson: That's absolutely false.

Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Sclater, that's not my understanding, but I will leave that to others to explore.

You mentioned the family, and I think I agree; everybody is concerned about the family. That's why we have it in the preamble. The Mossop case was also mentioned by the previous witness. They referred to Mr. Lamer, I think on page 542, where he might do something in dicta. It wasn't the basis of his decision or the decision he was writing on behalf of others, but it was dicta, and it was that he might.

I also suggest there is a very important portion on I think page 546 by Justice LaForest, where he talks about how he sees the family. I think you'd find it quite encouraging.

Mr. Sclater: What we find discouraging is the narrow margin by which the Mossop case was decided and the narrow split on Egan. As was said by the previous witness, we see that this would be the final removal of any barrier.

Thinking of judges, whether this applies directly or not, it is a strong symbolic signal. We're just saying this should have had more time for thinking through ramifications. There should have been more experts about sociology and about the human condition. It should have been a longer process to have all the facts out, for the Canadian public to know what it's really all about.

Mr. MacLellan: Yes, but there are also human conditions that I would suggest are on both of the argument. One of the reasons for bringing this forward, frankly, whether you agree with us that we're not granting new rights, is that people have the right to see in their legislation what is intended. They shouldn't have to look at court decisions to determine what the law is.

.2045

As well, we have in our country today young men and women committing suicide in large numbers because of their sexuality. Gays and lesbians are committing suicide at the rate of two or three times that of non-gays and lesbians. I think these young people also deserve to have a sign and a signal that there is compassion and understanding for their rights. I suggest we can do that without actually desecrating the family or in any way undermining what we hope to see with family life in this country.

The Chair: Thank you. Monsieur Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Sclater, you say you are concerned with the future of the family, and that is a good thing. I think that you would have the support of everyone around the table for that statement, as well as the support of everyone in this room, no doubt. There is no one here who is not concerned with the family.

It has been said several times that this bill has nothing to do with homosexual marriages and the benefits granted to homosexuals. But, let's take it for granted that once the bill has been passed, the next morning, or the following week, several homosexuals will come forward to ask for the right to marry and obtain benefits. Let's take that as a given.

If I understood correctly, you said that only 3 or 4% of people were homosexuals. Is that correct? That is what you said?

[English]

Mr. Sclater: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: So, if only 3 or 4% of the population is homosexual, as you say, should those 3 or 4% all ask for the right to get married at the same time, and for benefits, how will this affect the 95 or 97% of the population who will want to continue their heterosexual lives? Will you personally change your attitude toward marriage if tomorrow we decide to grant two men or two women the right to get married? Could you explain that to me? I would like to understand.

[English]

Mr. Sclater: I did attempt in my brief to explain that, but I appreciate the question so that I can clarify it. The chairperson of the Senate committee in fact asked how that would affect her family. She said she's been married 30 years and her children were grown. I told her I didn't know, I didn't know her family. Presumably there will be some grandchildren in there. I expressed my concern as a grandfather to have grandchildren be entering the school system, one of them already in preschool.

I hope nobody around the table doesn't know that this will impact the schools. In fact, it will be taught. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will be used to advance the rights of gays and others to come in and talk about alternative lifestyles.

That really alarms me, not because they're homosexual particularly, but because talking about sexuality to young children is sociologically and psychologically faulty. It intervenes in the process of their growing up. I wish experts were here to talk about it.

The other way it will impact is that it will simply denigrate marriage as something special between heterosexual people who come together and vow a permanence - and I know they don't always uphold those vows - for the sake of children. What we're missing here, and what I'd like to emphasize, is the children. This is about children. Family is about children. Couples can come together for marriage or other reasons, and I still wouldn't say that's a family, because family is child-rearing.

I know of all the alternatives about how children can be begotten, and I know how they can be found in our society. But I would say, where are the experts who have identified the problems that occur in those lives? Many have testified that they need the permanence of a mother and father in order to grow up to be fully human as we understand it.

The Chair: Ian McClelland, please.

We are already over. We have two groups waiting. This committee ends at 10 p.m. on the dot, and we must accommodate a group about to lose their air flight home.

Mr. McClelland: I thank you very much for coming to testify before this committee. I think the perspective you bring is very valuable. I know I speak for members of the committee in thanking you for it.

.2050

Mr. Robinson: I think you should speak for yourself.

Mr. McClelland: Okay, most other members.

Earlier today we had a professional witness testify that approximately 30% of youth suicide is related to sexuality. I hope I'm paraphrasing him accurately. The point is, people that age are very vulnerable. There is a whole host of reasons to have a negative sense of self-worth. These young people are members of traditional nuclear families, but they happen to have either a homosexual or lesbian inclination and must feel they would not be accepted as a result of this.

I'm most interested in this, because I believe these statistics to be fair. Why would they not be? How can we save even one of these young people if we don't have an open attitude toward the sexuality of young people, if our attitude as a society is this way or nothing?

Mr. Sclater: I believe the witness of whom you're speaking - and I didn't hear them - certainly made a very strong point. I was making it in a different way, that children should be left alone to a certain time. But we have advocates from various communities wanting to go into that schools at grade one if not preschool to talk about sexuality and all the kinds of sexual practices available to humanity. I think that's very destructive and very upsetting.

When you get into the teen years very few teens will ever have them go by without becoming aware of sexuality. So now we have a different problem. I'm suggesting that what we need is stable families, based on heterosexual couples, stable communities, who have an understanding of how these things should be dealt with. Endorsing something does not take away the problem.

Mr. McClelland: I'm not suggesting even endorsing, I'm suggesting being aware. Earlier testimony was from families of children who were gay and the agony the children went through because the parents couldn't handle it.

These are tragedies. These are honest-to-God living tragedies -

Mr. Sclater: They are indeed.

Mr. McClelland: - that affect human beings. That's what we're grappling with. This is what really troubles me, because I accept the worth...and that you're doing this for the right reasons, but how do we protect these young people?

Mr. Sclater: There aren't easy answers, but I have to tell you, this isn't the way to do it.

The Chair: You have about one minute to summarize your answer, please, Mr. Sclater.

Mr. Sclater: I would just say that compassion is an absolute necessity in our community. I find it quite amazing to be accused of hatemongering and all sorts of things by talking about these things. In fact, I know my perspective... I have had gay friends, I know gay people in public life and I know gay people in the media. I can't identify anything within me that's hateful towards them. I'm human. I don't think they're perfect, and I don't admire everything they do, but I don't have a lack of compassion.

As I said in my presentation, one of the reasons I ask you not to do this and pass it on to Parliament and then on to the courts is for the sake of those who are in those kind of difficult situations, who need more than to hear it's okay to be gay and it's okay to practice your lifestyle. That is not the solution. I don't have a glib answer.

Mr. McClelland: I'm not asking for one. Please accept that I wasn't being pejorative in any sense.

Mr. Sclater: I do.

I think it rests on counsellors, families and people to meet these folks as members of the human race and find the solution for them. You have to understand that many young boys go through a sexual identity crisis. What I'm saying is, don't teach in the schools that it's okay to be gay, because many will say, well, let's try it, then. I worry about that. I think that's not the way to go.

Mr. McClelland: Thank you very much.

Mr. Sclater: Madam Chairman, I do have a brief available. I don't know the appropriate way to distribute copies.

The Chair: We will distribute them, thank you.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Robinson: I appreciate receiving the brief.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, you have exactly - and I'm not joking - three minutes between the two of you, questions and answers.

.2055

Mr. Robinson: I have just a comment. Mr. Sclater talks about teaching kids that it's okay to be gay. I have literature from Focus on the Family, and we're not talking about grades 1 and 2; they're complaining about sex education in grades 11 and 12.

Let me say that for those kids who are struggling with their sexual orientation, young gay, lesbian, bisexual kids who are struggling, I hope we are teaching them that gay is okay. I hope we are teaching them that it's okay that they are who they are. I hope we deal with them with love, with compassion and with acceptance. I hope we don't tell they're unnatural, they're immoral, as this literature is telling those young people and everyone else.

Because my time is limited I'm going to put two questions to Mr. Sclater. Perhaps he can answer them. In this literature, it's suggested that homosexuals and gay people "choose" their lifestyle. I quote here from a Brad Hayton - and by the way, this was sent out by the president of Focus on the Family, Geoffrey Still - that "Just because someone chooses a certain lifestyle doesn't mean society must ratify his behaviour." We've heard evidence, quite powerful evidence, that this is rubbish, that people don't choose a particular lifestyle.

I believe you've stated that you're a heterosexual. I guess the question I would ask is, do you seriously believe at some point in your life you woke up one morning and while eating your Wheaties said "I'm going to be heterosexual instead of homosexual"? Do you really believe you chose your particular sexual orientation?

Just as importantly, you talk about how people can leave the homosexual lifestyle - and I'm mystified by what this so-called lifestyle is. I take it from this that you also think people can just as easily enter the homosexual lifestyle. If you can choose to leave it, you can choose to enter it.

I want to just get clarification from Mr. Sclater on that. Is that his position, that you can choose your sexual orientation? That's the first question.

Mr. Sclater: I know I have to be very brief here. There's a spectrum of sexuality and there's a spectrum within the homosexual community. It's difficult to speak of it all in one breath. Some choose it, some do not.

Mr. Robinson: Some choose their sexual orientation?

Mr. Sclater: Some choose homosexuality. We know that. Some young men experiment with sexuality. I grew up with some of them. They just opted for one because that was what was available to them at the time.

Mr. Robinson: I would suggest -

The Chair: Next question, Svend. I think there's a fundamental difference here of perception and reality.

Mr. Robinson: Okay.

Mr. Ménard: Did you try both?

Mr. Robinson: I'll ask my second question.

Your material from the Focus on the Family talks about special rights. I want to get clarification from you, Mr. Sclater. You've said it's important to protect religion and religious belief. I take it you would agree that people shouldn't be fired from their jobs or thrown out of their homes because of their religious beliefs. Is that correct?

Mr. Sclater: Yes.

Mr. Robinson: Well, if that's correct, first of all you are contradicting what you say in earlier materials, that "by creating special minority rights for groups based on behaviour or beliefs, this will lead many groups to seek special rights". I take it you're not referring to religious beliefs there.

I assume what you could say, then, is that we can take religion out of the existing Canadian Human Rights Act. We can take religion out because, of course, to put religion in is to give special rights to people who don't want to be discriminated against on the basis of their religious beliefs. I take it you would agree that this is the logical conclusion of what you're saying. Would you?

Mr. Sclater: No, I wouldn't agree with it the way you put it. I would say religion is a fundamental self-identifier and method of seeking truth and morality. That is quite a different issue.

Mr. Robinson: Are you born with a particular religious belief, Mr. Sclater?

Mr. Sclater: Some people are born into it, as we well know.

Mr. Robinson: Are you born with a particular religious belief? Is it an immutable characteristic that you can't change?

Mr. Sclater: Of course it isn't. But this is a road that's been well-travelled, as you know, Svend.

Mr. Robinson: Travel it again. I think it might be interesting for the committee.

The Chair: I'm afraid not on our time.

Mr. Sclater: As we all know, religion has been marginalized in our society for that very reason. Religion is being marginalized because of what you said. That's a great concern to us, because in fact we think it's a fundamental characteristic of most Canadians.

The Chair: Order.

I think I'm going to have to ask you to travel out the door and finish your conversation.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Really, it is a fascinating discussion. There is no question that I don't agree with both of you at certain points and we all agree with both of you on other points. It's a matter of having had the opportunity to hear your point of view, to have had the exchange. I wish we had much more time, because these are difficult questions. Frankly, even with much more time I don't know if we'd be able to resolve it in either of our interests, because we have very strong views on either side of the equation. But it's important to hear those views.

I appreciate your having brought that to us, and I thank you very much.

.2100

Mr. Sclater: I thank you very much for the charitable way in which this discussion was held and the opportunity to present our views.

The Chair: Thank you for coming.

There has been a change in our witness line-up. With good grace, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops is allowing the witnesses from the Canadian Human Rights Campaign, who have to catch a plane, to go first. The closing group will be the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Please go ahead. Would you begin by introducing yourselves.

Mr. Richard Silver (Director, Canadian Human Rights Campaign): My name is Richard Silver.

Mr. George Marsland (Director, Canadian Human Rights Campaign): My name is George Marsland. We're both directors of the Canadian Human Rights Campaign.

Mr. Silver: Hon. members, I am a gay man, and after the last two members, my shoulders are feeling very heavy.

The Chair: You can imagine how our poor other members are feeling.

Mr. Silver: I'm sure.

I was born 47 years ago in Edmonton, Alberta, to second-generation Canadian Jews. My parents' parents came to Canada so they could escape discrimination, so their children could live in a country that offered equal rights for everyone. I am here testifying in front of you more than 100 years after their arrival to tell you I want protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

My first encounter with hatred came at the age of five. I was beaten by my neighbours, by neighbours my own age, who were told by their parents and their Church that I killed Christ. I did not know who Christ was, and had been told that violence was unacceptable. Thankfully, Vatican II and the Church have worked hard to change those beliefs and attitudes.

So, yes, my friends - from this other group - beliefs can change within churches, and that still can happen.

Those scars still remain. My family, thank God, was supportive, and taught me to be proud of my Jewishness. When I told them of my homosexuality, they were again supportive, because they understood discrimination. They had many scars of their own. Unlike many homosexual youths, I had understanding and love and did not have to choose suicide. As was reported here earlier today, usually three out of every ten teen suicides are the result of conflict around sexual orientation.

I am now asking that Canadians be careful as they debate this issue. Remember that we are your family: your sons, your daughters, your parents, your neighbours, your friends. But above all, we are fellow Canadians. We live in every corner of Canada. We are everywhere. We are every colour, every religion and every race.

Today I am here as a founding member of the Canadian Human Rights Campaign. It's a group of men and women dedicated to the entrenchment of fundamental equality for the gay and lesbian community within social and legislative fabric and within the hearts and minds of all Canadians. We are asking the members of Parliament and the Canadian public to guard your words; watch the rhetoric; educate and listen. If not, the cost to our community will be an increase in gay-bashing and teen suicide, but the cost will truly be to Canada, a country searching for a new sensitivity. We are asking you as members of Parliament to be examples to all Canadians.

The key is education. Today you are the key to that education. Mr. Ringma's comments from earlier this week prove that legislation and education are required so that no Canadians ever will be relegated to the back of the shop.

I thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Silver. Mr. Marsland.

Mr. Marsland: Just to give you a brief background on the Canadian Human Rights Campaign, we're dedicated to the entrenchment of fundamental equality for the gay and lesbian community within both the social and legislative fabric of Canada. We feel that the achievement of this equality will dictate the future protection of individual rights for all Canadians, and that these issues are of paramount importance.

.2105

We have two messages for you today. First, please do the right thing. Sexual orientation should be introduced as a prohibitive ground, very simply because it is the right thing to do. This absence of protection for gay and lesbian Canadians under the Human Rights Act is glaring. Gays and lesbians are virtually the only Canadians who cannot rely on Canadian law for protection from discrimination. As legislators you have the opportunity to end the discrimination gay and lesbian Canadians face every day in housing and employment.

We have a situation, ladies and gentlemen, of legislative haves and have-nots. This is not a matter of asking for special rights. Gay and lesbian Canadians are simply asking for the same protections under law as enjoyed by every other citizen. As Max Yalden of the Human Rights Commission says, "The purpose of the Human Rights Act is to protect everyone without differentiation."

Times have changed. The government is currently lagging behind public opinion, the courts, and in many cases, some political parties. As you well know, 81% of Canadians polled by Angus Reid indicated they would be bothered by discrimination against gays or lesbians in the workplace. Yes, we may be talking about a small minority of people, but that's why they face discrimination. The numbers, however, are large, estimated at 12% of the population.

Even though your personal religious views may be at odds with some aspects of this legislation, as members of Parliament it is your job to determine what is in the public interest. It is not in the public interest that gay and lesbian Canadians continue to have to litigate for their rights when Parliament has a clear obligation to act to ensure their equality.

Your job, ladies and gentlemen, is to show the courage and leadership to finish the job of fighting discrimination on behalf of all Canadians.

We have, as my colleague has stated to you as well, a special plea for you. As members looking after the public interest, we feel the public interest will be best served if an objective and reasoned debate can be held on this issue. Inflammatory remarks on either side will only frustrate this debate.

Members of Parliaments' comments can often be misconstrued as endorsements of homophobia resulting in violence against individuals - men, women, gay, lesbian, and children. In fact, it's not always the case that the bashings are of people who in fact are lesbian or gay. They may be of people who are thought to be lesbian or gay. So in fact you must be very careful.

We encourage and request, please, that all of you gauge your comments and be mindful of the safety of all Canadians as you discuss this issue.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Marsland. Frankly, if people of all faiths of good faith and of different opinion watched their language, I think the world would be a much better place all the way around.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier.

Mr. Bernier: I would first of all like to thank the representatives of the Canadian Human Rights Campaign for appearing before the committee, even though they run the risk of missing their return flight to Toronto.

I also want to thank you for the work you do in our community. That work, in my opinion, is indispensable and you deserve our wholehearted support.

You said, Mr. Marsland, that you would like to see parliamentarians put an end to discrimination by passing this bill into law. We, of the official opposition, hope that this bill will be passed as quickly as possible.

As we did, you heard several people express the concern that once the bill has been passed, the door will be open to all kinds of demands and repercussions. You are from Ontario, from Toronto, and there is a provision in the Ontario Charter of Rights and Freedoms that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and yet, last year or two years ago, you went through a hair raising campaign in an effort to have your rights as couples recognized, as well as your economic rights. Do you think that the bill that is before us will automatically solve all of the problems experienced by members of the gay and lesbian community?

[English]

Mr. Marsland: Certainly not. One piece of legislation does not dictate public attitudes. As my colleague has pointed out, a great deal of education is required.

This is just very simply - nothing more, nothing less - equal protection. That's all this is about.

.2110

Mr. Bernier: Merci.

Mr. Silver: If I may, Madam Chair, we also look to you, after this bill has gone through, to help educate the public so that we can go on from here.

The Chair: I gather from the news release you've given us that you have some serious concerns about the language and the rhetoric.

Mr. Epp.

Mr. Epp (Elk Island): First of all, I just want a correction. You used the number of 12%. What was that referring to?

Mr. Marsland: There are varying reports as to the percentage of the population the sociologist community suggests might be lesbian, gay or bisexual. The number I indicated was 12%.

Mr. Epp: I was just wondering, because I heard 12% but didn't know what exactly that was.

Mr. Marsland: So while it may be a minority, that could still amount to 1.7 million Canadians.

Mr. Epp: Okay.

I'm going to ask you a very difficult question. I don't think you can answer it. Against which groups do you think we should discriminate?

Mr. Silver: I don't think you should discriminate against anybody.

Mr. Epp: What do you do, then, with this legislation that has a list here, and let's say one of us doesn't belong to any one of those on that list? Would that then mean, by implication, it would be right to discriminate against them?

Mr. Marsland: The answer is no. Certainly one of the things about debating and defining legislation is that by trying to include in detail and list everything, you can open it up to who's in and who's out. That's why it's important to keep the language careful.

Mr. Epp: What would happen, in your opinion, if you just had a law that said it's not correct to discriminate against people because of personal characteristics? Would you accept that?

Mr. Marsland: That's what the Human Rights Act does. It's on the basis of list of characteristics. Those are prohibited grounds for discrimination. So that exists.

Mr. Epp: You see, I have a little bit of a problem, because we already have a big list. I don't think any of us would argue with those items on that list. I for one will substantially support not discriminating against people because of their race, because of their national or ethnic background.

By the way, I came from Germany. I'm on the other side of this story. Well, I didn't come from there; I'm a first-generation Canadian. Can you imagine being a youngster in 1945, a six-year-old, of ethnic background, where my friends have uncles in the navy and armed forces that have been shot down by Germans?

Do I support discrimination? Of course not. Nobody would, not on race, not on sex, not on age, not on sexual orientation. I don't think a person should be beaten up because of a religious belief or a sexual orientation, as you said. We are all protected in Canada from being beaten up.

If you were beaten up, did you press charges, then, and were you successful?

Mr. Marsland: Unfortunately, sir, we're not all protected, because it keeps going on. People are being beaten up every day. So as much as we might like to think that's the case, we all know it's not. That's part of the tragedy of this whole scenario.

The Chair: The other aspect of that, Mr. Epp, is that I think it's quite significant to know that as late as the 1950s we were still discriminating against Chinese and other people coming to this country and in this country. This country lived with a great deal of discrimination. I as a member of the Jewish faith can give you a long list about discrimination right in the province of Quebec, in the city of Montreal, and in my backyard. We needed this legislation. We do need enumerated lists.

Mr. Epp: Perhaps in this part of the country. I was born in the west, and grew up in the west.

Mr. Silver: Me too, in Edmonton.

Mr. Robinson: There's discrimination in the west too, Ken.

Mr. Epp: No, but where I was -

The Chair: There's no discrimination against Sikhs and others? I mean, just as recently as the hats on their heads -

Mr. Epp: I'm just saying I'm not aware of over-discrimination where I am.

Mr. Robinson: Ask Chinese Canadians; they couldn't vote - or native people.

Mr. Epp: And that's wrong, isn't it? That's wrong.

Mr. Silver: Mr. Epp, you did say you were discriminated against when you were young.

Mr. Epp: Not substantially, but I mean, it was tough, right?

The Chair: Yes, it was.

Mr. Epp: I got beaten up, but mostly because I was fat.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Epp: I was. I was a heavy kid. You know, there's nothing in this list that protects fat people. So now it's justifiable to beat up a fat guy.

.2115

The point I want to make is, when I think it's wrong to have a list and now add another group to the list - which should have these rights anyway, and do have those rights, because they're Canadians - by definition, anybody not on the list is then excluded... Really, the list isn't finished until every Canadian is on that list. Why don't we say, put "Canadians" on the list? That's why I wanted to know whether you would be satisfied with that.

Mr. Silver: No.

Mr. Epp: I have another question. This is an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act. What other changes or amendments to Canadian laws would you like to see?

Mr. Silver: Let me just discuss your first question. In practice, whether you believe it or not, right now the gay and lesbian community is being discriminated against. I think all you have to do is turn to the cases being heard in front of the human rights commissions in both Ontario and federally to know that there is discrimination.

I'm a westerner, I'm gay, I'm Jewish - and I was fat.

Mr. Epp: How did you lose your weight? We'll have to talk about that.

Mr. Silver: I was 260 pounds at one point during my childhood.

Yes, there is a lot of discrimination, and it still exists. There are things we can do about it. I'm sure there is discrimination for being a Reformer.

Mr. Epp: Tell me about it.

The Chair: That's true.

Ms Augustine: Well deserved.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Epp: Madam Chair, I'd like to interrupt right there, because right now we have an example of it. She says, "Well deserved". I would like to challenge the Liberal members to stop and think about what they're doing when they put all of us into the same class with the perceived characteristics they have attributed to some of us. It may be wrong. It may be that there are in the Reform group some who are not worthy of your -

Mr. McClelland: Scorn.

Mr. Epp: Yes, scorn.

Mr. Robinson: It would have been good if one or two or you had voted for equality yesterday.

Mr. Epp: I think we already have equality.

Mr. Ménard: We need some examples.

Mr. Epp: I'm opposed to this bill entirely.

The Chair: We have two witnesses here. Let's deal with the issue, please.

You have two minutes left. I wish to have the next group.

The gavel drops at 10 p.m., as you all know, by the rules of this House and by the -

Mr. Epp: Okay. Let someone else ask questions. I appreciate the opportunity.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Epp. Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Robinson: Because the gavel is coming down very quickly, I just want to thank the witnesses for their evidence. I thought it was very persuasive - and it's not surprising I would find it persuasive. But I think it's helpful for this committee for you to have given the kind of examples you gave.

I just wanted to note as well - I don't really have a question, but just a comment, and you may want to comment on this - that when Mr. Epp says these rights exist anyway - and that is what he said, that these rights exist anyway - the fact of the matter is that there are still people in Canada today in positions of influence and power who say we should be allowed to fire people on the basis of the fact that they are gay or lesbian.

In fact, just today Dave Chatters, a Reform Party member of Parliament - and I'm not suggesting everyone agrees with this - said gay and lesbian people can be discriminated against -

Mr. Epp: Did you read his press release, Svend?

Mr. Robinson: Has there been another apology?

Mr. Epp: No.

Mr. Robinson: Oh. It's hard to keep track of them.

Mr. Epp: The press release gave his whole statement. CBC cut him off in the middle of a sentence.

Mr. Robinson: If I may, Mr. Chatters said very clearly that he felt, for example, in schools, gay and lesbian people should be subject to discrimination. He hasn't denied that.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, please move to the question.

Mr. Robinson: The question I want to ask is that when you have people in positions of political leadership saying business is business and you should be allowed to put people at the back of the shop or fire them on the basis of their sexual orientation -

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, I'm going to cut you off right now.

Mr. Robinson: - how do you respond to that argument?

Mr. Marsland: You, sir, have a public trust. You're there to represent the interests of all Canadians. Please do so.

Mr. McClelland: May I make, Madam Chairman, just an observation?

I want to compliment you on your news release. We've had many submissions to the committee, virtually all of them thoughtful and good. Yours is exceptional in the fact that I think yours is the one that really emphasizes bridging the solitudes and finding avenues to come together.

I wanted to have that on the record, and to thank you very much.

Mr. Marsland: If I could add just one last comment for the record, I consider myself a Christian, a moral person and an ethical person. I'm also gay. They don't exclude each other.

Mr. Silver: Exactly.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

.2120

The Chair: Thank you very much. Safe journey, gentlemen.

I remind members of the orders of the committee, that at 10 p.m. we start clause-by-clause, and that we must be finished by 11:30 p.m.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: If we are going to study the bill clause by clause, that is fine. I have my three sections.

The Chair: I hope so.

Mr. Ménard: These are important witnesses.

[English]

Our next witness group is the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Please proceed, and begin by introducing yourselves.

The Reverend Douglas Crosby (General Secretary, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops): My name is Father Douglas Crosby, and I'm the general secretary of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. With me is Jennifer Leddy, a lawyer on staff,

[Translation]

and I also want to introduce Father Gilles Langevin, a Jesuit theologian who works with us.

[English]

Thank you very much for making time for us this evening.

The Chair: I want to thank you for your patience and your kind gesture, allowing the other group to go ahead of you. We really appreciate this. You are going to be the last of our witnesses, but certainly not the least. We're all very anxious to hear what you have to say.

Rev. Crosby: It's nice to have the last word.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: There will be questions afterwards.

[English]

Rev. Crosby: We would have hoped that bishop members of the executive committee would have been here; however, the short notice and the brevity of the hearings make that impossible. The text we present is under the signature of Archbishop Francis Spence, president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. He has the unanimous support of the executive.

We'll now proceed with the submission.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops welcomes the opportunity to take part in discussions around a proposed amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act that has both individual and social ramifications. The CCCB was founded more than 50 years ago and is the national association of Catholic bishops in Canada. The bishops of the 75 Catholic dioceses are charged with the pastoral care of approximately 12.5 million Catholics across the country. In addition, the conference has been active in bringing a moral, philosophical and spiritual perspective to a number of critical public policy issues.

As pastors, we wish to participate in the public debate in a constructive manner and to search for solutions that respect as much as possible the legitimate and deeply held concerns of Canadians on all sides of this complex and controversial question. We share with the government the desire to protect from unjust or arbitrary discrimination individuals who have been marginalized in our society. We also share with many other Canadians the serious concern that this amendment could undermine the institution of marriage. We therefore can support Bill C-33 insofar as it deters unjust discrimination and provided that it adds the components set out in this text under the section "The common good".

These concerns, and the principles of Church teaching upon which they are based, were outlined in our letter to the Prime Minister of April 16, 1996, and are more fully developed in what follows. We are disappointed the government did so little in this bill to respond to the concerns held not only by us but also by many people of goodwill across the country.

.2125

[Translation]

The Reverend Gilles Langevin (theologian, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops): At the outset, I would like to put forward some of the principles of the Catholic Church on these matters we are debating.

I must also say that, in the Catholic perspective, these principles derive as much from natural law, or nature, as from religious perspectives as such. Catholic theology, as well as Anglican positions, are characterized by the fact that they are very close to the considerations of reason and not simply to the decisions or positions taken by the religious movement.

I would like to emphasize a first element that is self-evident, but one which bears restating. Respect for the dignity of every human being is central to Catholic teaching; this is because we believe that everyone, without exception, is unique and created in the image and likeness of God. One could point to many things in the history of the last 2,000 years to demonstrate the Church's concern for individuals, and that includes the handicapped or those experiencing any other kind of difficulty, in spite of the mistakes that may have been made.

Secondly, where sexual behaviour is concerned, it is well-known that the Catholic Church has always taught that sexual relations must occur only within a marriage between a man and a woman who are open to procreation. For this reason, the Church considers homosexual behaviour to be morally unacceptable, while at the same time accepting the homosexual person. Accordingly, the Church makes a distinction, which is not often made in the public debate, between the orientation or inclination and behaviour.

I will conclude this summary presentation by saying that the Catholic Church advocates and defends the fundamental human rights of every person and recognizes that every individual has the right to be treated with dignity and respect.

[English]

Ms Jennifer Leddy (Lawyer, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops): The church does not include among human rights a right to behaviour that the church considers to be morally wrong. However, 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.

Another way of stating this position is that the church is against arbitrary or unjust discrimination. I know some people feel unjust discrimination is an oxymoron, or an inherent contradiction. But most of the people around this table also know section 1 of the charter allows for discrimination or infringement of rights when it can be justified in a reasonable and democratic society. So all of our rights under the charter are subject to reasonable limits. That is often referred to in the courts as "justifiable discrimination".

It is in this context, the context of the society in which we are living, that the church believes it is quite appropriate to make distinctions between heterosexual and homosexual couples because of the unique and important contribution heterosexual couples make to the future of society. In this respect, the church would agree with the plurality of judges in the Egan case.

As you know, four judges in that case, led by Mr. Justice LaForest, held that restricting the definition of spouse under the Old Age Security Act to people of the opposite sex was not discrimination. It was a distinction but it was not discrimination. The distinction in that particular case was relevant to the objectives of the law, namely, to support married and common-law couples because they have the unique capacity to procreate, and most children are born of these relationships and nurtured in these family units. As well, they are the only units that spend resources, on a routine and sustained basis, to care for the children.

That group of four judges also said there was nothing arbitrary about the distinction made in the Egan case, because the other couples or units or pairings - however one wishes to describe them, be they relations or siblings or an adult child and a parent - were also excluded as not being able to meet the social objectives of the law. So we thought it might be important to explain the place of the church teaching in the context also of our court system.

.2130

[Translation]

Rev. Langevin: This might be the right moment to point out the fact that, in our eyes, marriage is both a social institution and a sacrament. It is the cornerstone institution that society is built on, and it is also, in the Christian tradition, a sacrament with everything that implies in the way of serious behaviour.

Marriage plays a pivotal social role in the stability of the family and is a sign of the participation of men and women in creation. As Mr. Justice La Forest said in the Egan case in the Supreme Court of Canada:

Suffice it to say that marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal traditions, one that is itself a reflection of longstanding philosophical and religious traditions.

These are not only religious traditions. They are the philosophical traditions of the western world, and even of the east.

But its ultimate raison d'être transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the products of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship.

I wish to emphasize here that the Church condemns - I think it is good to say so right from the outset, and firmly - the misuse of its teaching to justify violence or the abuse of persons who are homosexuals. There are of course some troubling facts which just about everyone here must have in mind, but it is certainly not pursuant to the teaching of the Catholic Church, or others, that regrettable and reprehensible acts have been perpetrated. There are unbalanced, sick individuals in all human groups. We probably have our fair share.

[English]

Rev. Crosby: In our consideration of Bill C-33, we've kept before us the criteria Cardinal Basil Hume, Archbishop of Westminster, recently indicated should be taken into account in assessing legislative proposals of this nature.

Three questions. One, are there reasonable grounds for judging that the institution of marriage and the family could and would be undermined by a change in the law? Two, would society's rejection of a proposed change in the law be more harmful to the common good than the acceptance of such a change? Three, does a person's sexual orientation or activity constitute, in specific circumstances, a sufficient and relevant reason for treating that person in any way differently from other citizens?

Ms Leddy: Dealing first with the question of the institution of marriage - are there reasonable grounds for judging that the institution of marriage could and would be undermined by a change in the law - we are concerned that the proposed amendment before you will facilitate claims for same-sex benefits that may result in the redefinition of the historical understanding of marital status, family status, marriage and spouse. The proposed amendment involves much more than individual rights, because the basis for more benefits or other rights for couples is marital or spousal status. That has been the case up until this time.

To receive benefits, same-sex couples challenge the definitions that restrict the meaning of spouse to the opposite sex. The prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation enables them to do so.

While proponents of the amendment, including the Minister of Justice and a number of members on this committee, may be right in asserting that its intention is simply to prevent discrimination, experience has shown that the effect may be to create social recognition of homosexual relationships or to change definitions of family, spouse or marriage. As a result of a similar amendment to the Ontario Human Rights Code ten years ago, same-sex couples were awarded benefits as spouses because the definition of marital status in the code that restricted the meaning of common-law spouse to a person of the opposite sex was held to be discriminatory.

.2135

Rev. Crosby: We are concerned that a major redefinition of spouse and marital status has been going on indirectly through the vehicle of otherwise worthy initiatives aimed at protecting individuals who have historically suffered unjust discrimination.

If there is to be such a massive social reconfiguration and change in public policy, it should happen only after widespread and meaningful consultation. The historical understanding of marriage, marital status and spouse are of immense importance to many Canadians. It is not enough to shrug off their concerns as unfounded, because experience has shown that there is a rational basis for them. Those who opposed the changes to the Ontario law ten years ago were dismissed as alarmist, but their predictions came to pass.

Ms Leddy: At the beginning of this presentation Father Crosby indicated that the bishops wish to be constructive and wish to participate in this debate, really participate and engage in it. He also said that we, meaning the bishops, can support Bill C-33 insofar as it deters unjust discrimination and provided that it adds the component set out in this text under the section on the common good.

We now come to those amendments. We really hope we can stay on these amendments. We are not saying this is all or nothing; you either have no discrimination or you don't have these amendments. We would really like to have some discussion about the amendments. That's why the bishops wanted to be here.

This is the section on the common good. It says that in order to serve the common good, which is much more than the sum of individual goods, the following components should be added to the bill.

The first is definitions of "marital status" and "family status" that are limited to heterosexual couples because, as was said in the Egan case, they have an irreplaceable role in the procreation and nurturing of children, upon which the future of our society depends. We know that the preamble to this bill purports to recognize this important role. This preamble is welcome, but it does not go far enough because it overlooks what Mr. Justice LaForest said in the Egan case. As a reminder, what he said on behalf of his three other judges was "Because of its importance, legal marriage may properly be viewed as fundamental to the stability and well-being of the family..."

The second suggestion we would like to offer - and I hate to use the word "harmonization" this week - is in a way to harmonize the Canadian Human Rights Act with the Charter of Rights so that added to it is a saving provision similar to section 1 of the charter. This is so that the history and social objectives of legislation may be taken into account in determining whether certain policy distinctions are unjust discrimination, so that people can really look at what the purpose of legislation is, and all sectors of society can feel that their views have been taken into account.

The third is that the teaching and hiring practices of religious institutions be protected, as they are in most provincial human rights codes.

The common good would also be better served if in advance of any amendments there were an in-depth study of the origin and purpose of benefits. I believe this was referred to in a question to an earlier witness.

If it is indeed appropriate for other categories of relationships to receive benefits, then there has to be another more direct way of doing so than by redefining or expanding terms such as marital status that have a long history in our society and culture. As the bishops stated in their letter to the Prime Minister, it would be important that this study examine whether benefits can be extended to other categories such as siblings, parent and adult child, same-sex couples, friends, in a manner that does not involve social recognition of same-sex couples or prevent special support to married couples. We hope we can have a discussion about this.

.2140

Rev. Crosby: We think the issues around this matter are significant and warrant full public hearings, and we are confident that they can be conducted in a thoughtful, constructive and respectful manner.

Our desire to support the institution of marriage should not be interpreted as unjust discrimination against homosexual persons or be used as a pretext to attack them. While we cannot accept homosexual acts, we do accept the right of homosexual persons to be treated with dignity and respect. Moreover, we are keenly aware of how difficult some find it to hear and live the church's teaching on this deeply personal matter.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Father.

According to the legal structure we have twenty minutes. I would be prepared to go a few minutes over that but not much more, so would you try to refine your questions down without lots of preamble? Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I have four questions, and I will try to put them as clearly as possible. I know that our witnesses have in the past demonstrated a high degree of social awareness, and I will never forget the position taken by the Conference on the issue of poverty.

I am a little disappointed by the document in front of me, because there seems to be a certain watering down effect. You are of course against discrimination, but you set out certain conditions which tend to divert us from the main point. To illustrate this, perhaps I could give you a few specific examples.

On page 2 of your brief, and I would like this to be clearly understood, you say that the Church:

...considers homosexual behaviour to be morally unacceptable, while at the same time accepting the homosexual person.

You distinguish between inclination and behaviour.

Are we to understand that a homosexual person must not live his or her homosexuality, and that once they do not do so, they are behaving morally? It seems to me that that is how we should understand that statement. As you will appreciate, that seems to me somewhat questionable, to say the least. In any event, I believe I have correctly read the paragraph.

What distinction do you make between behaviour and inclination?

Rev. Langevin: The distinction is not a recent one and it expresses Catholic thinking on this issue. As regards the impact of our discussion this evening, I would tend to set that aside somewhat.

Mr. Ménard: I don't understand the distinction. Would you please explain it to me.

Rev. Langevin: I am neither a doctor nor a psychiatrist, but I know people who have certain homosexual inclinations but do not act upon them. I am not saying that they are required to behave that way, but since you're asking me what that means, I would say that there is an inclination...

For hereditary reasons, some people are born with an inclination to drink. I myself know some people of whom you could definitely say that they are genetically inclined to drink. That doesn't justify their drinking. They can try to control it. I don't want to dwell on that subject in the context of our discussion, since today, we are looking at the social impact of an amendment which still requires certain qualifications.

As Father Crosby indicated, we accept the principle of non-discrimination. We would like certain qualifications to be included, so as to avoid abuse and giving all couples the same standing.

.2145

Mr. Ménard: I would like to ask my second question. I would like to come back to that qualification, but as we are all brothers and try to be kind to one another, I agree that this might not be the right time to discuss that question. With all due respect, I will have to agree to disagree.

Second, you wanted the preamble to be strengthened. If I clearly understood, you want us to include in the preamble a very direct reference to the concept of marriage, not to the concept of the family. Is that correct?

This also gives me the opportunity to clarify the concept of the family. I don't know how the members of you Conference would describe it, but am I a product of the times when I say that in many families the parents are not officially married? Is there not a danger of divorce here, both on a conceptual and on a realistic level, which doesn't favour the objectives you are pursuing?

In my community, Hochelaga - Maisonneuve, there are people with all the characteristics of a family. They love, protect and take care of one another. But I am not sure if they were ever necessarily married in the eyes of God or man. I would like you to explain to me how those positions can be reconciled.

[English]

Ms Leddy: On the one point, the request is not that the preamble be strengthened but that definitions be added for marital status. That's one of the requests being made. So it's not in the preamble; it would be a definition in the act.

Really the route for benefits, and the court cases have shown this, has been by challenging the definition of marital status. That's what this would be about. As we mentioned, the judgment of Mr. Justice LaForest talked about an essential quality of marriage being strengthening the family.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I would like to understand this correctly. You want legal definitions, but you don't want them in the preamble. If we accept the amendments you are suggesting, this would mean that further sections have to be added. Is that what you want?

[English]

Ms Leddy: Yes, that's right, as a definition similar to what was done along the lines of Bill C-108 a couple of years ago.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: My time has not expired. I think I can ask my other two questions.

[English]

The Chair: You have six minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Ah, Madam Chair! These are important witnesses who want to discuss this issue and represent 12 million Canadians. That is more people than you will ever represent in your life.

Mr. Robinson: They want to discuss with everyone.

The Chair: All right, you have...

Mr. Ménard: All right, I will keep quiet. I understand, Madam Chair. When I have to keep quiet, I keep quiet. That is our philosophy. Therefore, I will give the floor to my colleagues from the Reform Party, who will no doubt find natural ways of...

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, I gave you time to ask a very short question, but...

Mr. Ménard: Madam Chair, I want to express a wish. As is no doubt the case for many other people, I am concerned by a religious feeling. I think there is a religious feeling in life. However, I believe that the Church and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops are bodies built by men, because it is people who are working in them. I respect you, but I do not believe that generally speaking homosexuals in Canadian society will feel attracted by the position you advocate. I know that is not the purpose of our discussion this evening, but the Catholic Church will not become more attractive by saying to homosexuals: "Do not live what you are, repress what you are; if you repress it, there will not be any moral problems".

In all honesty, I must say that I find such a position to be backward-looking, and not representing the Word of God. If God is all merciful, as you believe He is, I don't think that he would make this type of distinction. A desire is a desire. Love is love. I do not believe that you, who preach the Scriptures, should be making the distinctions which you are proposing to us this evening.

Madam Chair, I know that is not the point of this debate, but I just wanted to express my viewpoint.

The Chair: Mr. MacClelland.

[English]

Mr. Robinson: Was he going to respond?

The Chair: No. Mr. McClelland, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Please allow them to respond, Madam Chair.

The Chair: They will respond at the appropriate time. You will see.

Mr. Ménard: Ah, you are very confident.

The Chair: They can't avoid responding to a statement such as yours.

.2150

[English]

Mr. McClelland: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I too wish to thank the witnesses very much for coming at this late hour.

Before I make my comments, earlier today representatives from Dignity Canada were here. If you choose to read the transcripts, I asked a question, and tried to do so as delicately and thoughtfully as I possibly could, about the potential of denial of sexual orientation and the trouble this could have caused the church. We talked about denial in a much broader context, but you may find that of interest. I didn't think it would be appropriate for me to have spoken of that in the context of the church and not to have brought it to your attention tonight. It will be in the transcripts and they could be made available to you. It wasn't that big a deal, but you may be interested.

I tell you frankly that I am desperately looking for a way to vote for this bill because I know there are so many tertiary feelings involved here. It's so important symbolically to the gay and lesbian community, and by extension to Canada and all of the community at large. I really want to, but I also understand and appreciate the responsibility that I and others have to represent the many millions of Canadians who are deeply troubled by this change in our laws. They need and are required to be represented with dignity and with honour.

I don't know what I can say other than that when we get to clause-by-clause, I will do the very best I can to convince my colleagues of the worth of trying to bring everybody into the tent on this because of the value it would have to our country. But I must tell you that my hopes in this regard are very, very slim.

Yesterday in the testimony I asked the Minister of Justice, for exactly these reasons, if such amendments would be considered. His response was that they were unnecessary, that in drafting law you don't need to put words in unless they are there for the purpose of the law. In his learned opinion nothing that we are concerned about is threatened by this legislation. I hope that over the next day or so we might be able to convince the minister and the government otherwise, and I give you my undertaking that I will try to do so.

Ms Leddy: One of the arguments we have been hearing and probably you have been hearing is that there is nothing in this proposed amendment that expressly redefines marriage or that expressly, intentionally, overtly threatens the definition of spouse or marital status or family status, that no changes to other statutes are contemplated by the Department of Justice. All of that is true as far as it goes, because actually the courts will do it. The way this bill is set up will facilitate the courts' ability to do that.

That is what happened in Ontario, and we would like to reiterate that. At that time people said exactly what you're quoting the minister as saying: don't worry, it's only about discrimination in employment and a sense of fairness. Many people can respond to that, quite understandably. But the concerns expressed at that time did come to pass.

I think you can understand why we and many other organizations feel just a little bit apprehensive at these assurances today. We're not quite so willing to accept at face value the assurances being given by the Department of Justice and by proponents of the bill in good faith. We feel just a little bit troubled by that.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

.2155

Mr. Robinson: Because the time is limited, I'm going to change somewhat the thrust of my questioning. I had wanted to read into the record a letter that was sent to the Vancouver Sun by a Catholic priest from one of the largest parishes in my community, in the Richmond area. He talks in very moving, powerful and eloquent words about the impact of homophobia on a young man in his parish. I'd ask the permission of the committee to append it, or should I read it?

The Chair: You can read it.

Mr. Robinson: If I may take a bit of liberty with time, because I have a couple of questions, I will read the letter into the record. The letter is from a Catholic priest in Richmond. It reads as follows:

I am a Catholic priest and pastor of a large parish in Richmond. Just before Christmas last year, a 25-year-old man came to see me.

He told me his name was Eddie (not his real name), that he was gay and that he had known this since he was 12 years old. He had tried so hard not to be gay, and I remember him saying: "Father, who would voluntarily choose to be rejected, be the butt of jokes and discriminated against?"

This young man was capable, sensitive and intelligent. I still have one of his oil paintings, which shows a real talent. He told me he called his father and told him he was gay, and his father said: "If I was there, I would kill you." His mother said: "Don't come home."

I sat with him for an hour and I told him that there were people with bigger crosses than his to bear, and that he could really do something positive with his life. I told him that God loved him and that Jesus rejected no one - he certainly would not reject him. I told him to come and see me any time and I would help him in any way I could.

I never saw him again. The next evening, he took his own life.

At the prayers before the funeral, his two sisters and his lover were there. No parents. When the casket was opened, I looked at that young man and I realized homophobia and hatred had put him there.

We buried Eddie in a beautiful place at the Gardens of Gethsemani. May he rest in peace.

Then I read that MP Roseanne Skoke said people like Eddie "defile humanity, destroy families and annihilate mankind." In this case, the reverse happened. Eddie got annihilated by mankind, represented by "good Christians" like Ms Skoke.

Whatever happened to "love one another as I have loved you"?

This is signed by Father Norman Birch of Richmond.

That is the context within which I want to ask my questions, Madam Chair. I want to ask for clarification. First of all, is it the position of the Conference of Catholic Bishops that employers in the federal jurisdiction be allowed to make the non-practice of homosexual activity a bona fide occupational qualification?

Rev. Crosby: The text from which you take this quote is from Archbishop Exner in Vancouver. We received that text from somebody here as we got here. It's a statement he has made, or at least purported to be a statement he has made. We haven't seen it or discussed it with him, so our preference would be to deal with the approach we have taken to this issue.

Mr. Robinson: Well, let's be clear then.

Rev. Crosby: This in a sense is the direction or the position of the CCCB.

Mr. Robinson: Archbishop Exner is saying that federal employers should be allowed to insist that their employees not engage in homosexual activity, and if they don't, that they should be allowed to fire those employees. That's what he says. So a bank clerk, a flight attendant working on an airline, an employee of the Library of Parliament should be required to take an oath of chastity or a federal employer, according to Bishop Exner, can fire that person. You've said that's not necessarily your position.

Rev. Crosby: Our position is quite clearly stated under the common good section. With regard to teaching and hiring practices, we ask that they be protected as Bill C-108 attempted to do. That's the position we are trying to present here -

Mr. Robinson: And not the position of Archbishop Exner, is that correct?

Rev. Crosby: I'm saying that the position that Archbishop Spence and the executive have approved and that we are presenting is this one. We have not participated in the development of that text at all. It's a statement, a statement to whom I don't know.

Mr. Robinson: It's a statement to this committee regarding Bill C-33. In any event you've said that it doesn't represent your position. I appreciate that.

Let me ask you about another position taken by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Are you familiar with that group? You're familiar with their 1992 letter?

In that letter a couple of statements are made. One is the following: "There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination" - and Ms Leddy has referred to unjust discrimination so I'm trying to find out what you mean - "to take sexual orientation into account...". Then a number of examples are given. One of those examples is the employment of teachers or coaches. According to the Doctrine of the Faith, it is acceptable to discriminate against gays and lesbians in the field of teaching and coaching. Is that the position of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops?

.2200

Rev. Crosby: I would say the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops would hold that kind of discrimination is not only against gays and lesbians; we would consider it's against anyone who participates in activities that are against the moral standings of the church.

Mr. Robinson: Including gays and lesbians.

Rev. Crosby: Including gays and lesbians in terms of their activities.

Mr. Robinson: Right. What you're saying is you would allow teachers or coaches to be fired from their jobs if they engaged in homosexual activity in the privacy of their own home. That's what you've said. With respect, Father, that's your position, is it not?

The Chair: Don't badger.

Rev. Crosby: Somehow this would have to have been brought to the public forum in some way. If it happens in the private forum, who knows?

Mr. Robinson: In other words, if people don't hear about it, it's okay.

Rev. Crosby: If it is in the public forum and it is affecting the life of the school and the moral standing of the school and the education that is being taught, it is a concern.

Mr. Robinson: And it's okay to fire people on that basis.

Rev. Crosby: I think the church does that with heterosexual couples who are living in common-law relationships, which are outside the moral standing of the church.

Mr. Robinson: So it's okay to fire people as teachers or coaches -

Rev. Crosby: You have to be very -

Mr. Robinson: - if they engage in homosexual activity; that's what you said.

Ms Leddy: Mr. Robinson, I think Father Crosby is talking about teachers in a Roman Catholic school.

Mr. Robinson: That's not what this says.

Ms Leddy: But that's what he's talking about: teachers in a Roman Catholic setting.

The Roman Catholic religion is a tough religion. If a heterosexual couple is not married and one of them is a teacher in a Roman Catholic school, they are expected to conform to the teachings of the Catholic Church, regardless of the orientation.

Mr. Robinson: The doctrine in the letter makes no reference to Catholic schools.

Rev. Crosby: Why would the doctrine of the faith be writing about any other schools?

Mr. Robinson: Let me give you another example. They also refer to military recruitment. I don't know about a Catholic army.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, I think you have -

Mr. Robinson: My final question is about another suggestion made in this same letter. The letter states:

...the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when - and this is the critical part for this committee -

civil legislation is introduced to protect behaviour to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

I suggest to members of this committee and to witnesses that this is deeply offensive and outrageous; that what this document is suggesting is that it's understandable if gay people are being beaten or are victims of violence if they have the temerity to ask for legislation to protect behaviour to which "no one has any conceivable right". I want to find out if that is the position of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Ms Leddy: Mr. Robinson, the position of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops is before you, as you well know. It is somewhat troubling for members of the public to come to the committee to present before this committee a reasoned, rational, hopefully considerate, approach, where we are trying to be constructive and deal with a particular bill that is before this committee and try to bring into harmony the serious concerns your group has and you have personally and you have fought very hard for, and also the serious concerns other people have fought for.

.2205

You're someone who is an advocate for human rights, and I wish you would listen to us and give us a chance to participate constructively.

As for the other witnesses who were here, we've provided you with a brief that has been thought out, reflected upon, and we want to participate and not go through this type of... I'm not sure what the exercise is.

It is profoundly upsetting and inappropriate for one of our members of Parliament and our public not to let us contribute to the debate.

But we really want to stay focused on this bill.

The Chair: With all due respect, we did listen for 40 minutes and there was exchange. The last issue is a very sensitive one, and I think that, with due regard to the nature of the legislative work that we are about to undertake, this relates to the nature of that work.

I'm sorry if it seems to be badgering. You have to give consideration to a sometimes very combative attitude on the part of our colleague as he works very hard to ensure that the issues of very serious concern are looked at and reasonable answers are given. This was a printed document that we have, and I think he has the right to ask the question once a printed document is put in front of him. We all have copies of this paper.

Mr. Robinson: I might just clarify that the document to which I referred signed by Bishop Exner suggesting that employers in federal jurisdictions should be allowed to make the non-practice of homosexual activity a bona fide occupation requirement, I believe, is a document that was submitted by a member of the association that is presenting evidence to the committee. It's not unreasonable that I should seek clarification.

[Translation]

Rev. Langevin: Could I...?

[English]

The Chair: I think we'll move on to Bill.

Mr. Graham: This is an extremely complicated issue and, believe me, I approach the position you have taken with some skepticism. So let me start by saying that. But my skepticism is tempered by the fact that, while I'm not a Catholic myself, my two grandchildren have recently been baptized as Catholics, so I'm getting closer to the jurisdiction of the church.

My problem is this. I've watched the church evolve... I appreciate that this is a very sensitive position that you're adopting before the committee today. You're saying that one does not wish to see discrimination or other people being hurt in their lives in ways that are not justified by social considerations - which perhaps are more important than the individual, if I could put it in that way.

All of us, however, are undergoing profound sociological changes in the course of history. The church itself condemned homosexuality - not the act of homosexuality, but homosexuality itself - a mere 20 years ago as being a mortal sin. I understand that it has now moved to a position where it has said that the act of being a homosexual is tolerable but, as my friend Mr. Ménard said, the actual physical act is not acceptable. So there's a change in the position of the church.

I have two problems with the position you put out in front of us today. The first is that this bill we have before us will affect the institution of marriage. It is not designed to do that; it is designed to deal with hiring and other practices under federal jurisdiction. I think my colleague Mr. Robinson put it very well: does it mean that a bank can fire somebody because they don't like the fact that they are engaged in a homosexual act? The archbishop of Vancouver might be of that view. I'd be quite distressed if the Catholic bishops as a whole endorsed that view.

In my view that is what this bill is all about. But you have introduced the idea that this is a slippery slope towards the destruction of the institution of marriage. I would like to pursue that with you. I would like to know why you say that.

I remember, from when I taught law years ago, the idea that one would recognize illegitimate children. The church and the legal system said that that would destroy the institution of marriage. It was practice. It was in the civil law; it was in the common law. For a long time, for centuries, we believed that, and for centuries we enforced it. We don't enforce that any more.

Does the Catholic Church say that we should not recognize illegitimate children because that would destroy the institution of marriage?

What is the Catholic Church's position on common-law relationships?

.2210

If in fact two relationships outside of that of holy matrimony are what is going to destroy the institution of marriage in this country, doesn't the Catholic Church therefore intellectually have to say it condemns and will not accept what every civil law jurisdiction in this country accepts, which is that people who live together over a period of time and who are heterosexual have the same rights and benefits as those who are married, in the eyes of the church? If the church does not accept that, I think it has to tell us the church wants to turn back the clock and we should get rid of common-law marriages.

However, if the church's dogma is such that it's willing to extend its respect of the common-law relationship between two people, what is the distinction, in the view of the church, between a common-law relationship of two heterosexual people as opposed to two homosexual people, not in respect of the moral question of the physical act between them - I'm not asking you to speak to that, because that, I understand, from the church's point of view is and of itself wrong, and I respect that position of the church, but how does that contribute to the destruction of the other marriages, which the rest of us in society have? How will discriminating against those people, how will making other people's lives uncomfortable and difficult, somehow advantage and preserve the matrimonial institution you say you're here to protect, when we recognize the fact that other couples live in a non-matrimonial relationship that has full civil law recognition in our civil society?

That's the problem I have with the position of the church. It's a very serious problem a lot of us have to deal with. And I know the church itself is wrestling with it.

I'm not attacking on this. I'm just trying to understand. I think we all want to understand. We're all reaching out to one another to understand these profoundly troubling and important issues.

[Translation]

Rev. Langevin: I would say that that reflects the concerns of many committee members.

Our amendments must be seen as representing our fundamental position. I hope this won't sound offensive, but we are not here to place the Catholic Church on trial as regards its position on homosexuality. With respect to the draft amendment, we would suggest these specific changes, which are really minor. That is the reason we are here.

We all want to defend homosexual people. This concern is very important to me, as it is for many other people here. However, in this discussion our main concern is that all couples should not be considered as being the same. We believe that a married couple, with a family or based around a family, has a role in society and therefore the right to be protected. They should not be placed in the same category as any other group, particularly as this institution, which is central to society, is in great danger today. This is not the appropriate place for discussing problems of divorce and single parent families.

The Chair: There are problems of violence in supposedly traditional, well-established families.

Rev. Langevin: I quite agree with you, but we cannot say that marriage in itself leads to that. We are discussing an institution, not individual behaviour within an institution.

We wanted to present positively and constructively some views that we do not impose as dogma on anyone. These views take into account the special nature of the family and marriage, which is after all the starting point. The reason we are here is because we are a product of a marriage and a family. Married couples are special.

.2215

Without claiming it is the be all and end all, the fact remains that there is some concern here that marriage, which already has enough problems, might have even more if all couples are made equal. As we said in our briefs, there are other ways of ensuring the well being of other types of couples. It is not necessary to put all couples on the same footing as married couples, and to redefine marriage or marital status.

I think, in all good faith, that our brief and our position contain something very positive. We have put them forward to you in good faith and with great sincerity. Thank you.

The Chair: Father Langevin, Ms Leddy and Father Crosby, I recognize that you have big hearts and that you want to improve society in keeping with your vision of things. We thank you for the hard work you've done and for your testimony here today. Thank you very much for your patience.

Mr. Ménard: I suggest we take a five-minute break.

[English]

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we will start clause 1 upon your return in five minutes.

.2216

.2231

On clause 1

The Chair: We have with us the officials from the Department of Justice.

Do you have any comments on clause 1?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Madam Chair, for the benefit of all members, I would like to clarify that I got some information a little earlier. Yesterday, the Minister promised to table some documents to facilitate our understanding, and we were counting on them to provide us with some current examples of discrimination.

I understand that the government has gone ahead with some earlier documents, and that we are going to be getting them in the next few days. The officials are preparing a report on the situation and we will be getting these documents in the next few days.

The Chair: I would ask the officials to kindly introduce themselves. The members of the committee will do the same.

Mr. Ménard: We know only the parliamentary secretary.

The Chair: I know. We will ask the officials who don't have name cards to introduce themselves.

[English]

Mr. Stephen Sharzer (Senior Counsel, Human Rights Law Section, Department of Justice): Stephen Sharzer.

Mr. John Scratch (Senior General Counsel, Human Rights Law Section, Department of Justice): John Scratch.

Mr. Jim Hendry (Counsel, Human Rights Law Section, Department of Justice): Jim Hendry.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Is my interpretation correct?

[English]

The Chair: You heard the request and the clarification that's required on the commitment of the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Scratch: Yesterday the minister said we would bring certain documents requested byMr. Ménard. We have spent most of the day trying to locate and collect those documents.

.2235

We have tabled with the clerk tonight, or given to the clerk, some documents. Mr. Ménard is correct: we brought a couple of reports, one of which was the 1985 parliamentary report Equality for All, and witness statements given to that committee. But we are also in the process of preparing other documents for the committee.

Some of the documents we looked at today are letters that were sent to the minister. There are privacy concerns about just bringing those over here, and we are trying to summarize the incidents of discrimination outlined in those letters in a form that would be readable and acceptable for the committee. We hope to have those here tomorrow, in both English and French.

I hope you will bear with us. It's a big task and we're trying our best.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Is that not satisfactory?

Mr. Ménard: I'm very pleased.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. McClelland: I have a point of order, Madam Chairman. May I request that all votes be recorded?

The Chair: Yes, you certainly may.

Mr. Robinson: I have just a couple of questions, for clarification.

This legislation obviously applies within federal jurisdiction. When the minister appeared before the committee yesterday evening, I sought clarification from the minister with respect to its application to the some 3,000 employees on Parliament Hill. The minister affirmed that the legislation applies to Parliament Hill.

There are three employers - the Senate, the House of Commons, and the Library of Parliament - and I'd just like clarification from the witnesses on that point.

Mr. Scratch: Probably the best thing to do would be to seek clarification of this from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Stephen tells me that they have taken the position, and we are not sure...

I think that what the minister said yesterday is that he thought that the values enshrined in this bill ought to apply to the employees of Parliament Hill.

Mr. Robinson: I appreciate that the values should apply. My question is not whether the values should apply, Mr. Scratch. You were the advisers to the minister. I'm asking you: does this legislation apply to the some 3,000 employees who work on Parliament Hill?

Mr. Scratch: Could you give me just a second?

Mr. Graham: Surely the context of Parliament would be governed by the law.

Mr. Robinson: One would hope so, but I'm seeking clarification, Mr. Graham.

An hon. member: Obviously you're new around here, Svend.

The Chair: Mr. Scratch, under employment equity, does this not apply?

Mr. Scratch: To the extent that Parliament in fact can bind itself by this act, yes, it does apply to Parliament Hill.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Robinson: One other question, if I may, Madam Chair.

The Chair: With due indulgence.

Mr. Robinson: There has been some suggestion that the provisions that we're about to vote on in clause 1, and indeed other provisions of the bill as well, should be subject to something similar to the provisions in current section 1 of the charter. Again, this is an issue that I raised with the minister, but I'd like some clarification from Mr. Scratch or other witnesses, or certainly the parliamentary secretary, if he wants to enlighten us on this point.

What arguments have been made for in fact adding to the Canadian Human Rights Act a provision similar to the existing section 1 of the charter, and what concerns have been raised?

Mr. Scratch: The minister said yesterday that a provision like that was under consideration for the bigger package of amendments that he hoped to bring forward.

As he pointed out yesterday too, a number of concerns have been expressed about it and about the effect it might have. I can only repeat his assurances that it is being looked at carefully, that the concerns are being looked at very carefully, and that no decision has been made yet with respect to that matter.

Mr. Robinson: Of course that could have a very negative impact on this clause as passed.

.2240

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, I think the minister has responded to you. You will have to wait until the next package comes down. It's not relevant to this. I would also like to remind you that you are not a voting delegate at this table. You're an observer.

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2

The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?

Mr. McClelland: No.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Robinson: I have a question about the second paragraph in the preamble, whereby the government recognizes and affirms the importance of family as the foundation of Canadian society. Just for clarification, I want to ask the parliamentary secretary or the witnesses to confirm that nothing -

The Chair: Excuse me. There's a point of order.

Mr. Graham: I'm sorry. I have a point of order or perhaps interrogation. I didn't hear you call clause 3. If we haven't adopted clause 3, we can't go to the preamble yet.

The Chair: Is there a clause 3?

Mr. Graham: Oh, I'm sorry.

The Chair: Bill, perhaps in the next draft that comes in we'll have a clause 3, but this one doesn't have to have one.

Mr. Epp: You Liberals want to work all night. That's what happens.

Mr. Graham: I apologize. I misread the numbers. I'm very sorry. Excuse me for interrupting. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?

Mr. Robinson: I'm just seeking clarification on the recognition and affirmation of the importance of family as the foundation of Canadian society. To be very clear, I'd like an assurance from the witnesses that nothing in these words precludes the inclusion of gay and lesbian families.

Mr. Scratch: Mr. Robinson, I can only repeat what the minister said yesterday, that in his view and our view the focus of this legislation is the prohibition of discrimination in areas of employment and the provision of goods and services. The question of family status and marital status is not relevant here.

Mr. Robinson: I'm not asking about family status. I'm just seeking assurance that indeed nothing in this paragraph of the preamble would preclude the inclusion of gay and lesbian families.

The Chair: It's not relevant to the issue. But you're the official.

Mr. Scratch: As we have heard from many witnesses who have come before this committee, there are many definitions of family, and nothing in this legislation is directed towards that. It's directed simply towards the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Mr. Robinson: So those other definitions are included. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: This would include homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual, as you know.

Mr. Robinson: Which would include homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual families?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Robinson: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Epp: Let the record clearly show -

Mr. Robinson: The chair has very graciously assisted me on this.

The Chair: No, I'm sorry, I said "individuals". You forgot I said "individuals".

Mr. MacLellan: Madam Chair, nothing can be read in except what the preamble states, and the preamble has to stand on its own.

Mr. Robinson: I take the very thoughtful interpretation of the chair.

The Chair: I made a mistake. I withdraw it.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Three points, Madam Chair. First, I want to ensure that I understood the Minister correctly when he told us yesterday that to date, the interpretation of the caselaw was that the family protected homosexuals, heterosexuals and bisexuals. He stated that clearly.

.2245

Second, three years ago, I was a newly elected member of Parliament and I was euphoric. At our first meeting, we got the document from the Department of Justice...

Mr. Robinson: The euphoria disappeared quickly!

Mr. Ménard: That depends on the issue, but when you're present, I get fired up.

Some honourable members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Ménard: ...that gave us some information on all human rights cases pending before the courts. We make good use of this document.

It might be interesting - and I don't know whether I am going too far in asking this of the department - to have a document on the caselaw on all decisions involving the concept of the family. Does the Department of Justice have this information and would you agree to share it with us?

[English]

An hon. member: There goes the minister's assurance.

Mr. Scratch: I can check and see. I don't know the document to which you refer - I know that we certainly have the cases there - but I will check to see if such a document exists.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: I come now to my third question for the parliamentary secretary, because I want him to have an opportunity to get into a discussion with us. Sometimes life is too easy for parliamentary secretaries.

The preamble is essentially there for purposes of interpretation. As in the case of a number of other acts, it is not an integral part of the bill. It is not an operative clause, however in the case of a dispute or doubt, the courts could use it as a reference, but not literally. Could I finally have become a lawyer?

[English]

Mr. McClelland: Well, he can certainly talk.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: The important thing is not to know how to speak, but to know how to vote.

[English]

Mr. Kirkby: The bill can be looked at before the courts, but the preamble simply recognizes the importance of the family in Canadian society; it does not change the definition at all. This is simply a bill dealing with anti-discrimination with respect to employment and the provision of goods and services.

[Translation]

The Chair: May I continue, sir?

Mr. Ménard: That is a good question, Madam Chair. Yes, you are at home here.

[English]

The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. McClelland: No.

Mr. Epp: It's too ambiguous; everything in it is undefined.

Mr. McClelland: We will vote no, unless the members wish otherwise.

Mr. Bernier: Free vote! Have a free vote.

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: We'll give you the title.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: If I understand correctly, we have finished, have we, Madam Chair?

The Chair: No, we have not finished. There are two other questions.

Mr. Bernier: All right. I have questions about the coming into force of the Act.

The Chair: Could you wait until we've finished our study of the bill?

Mr. Bernier: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. McClelland: A recorded vote, please.

The Chair: A recorded vote. It's not the same vote as before. Do you want us to call the vote again?

Mr. McClelland: Yes.

Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1

The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House?

Mr. Epp: No.

Some hon. members: Yes.

.2250

[Translation]

The Chair: Do you have a question, Mr. Bernier?

Mr. Bernier: I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether the government intends to ensure that this act comes into force immediately after it is passed in the House of Commons. In other words, is he expecting any delays?

[English]

Mr. Kirkby: The bill will come into effect on royal assent.

Mr. Epp: It's going to happen before any Canadians get -

[Translation]

Mr. Bernier: Without delay?

[English]

Without any delay.

Mr. Epp: Yes, don't let Canadians speak on it. Be sure you jam it through fast.

Mr. Kirkby: As expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Epp: Liberal democracy.

The Chair: I adjourn the meeting. Thank you, everybody.

Return to Committee Home Page