The House resumed at 8:01 p.m.
House in committee of the whole.
HUMAN RIGHTS CODE
Consideration of Bill 7, An Act to review and extend Protection of Human Rights in Ontario.
Mr. Chairman: Did the minister indicate something to me?
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, it depends on the permission of the House. I have two pages of opening remarks, if members will agree to my making them. If not, we can proceed right into clause-by-clause consideration.
Mr. Chairman: The minister has indicated he has some brief opening remarks; but if there is no agreement by all parties, we will start in on section-by-section consideration.
Agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are moving closer to the conclusion of the legislative process related to Bill 7. As members know, the bill was considered in the standing committee on resources development commencing on June 2. Some 26 days of hearings ensued, at which time 150 public submissions were received. I was able to be present at many of those sessions and when I was not there my parliamentary assistant, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), attended on my behalf.
The clause-by-clause debate before the committee commenced on October 28. There were nine sessions devoted to the debate at this stage, for a total of approximately 22.5 hours. I believe all members of that committee will agree that the exchange of views in relation to each of the sections under discussion was full and open and reflected careful and thoughtful preparation by all members.
A substantial number of amendments were introduced by the government in response to the public submissions received and those, together with the several amendments accepted from members of the opposition, have improved the bill in some critical areas.
I do not propose to say anything further by way of introduction except to reiterate my appreciation to the members of the standing committee and to those members of the public who took the time to present their views so ably to the committee.
Mr. Chairman: Thank you, and I thank all House members for being so co-operative in terms of allowing the minister a few opening remarks.
I presume we will start section-by-section approval.
On section 1:
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, my first amendment deals with the preamble. Do you want to deal with it now or later?
Mr. Chairman: Thank you for bringing that to my attention. It is my understanding and I think parliamentary tradition has it, and I am looking at page 518 of a copy of May, that the preamble is usually postponed until all the sections are dealt with. With that in mind, we will deal with the preamble at the end of the bill.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would not want to dispute Erskine May or you on that matter; so I will delay my amendment to the preamble until that time comes. I trust you will not lose it in the interval.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that section 1 be amended by adding, after the word "sex," the words "sexual orientation."
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to move the same amendment to section 2(1), section 3, section 4(1) --
Mr. Chairman: I hate to interrupt, but I did not hear your preliminary words.
Mr. Stokes: He says he does not intend to move the same recommendations on the sections he has just referred to.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, you will appreciate that I have moved the amendment on section 1 of the bill to include as one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination the term "sexual orientation." I do not intend to move the same amendment on section 2(1), section 3, section 4 or section 5. I intend my comments on this amendment to be taken to apply to each of those other sections to which I have just referred. It seems to me that is an efficient way to proceed on this question.
I want to take the opportunity, since it does not deal only with the question of sexual orientation, to draw to the attention of the House what we are doing in the bill, and what we are failing to do in the bill, with respect to the question of what are prohibited grounds of discrimination. If a ground is not included in the bill as a prohibited ground, no one in Ontario has any right of action anywhere else to correct the wrong done to the person by reason of discrimination on an irrelevant matter.
There was some doubt about that proposition for some time and, therefore, members of this assembly were able to say, "If we do not include it in the human rights code, there is a remedy somewhere else." But there is now no longer in the law of this country, as it applies to Ontario, any such luxury to salve their consciences if they do not accept this amendment.
While we were in session, the Supreme Court of Canada gave its decision in the case of the board of governors of Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology and Pushpa Bhadauria, which did not deal with the issue of sexual orientation but with the question of whether there was another remedy anywhere else on a question of discrimination where the prohibited ground was not dealt with.
Without talking about the substance of the issue Ms. Bhadauria faced when she went to the Supreme Court of Canada to find out whether she had any remedy, the court in an unanimous judgement gave the decision simply to say that if there is a remedy it must be under the human rights code and if it is not under the code, there is no remedy.
The members of the assembly have to understand that if a ground is not included in this bill as one of the prohibited grounds, it will be this assembly that is condoning the discrimination on that ground. It is not a question in the amendment I have before the assembly right now of including the term "sexual orientation" to say in any way that the members of this assembly condone homosexuality.
I do not take it upon myself to condone homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. But that is not the point. It is not a question of my particular preference or my particular likes or dislikes. It is a question of whether we are going to perpetuate discrimination in the province against persons because we fail to include the phrase "sexual orientation."
8:10 p.m.
I sometimes find it difficult to make a simple point in the assembly, but I trust I have made that one. All of the members here, and those who are not here, if they oppose this amendment, are saying they condone discrimination in Ontario on the grounds of sexual orientation.
The clause I am talking about is the one dealing with the right of people "to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, age, marital status, family status or handicap." If we do not accept the amendment, it will mean we condone and invite discrimination against persons because of their sexual orientation.
If we pursue it in section 2(1), we will be permitting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in connection with the occupation of accommodation. If we continue it in section 3, we will be permitting discrimination on that ground in the question of legal capacity and the right to contract. If we fail to include it in section 4 of the bill, we will be condoning it with respect to discrimination in employment and, similarly, "with respect to membership in any trade union, trade or occupational association or self-governing profession" under the provisions of section 5 of the bill.
I tried in the standing committee on resources development dealing with the bill, and I am trying again here tonight, as we tried on second reading of the bill, to make it clear to the assembly what the implications are with respect to this amendment. I am only going to repeat it once more.
The Supreme Court of Canada has stated clearly that it is entirely the responsibility of this assembly, and no other body, to prohibit discrimination. If we do not prohibit discrimination on any number of grounds, we are the ones who are condoning and accepting that discrimination.
We were talking earlier today in this assembly about the charter of rights and the constitution of the country. I think it is unacceptable that this assembly should duck its responsibility in an area that is of great concern and causes immense tension in the society.
People find it difficult to accept it because they are not at ease when they talk about questions of sexual orientation. I want to ask my colleagues to set their feelings aside and to deal with it as a question of discrimination. Is there any ground or basis in this day and age for this assembly, in a revised human rights bill in which we at least pay lipservice to the question of the equal worth and dignity of each individual, to be saying it is permitted in this province to discriminate on the question of sexual orientation?
I have given a considerable amount of thought, as have many people, to the concerns with respect to what in committee I referred to as trust relationships between adults and children. I think it is fair to say I am not particularly anxious, in those circumstances, to have an advocacy of the homosexual lifestyle.
The Board of Education for the City of Toronto, in its policy with respect to this matter, dealt with it adequately and fairly. I am not going to read the policy of the board to the House. It was presented to us in the standing committee. It was a clearly-thought-out policy and one that was accepted by the Toronto board for practical purposes by a unanimous vote.
It was a policy where the legalities -- not the question of whether it should or should not be the policy of the board, but the legalities -- were referred to the counsel for the Toronto board, and a policy with respect to hiring by that board was adopted.
The very question that is of real concern in the assembly about that trust relationship between adults and children was fully dealt with at the board, and that particular problem is protected under the policy of the board.
There are many other reasons why this amendment should be accepted. I was sufficiently concerned that I took the liberty of talking about it with the leadership of four of the major religious communities, and the committee had before it statements from three of the four communities. It is not that there were not other religious communities that I could have consulted; but I did consult four of them, and three of them replied formally to the chairman of the committee about their position in this matter.
I think it is fair to say that, despite the apprehensions which the governing bodies of those churches have about the matters under consideration, the bottom line was quite clear: No one was to be denied the civil libertarian protection of not being discriminated against because of sexual orientation.
I need not refer in any detail to the remarks in the McDonald commission report, which indicated that in Canada the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were keeping dossiers over a period of time not just on persons in positions where security was of immense importance but also on persons in the various communities across the country whom they believed to be homosexual. What was the reason? Misguided as the way they carried it out may have been, the reason was the ancient one: A person in a society that does not have the tolerance to deal with the question subjects persons to the threat of blackmail.
Surely in this society at this time we should not in any way penalize persons who are in a minority and confront them with the possibility of blackmail. That is a very real concern I have about the matter. As we all know, two members of the Department of External Affairs, two Canadian ambassadors, were for one reason or another subjected to that kind of interrogation because they may have been a security threat. Not that they were; the evidence has never been disclosed. But it is certain that they were subjected to the security check because of the potential of blackmail.
I do not think any words of mine will necessarily change anyone's view on it, but I do want to make it absolutely clear where this party and this caucus stand on the issue. I understand that the House leaders have agreed that all the votes will be stacked until tomorrow or whenever the bill is finished, and I want it understood that when we vote on the amendment I have moved this evening, if this amendment is lost we will also be voting down a similar amendment to each of the other sections to which I referred in my earlier remarks.
I do hope we will have an opportunity in the debate tonight to have some interchange of views on this topic to see whether it is possible at this late hour to effect an amendment to the human rights code that is essential if we here in the assembly are not to be subject to the criticism that we have condoned discrimination in a society that most of us believe likes to be considered a tolerant society.
Mr. Chairman: I thank the member for Riverdale for pointing out to me his approach in regard to his proposed amendments on the other sections. I am sorry; I did not hear his opening few remarks in that regard.
8:20 p.m.
Ms. Copps: A point of order, Mr. Chairman: Can we have a copy of the amendment?
Mr. Chairman: Absolutely. I am sorry it was not provided to you earlier. I want to bring to the attention of the member for Riverdale that I notice a number of amendments to section 1. I will be approaching each amendment individually.
Ms. Fish: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in strong support of this amendment, which I understand has the effect of placing the words "sexual orientation" between the words "sex" and "age" in section 1. I gather it is the precursor to similar amendments to include sexual orientation in each of the following clauses through and including section 5(5) of the bill.
Mr. Chairman: That is correct, but we are only speaking to this one.
Ms. Fish: I will confine my remarks to section 1, because I understand that we are on clause by clause. Some of my remarks will be equally applicable to similar amendments to be brought forward to the other clauses. In that regard, I will indicate them and share them with the members this evening in terms of the discussion on section 1 and will confine myself to more particular remarks on other sections as we move to those clauses.
A couple of things are worth saying at the outset; some have been said in the standing committee and some have already been alluded to here this evening.
One of the most telling pieces of evidence and documentation that came forward to the standing committee on resources development when it was dealing with amendments to Bill 7, and in particular when consideration was being given to amend this bill to include sexual orientation, was a presentation made by Mr. Peter Maloney on behalf of the Association of Gay Electors.
In his testimony and in his remarks, Mr. Maloney indicated in a very clear form, and subsequently filed some additional information for committee members, the most recent experience of scientific testing and research that has been done into the question of sexual orientation, particularly in the United States.
Without repeating for members the whole of the study and all of its ramifications, I think one conclusion is most significant and germane to this debate; that is simply that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice and that one's sexual orientation is determined at or before birth.
Young people growing to adolescence and coming to puberty do not select their sexual orientation, such as whether as women they will be sexually oriented to men or sexually oriented to other women; they simply realize the sexual orientation that has been set and determined for them before any child has any understanding of what a term of that sort would mean.
That lack of choice is significant and should be remembered by all members of this House when considering this bill and this amendment, because it suggests to me that we are dealing with something that is not simply explained away by saying that if someone did not want to be "that way" -- the words often used by members -- they should simply choose to live a different life. The most recent finding of the very highest calibre, scientific analysis says that sort of suggestion simply no longer washes.
When we speak about the elements of choice, it is not in sexual orientation. The elements of choice come in questions such as whether one chooses to be celibate, to be monogamous or to be promiscuous. These are elements of choice. They are choices that are made by all people, whether they are gay or straight. They are not choices that go automatically with a particular sexual orientation any more than a form of dress, a form of speech or other superficial characteristics that attach to a person flow from the simple fact of sexual orientation.
It is important that members separate those elements, because what is being provided in this bill, and most particularly in this clause, is protection of the fundamental order of human rights in this province. I note that we provide protection in this bill and in this section for a variety of things that are a matter of choice. We provide protection for religion, for citizenship, for families with children, for marital status, for things that are chosen by people in our society, most particularly people who are adults.
We also provide protection for the things that are not matters of choice -- for race, for ancestry, and for place of origin -- for the things that one cannot choose but that one is simply born with. So we should be prepared to provide protection for sexual orientation, which is also not something one chooses but something one is born with.
It seems to me that as we read on and look at this clause in particular, we realize the protection is not for something special. It is not to separate people in our society out and say, "This one over here has something," and it is a special category that is created and, "That one over there does not." We are speaking in this clause about a right to equal treatment with respect to public goods, services and facilities in our society.
Surely we can recognize that there are people in this province with a variety in the differences of sexual orientation. But that is a real world, and there are people who discriminate in this province in the delivery of goods, services and facilities. If one's sexual orientation is not something about which one has choice any more than one has choice about one's place of origin, one's race or one's ancestry, then surely it is time for this province to truly follow in its footsteps of tolerance and to forge ahead to be the leader it has always been in the field of human rights and provide the protection that is sought in this amendment, which I wholeheartedly endorse and commend to the house.
Ms. Copps: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I obviously want to speak in support of what has been my amendment up until tonight. The reason it has not been mine tonight is that I was under the impression that the preamble would be dealt with first. Since it has not been, and you have chosen to skip over to section 1, I will deal with the amendment that has been presented by the New Democratic Party.
However, I not only want to tell you about the decision I made originally to propose this amendment and to take a stand that was difficult for me, individually, and for many of the members of my party who have supported me, but also to tell you a little bit about how my original decision -- which goes back some six months now -- has been further solidified in the contacts I have had in the submissions that we have heard as a committee.
I trace the scenario of the whole issue. When I came to Queen's Park, I had always thought I would like to be the labour critic. One of the reasons I was interested in being the labour critic was that I come from a labouring town, and I feel that I represent working people. And it is something that has interested me in legislative terms and in terms of the input I can have into the political process.
However, the first issue thrust on my plate as labour critic was the issue of the Ontario Human Rights Code. At the time, I went through tremendous torture in my mind as to which position I would take and whether that position would be embraced by my colleagues. I know there will be colleagues here tonight who will speak against the motion.
8:30 p.m.
Not only that, but the concern I felt for the decision went back to the kind of person I am and the kind of community I would like to see us live in. I asked myself whether I could stand up in the Legislature and propose an amendment that would call for the inclusion of sexual orientation in the human rights code. I discussed it with some people whose opinions I respect. Some said: "Listen, Sheila, it is an admirable quality. We feel if you have to support it, please support it but do not make a public issue of it. If you have to take a position, please don't be too vocal about it."
My style in politics, like my style in life, is definitely to be vocal about things I believe in; so some six months ago I stood up in the Legislature and said I would be moving an amendment, not only in the standing committee but also in the committee of the whole House, to see the inclusion of sexual orientation.
At that time, for the most part the issue of sexual orientation was a philosophical or personal one. I had not had the opportunity to discuss it with many homosexuals, because I am sure many homosexuals whom I have known in my life have not been out of the closet; therefore, I had not discussed it with many of them. Since that time, I have had the opportunity to receive input, not only from the homosexual but also from the heterosexual community that believes every person in this province should be treated equally.
I tabled with all the members a list of groups that have publicly stated their support for the inclusion of sexual orientation. They include the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Anglican Church of Canada and Catholics for Social Change. I want to read into the record a letter I received quite recently from Leaside United Church, the United Church of Canada, which has not yet been made public. That letter is addressed to Sheila Copps, Legislative Building, North Wing. It is from Reverend Hallett Llewellyn.
"Dear Miss Copps:
"In support of your proposed amendment to Bill 7, may I inform you of the action taken by the Toronto conference of the United Church of Canada at its meeting of November 11, 1981.
"The following motion was presented and approved: 'We move that in areas covered by the Ontario Human Rights Code provision be made for prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.'
"This motion is a very important step for our church life. We hope it may be helpful and supporting to you as you present your amendment in the immediate future. My sincere thanks for your time and consideration." It is signed by Hallett Llewellyn.
In view of the fact that the Premier is a member of the United Church of Canada, and certainly many members on all sides are adherents of the United Church of Canada, the decision in that difficult step taken by the Toronto conference, which had previously been supported by the Hamilton conference in its appearance before the committee, is further evidence that this society and this community are prepared to take the step of considering all people equal.
I do not think the issue is one of whether we agree with a person's lifestyle. I do not think the issue is whether one chooses the lifestyle or is born into it. I believe the issue is that we, as a community, must establish a principle of treating all people equally. We must not create an atmosphere and climate whereby a particular identified segment of the population can be denied jobs or housing simply on the basis of sexual orientation.
If sexual orientation on a heterosexual or a homosexual basis interferes with an ability to carry out a job, then it should become an issue. But the issue of sexual orientation should not be a prerequisite for housing in this province. It should not be a prerequisite for access to services. It should not be a prerequisite for a job.
I do not think any one of us, for example, would agree with a job application form that asks you to list your name, address, sex and sexual orientation. That would be considered unacceptable in this society, because those are the kinds of questions that we allow people to make of their own choosing.
By specifically excluding sexual orientation and by specifically stating that the code will prohibit all those areas of discrimination that are legally prohibited by law, this government is saying in effect that to discriminate against people of a different sexual orientation in this province is legal and is an acceptable form of discrimination.
The use of the words "sexual orientation" cuts both ways. Similarly, one can have a situation under this law where a homosexual, or a person who prefers a homosexual to carry out a certain job, can deny employment to a heterosexual. Frankly, I disagree with both areas of consideration.
In my original determination to come out in favour of sexual orientation and to publicly state to this House that I would be proposing an amendment, not only in the standing committee but also in the committee of the whole House, I was somewhat concerned about the kind of impact that would have in my community. Although I sincerely believed in it, as any politician I have to consider the reality of the 1980s and the reality of 1981.
I have been tremendously heartened by the reaction I have had, not only from my community, Hamilton, which comprises a broad spectrum of the province -- we have people of all backgrounds, all working classes, all nationalities -- and where I have received support and a tremendous boost, but also from across the province. I have received letters and telephone calls from people, saying, "Sheila, we appreciate the position you are taking, and we think you are a politician who has the guts to say what she believes in."
If I were to table in this House tonight the number of letters I have received on the other side of the coin, I am afraid most of the letters would be anonymous. I know there are some people who object to my position and who have approached it in a very reasoned, intelligent way. The people who have been prepared to sign their names respect the fact that I have taken a decision I believe in.
All we politicians here tonight, who may be making this decision based on what we feel to be the political repercussions, must also take into consideration the fact that the people of Ontario, in general, believe in the principle of equality. That is what we are talking about tonight.
We are not talking about according special rights to any specific group. We are not talking about singling out gays and saying we are for gay rights. I am for everyone's rights in this province. I believe in the rights of minorities. I believe in the rights of visible minorities. I believe in the rights of the majority.
I do not think we can say in this House or in the community that by acceding to the fact that one group should have equal rights, we are denying rights to any other group.
Basically, we are asking this Legislature and this government to create a climate where every person in this province feels he or she has equal rights or an equal chance to compete equally for a job or for accommodation.
8:40 p.m.
In the many briefs that have been brought before us -- and I will admit they have ranged across all positions both in favour of inclusion of sexual orientation and against -- some might have done a better selling job; others did a better selling job; but let us face it, those people outlined to us specific examples. You can start with John Damien and you can go right on down the line.
On this issue we have had adequate evidence in committee that there are very serious instances of discrimination in this province. That kind of evidence was brought forth in other areas some years ago when the government took a position to make illegal discrimination against persons on the basis of colour. The government was able to react in a positive way and to accord people not special rights but rights that will make them equal to everyone else in this province.
In fact, that is the issue we are dealing with at the moment, the issue of equal rights for everyone in this province. To shy from this issue because we are afraid of the political consequences is certainly not the way to approach the problem. I will agree that within my own committee, and I would speak publicly here, there have been members like my colleague Jack Riddell who have spoken against the amendment out of a feeling that he cannot support my position because he does not believe in it.
I can respect his position because I know Jack Riddell is the kind of person who will vote for what he believes in. But I also know there are other members in this House who will vote tonight not on what they truly believe, not on whether they really feel that sexual orientation should be a prohibited ground of discrimination but who will vote merely for political expediency because they are afraid this vote may be used against them in the next election.
One reason I was publicly stating many months ago that I would introduce the amendment in this House was that it is important for all of us to stand up and be counted. Whether we are for it or against it, I think it certainly is an issue that should be before this House and that each person should have to stand up and make a statement on it one way or another.
I also think there will be some members in this House who will vote against the amendment simply because they are concerned and politically motivated. However I would urge those members to remember that in my situation, in the riding I have come from and the position I have taken, I have received positive encouragement from across the province not only from homosexuals, not only from lesbians, but also from those people who believe this should be a society where all people are treated equally.
When I had to stand up and speak those many months ago, I talked about the situation we faced in Germany in the Second World War and I talked about the kind of climate that would allow discrimination to happen. I said -- and I think I have been supported by briefs across the broad spectrum -- it is important to create a climate in this province where every person feels he or she can be accepted as an individual without consideration for race, creed, religion, colour, political belief, language and finally sex and sexual orientation.
By deliberately defying one of the very recommendations that was made for this bill when it was first introduced as a discussion paper, by deliberately refusing to recognize how this issue is becoming a more and more difficult component in our society, the minister is saying he agrees this province should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals on the basis of sexual orientation.
Even in the issue of employment, many of my colleagues have said they do not feel they can support the amendment because they are concerned about some employment areas -- for example, employment areas dealing with children. But many of the amendments from section I to 5 don't even deal with the issue of employment. They deal with the issue of housing, they deal with access to public services. How can this government in conscience pass a bill that will deny homosexuals access to public services simply on the basis of their sexual orientation?
The minister is very specific about stating in the legislation the only areas of discrimination that are prohibited are those areas that are spelled out in this code. He has been very specific about that and that goes right down to the basic principle in section 1(1). Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities..
We are not even talking about employment in that area. We are not even talking about accommodation. We are talking about a simple trip to the public library, the use of any other facilities that may be available on a public basis. Frankly, in that area, I cannot see how any member in this Legislature can actually say a person should be denied entry to a public library or a public facility on the basis of sexual orientation. To any thinking, feeling person in the 1980s who wants to create a climate of equal rights, it just does not make sense.
Speaking frankly, and I guess I might as well be frank, I think the reason this government has shied away from sexual orientation is not only because they personally are afraid of the issue from a political context, I think it is because they will make every effort in future times to use that issue to pit it against members in this Legislature.
I think if we are going to be totally frank about what this legislation is all about, it is talking about not only the people in the cities, not only the people in Metro Toronto, or the people like the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) who are able to take a position based on their geographic location. We are talking about people who are out in the communities, we are talking about people who are out in the provinces, people who are very concerned about how this amendment can be used against them. I think for most urban people the decision to speak out on the issue of sexual orientation or to support it is certainly one that is much easier than for those who come from some other areas in the province.
I would suggest that other members in the Conservative caucus have the courage of the member for St. George to stand up and go against the trend in her party. She has stood here tonight and supported sexual orientation. Frankly, I hope she is able to convince other members of her caucus to take that position.
Mr. Boudria: Do not count on it.
Ms. Copps: I frankly think the issue goes far beyond a simple inclusion of sexual orientation. The issue goes into the politics of this province. In fact, this is an issue that not only can be exploited at election time, but it can potentially defeat opposition candidates.
I would like to proclaim publicly tonight my pride to be associated with a person like the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) who in his own riding and in his own way took a position that was very courageous on behalf of his beliefs and his ideals. He is the kind of person we want in this Legislature, the kind of person who is prepared to step aside and to withdraw from political expediency and consider his principles and the kind of spirit and direction he would like for this province.
We do not want legislators who merely rule for the sake of staying in power. We want legislators who have a vision for this province, who want to see this province a better place for everyone.
I think if each one of us here tonight, and those who choose to stay away, will dig a little deeper into their consciences and into their hearts, they will realize that a law that brings into legislation discrimination against any segment of society, that legalizes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, that legalizes discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, that legalizes discrimination on any of those bases, is not a human rights code.
It is not a human rights code when you can actually say in a piece of legislation that we will only protect those people who are specifically stated in this code. As to the rest of the people in this province, well, they can fend for themselves. This is supposed to be a code that protects the rights of every person in this province, not setting aside any other person's rights, because every person in this province should have the right to compete for a job. I am not saying every person is going to get the job; maybe there is a better-qualified candidate. But surely we should not make our choices in 1981 on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that has no bearing on the ability to do a job, a characteristic that has no bearing on the ability to have access to a service or to accommodation.
8:50 p.m.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister -- because I believe that in his heart of hearts the minister agrees with me -- I am calling on him and his government to rethink their position, to restate their commitment to human rights in this province. I will say as a member of the opposition that there was a time when Ontario was the leader, not only across the country but around the world, in issues of human rights.
What have we come up with in 1981, four or five years after the infamous Life Together report? We have come up with legislation that basically legalizes discrimination against certain sectors in our society. I do not think, with all due respect, that this is an Ontario human rights code; it is a selective human rights code. And maybe the government should select the areas of the province where it will apply; maybe they should select the people who will be protected under this code. This is not a human rights code for all Ontario; this is a human rights code for some people in Ontario who happen to have a sexual orientation that is accepted by this government and by this Legislature.
I appeal to all members of the House on all sides to set aside political expediency. Believe me, if I can use my own situation as an example, this issue has not reared its ugly head against me in the political forum; if anything, even those people who may not agree with me have appreciated the fact that I have the courage of my convictions. I have received letters from the most unlikely sources, from people who said, "Sheila, we may not agree with what you are doing but we feel you are speaking up for people in this province who have not had protection in the past."
This government and this Legislature should take a position like that taken in the province of Quebec some three years ago. All legislators there got together and said, "We realize this is a very volatile subject; we realize a government could use this to its own political advantage. So in the spirit of human rights in Quebec we will agree as a legislature to pass this legislation without getting into the kind of ugly debate that can pit people against people on the basis of sexual orientation."
If we look back to the appearance before the committee of the representatives of the Quebec human rights commission, the number of complaints on the basis of sexual orientation in the last annual report amounted to approximately two per cent of the work load. There has not been a tremendous flood of complaints.
I think the Legislature of Ontario should take this kind of progressive viewpoint and agree in toto that although we realize one party could use this issue against another we will not stoop to that level and that we will accept the principle that no person in this province should be discriminated against. I think the fact this has not been done can only betray the future intention of the government to use this issue against people and against parties. I know some of my colleagues in the Liberal Party are concerned about that issue for this very reason.
I appeal to this government to follow the example of Quebec, to set aside the kind of expediency that was at the root of the bathhouse raids in Toronto, to set aside the kind of expediency whereby rumours and innuendo are used to try to defeat members of the Legislature who stand up to speak for what they believe in. I beg all of you to set aside that political expediency and to support and amend this code so that it will represent human rights for every person in this province. Without this amendment, and others we will be presenting, this code is nothing but a hollow shadow of what it should be and what human rights should be in this province.
I know the minister believes in what I am saying. I know there are people on the government side who in their heart of hearts believe sexual orientation should be included to create a climate for understanding across this province. I prevail upon all of you through the cabinet and the caucus to support this amendment, to renew the commitment you, as Conservatives, made to human rights many years ago. You have a chance now to continue to be leaders in your field in that area. Instead, you are opting for the easy way out.
I ask all of you to follow the lead of the Anglican and United churches, to follow the lead of those people in our community who, although they realize there may be repercussions within their own ranks, are prepared to set aside their fears and to take a step forward to create this climate for acceptance of all people by all people in this province. If the minister takes that step, this will be a code of which we can all be very proud.
Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, I have to speak on this amendment because I think it is important for us as legislators to state our position. We should do so even though, as the member for Hamilton Centre said, it may be expedient for us to sit in our seats and keep a low profile on a volatile issue, one on which reactions in this House and outside are irrational rather than rational.
We are amending the human rights code in 1981, when we are bringing back our constitution to Canada. One of the main features of our constitution is the bill of rights. It is our duty as legislators not only to accept but to extend the rights to all citizens of this province.
The amendment proposed by my colleague, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), which is against discrimination based on sexual orientation, has been debated at length. I think the member for Hamilton Centre is rather naive when she says perhaps this issue will be used against us. Of course it will be used against us. She was not in this House in 1977 during the election when the members of the Conservative caucus went throughout the province accusing us of being soft on separatism. They will use this amendment against us in the next election, and so be it.
According to my conscience it is important that when we are amending the human rights code we give the same rights to every citizen in Ontario. The argument that has been put forward in good faith is that there has not been much discrimination based on sexual orientation, so why do we need to amend the code and insert a special mention of sexual orientation in the human rights code?
9 p.m.
My colleague the member for Riverdale explained very eloquently that if we do not include in the code a prohibition of discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, we allow discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. It is up to this Legislature to define the grounds on which discrimination is prohibited. The basis of our judgement should not be that there are or are not many cases. I do not know of many cases. The member for Hamilton Centre mentioned that only two per cent of the case load of the human rights commission has been related to sexual orientation. I do not know that, but even if there was a single case I think we should make sure it was dealt with equitably and with justice, like any other type of discrimination that may be perpetrated in this province.
Those opposing this amendment are people who are giving in to stereotypes that are the result of misconceptions that go back for centuries. They are prejudices that existed in ages when enlightenment certainly did not prevail and when people were living in totalitarian societies that were intolerant of people who were not behaving as the majority did.
There are also people who think that by giving rights to people with different sexual orientation we actually are permitting the acceptance of cultural values that are not the values of the majority of the population. I think these are apprehensions that have no basis in reality. I would be very much opposed to the imposition of minority cultural values on myself if I did not accept them and I would fight them. But I think this is used to prevent people with different sexual orientation from ours being treated differently and being discriminated against.
Many examples have been brought forward by the member for Riverdale, the member for St. George and the member for Hamilton Centre. We have deliberations from educational bodies. I am not an expert in education and I cannot really comment on them one way or the other. We have analyses and examples given by people from the scientific community, but I really cannot say if sexual orientation is a choice or if it is determined by birth or before birth. But I do know it is our responsibility to ensure that every citizen in the province is treated not only fairly but equally.
If the government does not accept this amendment it is perpetrating an injustice. I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) sits quite alone in that caucus. He knows I respect him; I think he is a progressive and open-minded person. Surely he realizes this is one area where progressive people can be counted.
I want to tell the minister it is not an accident that the people who are opposing this amendment, and who are therefore for discrimination on sexual orientation, are the people who agree with the proposals of what is called the Moral Majority. That group of people and the proposals they put forward have been rejected by the great majority of people who act using reason rather than emotion. None other than Senator Barry Goldwater, who has been a champion of conservatism in the United States, said he found Moral Majority repulsive.
Even at this late hour, I think the minister should consider accepting this amendment because it will be seen four or five years from now as a gesture of open mindedness. If he does not accept this amendment the minister will sit with the reactionaries, with those people who have no sense of tolerance, who advocate a type of society and a type of government which belongs to the past, which does not belong to 1981 and certainly does not belong to the future.
I ask the minister to be tolerant and to express the concern that he talks about on so many issues and, by accepting this amendment, to promote a type of humane society of which he will be proud, like all the progressive people of this province.
Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against the amendment. Four members before me have spoken in favour of it and I would like to speak against it. I am a little disturbed by the remarks of the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps). I fail to understand why the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) can take exception to the position she has taken and be credited with being politically brave and yet for other members, especially those in the Conservative Party, to take the same position is being construed as being negative.
I happen to support the member for Huron- Middlesex in his position and I do so not because of any concern for the government's position but because of my own personal convictions. I happen to believe this is not an amendment I can support. The member for Hamilton Centre has mentioned that we have to have the courage of our convictions.
I do not take any pleasure in standing up tonight and speaking against any group, if that is what it is construed to be. I do not think I am speaking against a group -- I hope I am not -- though it will definitely be twisted to come out that way. I am speaking on behalf of a group of people that I represent who have different convictions and different beliefs and I feel quite strongly about them. For that reason I cannot support the amendment.
It is my feeling that to accept this amendment would be in essence condoning, even advocating, a lifestyle that is completely unacceptable to the vast majority of the people in Ontario and certainly a large majority of the people I represent. I was elected to represent the views of the people I serve and I think by standing here tonight that is what I am doing. Every member has a right to make a determination as to what he feels is the position he should take in every bill or amendment presented in this House. I hope I can make that position clear tonight.
I do not take any degree of pleasure in standing here. I served on the committee all summer. I served on the committee when we dealt with the clause-by-clause debate. I missed very few meetings and I did not take any pleasure from anything that went on in the meetings that was detrimental to any group in society. One thing we have to remember when we are dealing with human rights is that we are dealing with rights of all people. Some times by bringing in something that is of benefit to one group, we are taking away something from another group. This is the concern I have.
9:10 p.m.
We can argue whether it is right or wrong in this instance, but the fact remains that many people are disturbed by many things in this bill. We have to establish a bill that has the respect of the people that the bill is drafted to work with. If we bring in legislation that the people are totally opposed to, then that is the respect it will receive.
It has been mentioned that church groups support it. We have had different church groups present briefs stating they do support this type of amendment. I belong to the United Church, and the United Church conference, I believe from Hamilton, presented the brief saying they supported it. I checked with three of the ministers of the United Church in my riding and they were emphatically opposed to it. They said if a vote was taken of their congregation, it would come 80 to 90 per cent against.
I am not going to argue whether the conference is wrong or whether the congregation is wrong. But to my knowledge a vote has never been requested of the United Church congregation. Maybe some group came up with an idea of something that it should do, but certainly the average member of the United Church was, to my mind, not consulted. I stand to be corrected, but that is the understanding I have.
When this hearing started several months ago I made the statement the first time I spoke on the bill that it is an extremely delicate topic. It is an emotional topic. It is something that all of us should be concerned about, and I think all of us are. No matter what we say, it can be misconstrued. I think the committee dealt with it on a level that was above reproach. All members expressed their views and concerns with a compassionate concern for the opinions of others. Most members of the committee would agree with that.
It is the same in here. It is not something we can heckle and discredit each other about because I think it crosses party lines. As I mentioned earlier, I take no pleasure in speaking against the amendment, because the member for Riverdale speaks with compassion and the member for Hamilton Centre does the same. They are stating their concerns because they believe in them. I give them credit for it. I think I should have that same right. I would not be here if I did not feel I should have the right to express the concerns, not only of myself but of the people I represent.
I do think there is a concern. It is easy to say we are going to discredit some members of the Legislature for voting certain ways. I hope that does not come about, because that certainly will not be a credit to anyone in this assembly.
I was concerned at the first meeting we had on the hearings of the committee when a gentleman by the name of Clayton Ruby appeared. He equated committee members, especially the Conservatives, some of the Liberals and rural members, of being of the calibre of some of the southern Legislatures during the civil rights movement in the United States. He equated human rights legislation and our opposition to certain amendments with the problems in Germany during the war and prior to the war -- Nazi Germany -- the treatment of the Jews. This is the type of debate that does not add anything. It discredits the people who bring it up.
I was extremely disturbed by his remarks. I do not feel we as legislators should be subject to that type of abuse. It is something people have a right to say as they present their opinions at the hearings, but it certainly does not add to the cause they are trying to sell.
I do not want to get into a prolonged debate on this. I want to mention a couple of other points. First, in England a couple of months ago I met with people from the human rights commission and asked them about this problem and how it related to their legislation.
They said they did not have any legislation pertaining to this and they did not have any problem. They said it was a North American phenomenon and was related to San Francisco and the problem in that area. I do not totally accept that. I think it goes beyond that. I know there certainly are problems in Metro and some of the larger centres. Somewhere between England and San Francisco is the happy medium.
I would not condone any type of legislation that discriminated against any types of people. At the same time, I cannot condone drafting legislation that advocates a lifestyle which is unacceptable. It is hard to get into this without getting into some areas I dislike bringing up, but I will mention one area of concern.
We had a presentation from the Catholic separate school system that basically said they would refuse to accept homosexuals in their teaching classes. They even went further than that, but we will just take it in the school system. The public system would appear to be open to accepting types of people who are not acceptable to another group in society.
Are we creating two types of school systems in Ontario? I am not saying we are, I am simply asking a question. It is one of the questions that concerns me when we start talking about making changes in the legislation. It is areas like this we do not get into. Many people say it is not a problem. Yet we look at section 18, which we will come to later, dealing with the separate school boards and I do not know of any member in this assembly who has suggested we change section 18. If we do not change section 18, are we then creating two school systems in Ontario? If we are, it is a concern of mine.
I have a couple of other points to mention but I think many members would like to speak. I have talked enough in committee. I hope all members will consider this goes beyond party lines. That has been expressed tonight by members from the three parties speaking in support of it. I happen to be the first member speaking against it. I hope when we respect the members speaking in support of the amendment because they have beliefs and convictions, we will respect other members who have to speak against it for the same reason.
Mr. Chairman: Just before the member for Huron-Middlesex speaks, I want to mention it has been a long time in my estimation since we have had such a dignified debate on an amendment to this bill. Acting as chairman, I do not want to be specifically harsh in terms of interjections. I do not mean to be. I am at the whim of the members, but under the conditions of the seriousness of the debate I will try to carry out the tone that the House has seemed to settle into this evening.
9:20 p.m.
Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, I have always thought you were a very reasonable and considerate person, and we want to express our appreciation for your very kind consideration.
I also want to commend my colleague, the member for Hamilton Centre for the very convincing argument she has continually made regarding this amendment to include sexual orientation in this bill. I hesitate to get up to put up a counter argument with her. I think the member for Hamilton Centre has real leadership qualities. Would you not agree with me, Mr. Chairman?
I do think she did a little disservice to the members by suggesting that the members are going to vote according to their political attitude on this, and not for what they firmly believe. I do not think that is the case.
I know this party is going to have a free vote on this matter. I would think the NDP might do the same, although I am not sure, and I would hope that the Conservatives would allow a free vote on it, because I am convinced there are Conservative members over there who strongly support the inclusion of sexual orientation in this bill. It is going to be very interesting to see what happens over there, and to see who absent themselves from the vote when it is taken. If we really want to follow the democratic process, I think there should be a free vote on this matter whenever we get to that particular stage.
My colleague indicated that a lot of the correspondence she has been receiving has been strongly supportive of the inclusion of sexual orientation and the correspondence has been signed. She suggested the correspondence she has been receiving from those people who are opposed to it is not signed because they prefer to remain anonymous.
I am going to tell her I have just as much correspondence opposing the inclusion of sexual orientation and opposing other sections of this bill as I have from those who are rendering support. I really think it is the job of elected people to speak up for those who are expressing a view. I would be most disappointed if I saw nothing but members standing up speaking in favour of the inclusion of sexual orientation because we may have a gallery of people who are looking for that kind of support.
It may happen that some people have to muster a little bit of courage to stand up and speak for those people who may not have the opportunity to come here and make their views known, or did not have an opportunity to come to committee. They are contacting us and they expect us to speak up for them and for some of their convictions.
I receive letters; here is a very lengthy one and I want to read part of it. It is from a business person in rural Ontario. Just to show that some of these people do have real concerns about this bill, I will just read part of this letter from a businessman. He is a chap who has come through the road of hard knocks; his wife worked very diligently with him, lost her health and is now an invalid because they tried to establish a business through bad times. Now they are wondering what on earth is happening to them.
I quote: "Queen's Park tells me what I am to pay my help, what hours they are to work. When there is a public holiday I am to pay my staff to sit home; nobody pays me. When it is vacation time I have to provide my staff with vacation pay, but nobody provides me with any extra pay. There may have been a time when the worker was oppressed, but now it is people like me who are oppressed.
"On top of all this, I am now to be a victim of one of the most vicious pieces of legislation ever proposed in Canada. In the guise of ending discrimination, it does the very opposite. It discriminates against my right to hire the best people possible for my requirements. You are denying me the right to operate my business as I see fit."
In other words, he is saying to me that if somebody representing the gay community applies for a job in his place of business and he turns that person down, he is very apt to be hauled before the human rights commission and all that that entails, which could mean a fairly substantial loss to his business.
He goes on: "If a prospective employee comes into my place of business and I say I hire only female help" -- which he does, but he has a very good reason for doing so -- "I can be fined, but if I lie and say that I hire both, I get off scot free. So in effect the law says it is okay if I am a liar. When the government pays my help, my taxes, my insurance, my rent, then it can tell me how to run my business.
"Do you not think that with 25 per cent interest rates, cut-throat competition, bankruptcies at an all time high, harassed by countless inspectors telling me how to run my business, regardless of the fact none of them could run a business from breakfast to noon, do you really think we need more laws, laws that discriminate against the people who built this country, laws that take the rights away from the majority to give to the minority, laws that can only add fuel to the flames of racial hatred, laws so silly that it makes it a criminal offence to admire a pretty woman, laws that say the women of Ontario are so helpless, so incapable that the government has to look after them?
"I can't believe that only two men in the Legislature had the courage to take a stand against this dreadful bill." The two men he was referring to were none other than the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) and myself. "Why wouldn't every member be on his feet in rage? Whatever happened to the sane and sensible party of Leslie Frost and John Robarts?"
In other words, people cannot understand why the Conservative government is bringing in this kind of legislation. They fail to understand. "The wording of this letter may be strong but I like to think I have the courage to say it and if I do not stand up for my rights, one damn thing is sure, no one else is going to."
That is what I am trying to indicate here, that some elected people have to stand up for the basic, fundamental rights people thought they had from the days this country was first settled. I just wish I could read some of the letters I received from veterans who have been maimed, lost their limbs, and who refer to other veterans who lost their lives fighting for what they considered to be basic, fundamental rights and basic freedoms. Now they are telling us that in many cases they laid their lives down for rights that discriminate against what they thought they had fought for, favouring what they refer to as minority rights.
I personally do not believe that sexual orientation should be a basis of discrimination, provided fundamental human rights are not violated, and I think this is what many of the other people are saying. One of my concerns is the banning of discrimination based on sexual orientation in the hiring of teachers.
Mr. Martel: Huh.
Mr. Riddell: You can say "Huh" all you like. I am surprised that someone who has taught school would not stand up and have something to say about this matter too.
Mr. Martel: What about the female teachers who attack little boys? That's legitimate.
Mr. Riddell: I have been in the teaching profession. I know how certain attitudes and certain codes of behaviour can be advocated in the classroom. I think it is wrong for homosexuals to be discriminated against if indeed they are going to be working with people who have the maturity to make their own decisions. But I can go back to my elementary school days and I can indicate some of the unfortunate experiences I have witnessed and I have even experienced myself. This may be one of the reasons it is going to take a great deal more study before I could ever condone the inclusion of sexual orientation in a human rights bill.
9:30 p.m.
As members well know, the Toronto Board of Education adopted a motion banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. This means for many frustrated parents that in the hiring of teachers and in the role modelling that is involved there must be no support of parental concerns to encourage children to choose between the creative and the destructive in sexual orientation.
Dr. Ernest Marshall Howse, ex-moderator of the United Church of Canada, very pointedly and pungently said, "I am looking for the day when to be a discriminating person is not to be a monolith of prejudice but a connoisseur of excellence."
Surely parents have a right to expect the board of education, as required by the Ontario government, by both the ministry and the Ontario Human Rights Commission, to see that their rights are protected in the environment where their children are being prepared for adulthood. This is the point I was trying to make earlier.
There should be no discrimination against parents because they choose to affirm their responsibilities for raising their children. At present, parents in Ontario who are not satisfied with the secular approach of the tax-funded public school system are grossly discriminated against when they seek options compatible with their own family values and commitments.
Reference is made in the bill to family. It seems the concern about banning discrimination based on family has to do primarily with accommodations and does not reach into the areas that have to do primarily with what could be characterized as family orientation. Such a ban would protect the family from the imposition in the parental sphere of responsibilities of government agencies advocating values alien to those of the parents.
It is obvious, for instance, that to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation would be to force on parents, through the role model- ling of the teachers in the classroom, the advocacy of a lifestyle that parents reject. In other words, are we not taking rights away?
I strongly support the human rights of everyone, and because of that I am concerned about the old saying, "Your right to swing your arm stops at the end of my nose." Obviously, the human rights of those most directly involved in the classroom, the parents, have to be protected from those who would exploit that classroom situation to impose an alien set of values or lifestyle on the children and the parents.
Some of the committee members -- and the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel referred to this -- have been offended by the well orchestrated and persistent hammering by the militant fringe of the homosexual community to include in this human rights code a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Such antifamily militants, in my view, do a disservice to the cause of the legitimate human rights of homosexuals. It makes my decision more difficult. I am prepared to defend the fundamental rights of homosexuals, but when it comes to the classroom or other areas in which parental rights are primarily at stake I find most offensive any suggestion that the law should give special privileges to a minority group whose common characteristic is that it has a chosen or learned behaviour or lifestyle such as the homosexual orientation.
Not only am I concerned about the classroom situation but I am also concerned about those persons, and we have them in rural Ontario, who find they are now single, who are living by themselves, who have a big home, who want companionship and who are prepared to turn that home into apartments. These people have a certain code of behaviour, they have certain moral standards, they have certain beliefs and they have gone through certain teachings of the church they belong to and which they have attended.
Now we are in the process of trying to include an amendment to this bill that would deny them their right to provide accommodation to the people who they feel more closely resemble their particular moral standards and their particular code of behaviour. I am concerned about these people and I am endeavouring to speak up for the rights of these people.
If it comes to a large apartment building owned by some corporation, I think it is a different matter. But when we are talking about a home that has been converted into apartments, run by some little old lady or some little old gentleman who wants to provide accommodation to people whom they find desirable, then I do not think they should be denied those rights.
What it really boils down to is that if we could include sexual orientation in a bill with special concessions then I may have to give this matter reconsideration, but if it is going to be so rigid that parents are no longer going to have a choice as to who teaches their children in the classroom or if the person who owns a home and has turned that home into apartments no longer has a say as to whom he or she can rent those apartments, then I am afraid I cannot, at this time, go along with the inclusion of sexual orientation in this bill.
These are my views and, contrary to what the member for Hamilton Centre may have indicated earlier, they are shared by many people, some of whom I have discussed this matter with. I know if others had an opportunity to visit me or to send me letters or what have you they would also strongly support the stand I am taking.
I know this is a very weak counter-argument to my good friend the member for Hamilton Centre, a girl who, as I say, has tremendous leadership abilities. One has to really wonder if maybe this is not the girl who is going to defeat you people the next time around.
Interruption.
Mr. Riddell: However, Mr. Chairman, it has been a pleasure to have had an opportunity to take a stand on this bill and to support the views of those people who are very much against the inclusion of sexual orientation in this bill.
Mr. Chairman: Just before we listen to the member for Beaches-Woodbine, I would like to remind all members, including guests in the gallery, that under standing orders only members who have the floor are allowed to speak. No persons in the gallery are allowed to give any kind of indication or preference one way or another. I think in terms of tonight's debate it has been very dignified. I would ask your indulgence to honour all members who are speaking.
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment because I feel a civilized society is a tolerant society. It is a society which says to our fellow human beings, "I may not like your religion, your culture, your political beliefs or your lifestyle, but as long as they are legal and not harmful to others, I respect your right to follow them."
I am totally opposed to sexual exploitation of anyone -- men, women or children. There are laws against this and I believe they should be strictly enforced, but sexual expression which is not prohibited by law should not be a ground for discrimination in this province. Sexual orientation should not be a reason for refusing a job or housing or access to public facilities to any person.
I do not believe we can accept a new human rights code that allows a continuation of this kind of discrimination. It has cost many individuals loss of jobs, loss of promotions, refusal of housing. It has forced some to adopt a life of deception or silence about activities which are legal. It has made many persons subject to blackmail. It is a denial of human rights to permit discrimination to continue on this ground.
If we want a human rights code that is really a human rights code and guarantees the rights of all persons in our society, we cannot omit this kind of discrimination from the code. I urge all members to support the amendment.
9:40 p.m.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, this issue is not new to this Legislature. It is one that has been under debate and discussion for some time. Since I came to this Legislature in 1975 it has been a timely topic throughout that period.
I have had the opportunity to participate in this debate with other members of this Legislature, some of whom are no longer with us, notably the former member for St. George, Mrs. Campbell, who on more than one occasion introduced either a bill or a resolution on this subject in this Legislature during private members' hour.
That member was supportive of the concept of sexual orientation being given legal status and written into the laws of this province as a special status for a certain select group in our society. On the two occasions that member introduced the topic to the Legislature for debate, I participated in the discussion openly, frankly and with the same conviction and feeling as did that member and others in this Legislature. That is the situation here this evening.
As I view the circumstances with my personal convictions, my own perceptions and views have not changed from that day. I do not anticipate they will change in the future nor have they differed from time immemorial.
There is a basic principle and fundamental basis on which I oppose the amendment before us this evening. I would point out there is one thing in common within the section being debated this evening as to the matter of discrimination. All the circumstances under which discrimination shall not be practised relate to the basic conditions of man as contrasted with man's human behaviour.
We need only look at the subject matter within the section and the areas within which it will be prescribed by legislation that discrimination shall not occur. That relates to the situation pertaining to one's "race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, age, marital status, family status or handicap."
These are all basic conditions over which we have no control and by virtue of which we are born into this life in many instances, albeit physical or mental handicaps can arise through one's lifetime. Also, we can be selective as to whether we will remain in a married or a single state. But that particular status which is recognized in the section is the very basis on which our society is founded and from which it grows and prospers.
The new element contained in this amendment introduces a new consideration. As I indicated in those debates and as I reiterate here this evening, with regard to consideration of sexual orientation we are not speaking so much about the basic condition of man as we are about his behavioural attitudes. I suggest if we are going to single out one particular human behaviour this bill is going to be totally inadequate. I could spend the rest of the evening singling out many other special types of human behaviour that perhaps are equally deserving of some type of legislative recognition and condonation.
Why should one group in our society with a very special type of human behaviour be singled out and given a special status when no other special group or organization with other peculiarities, if I may use that term with respect, is given the same accreditation and acknowledgement?
I suggest there is a certain degree of convoluted thinking in the suggestions and comments made by the member for Riverdale when he suggests that because sexual orientation is not in the bill those who have certain preferences in this area are therefore discriminated against. There are many groups who will not be mentioned in this bill. Surely they too will be discriminated against if somehow this group is different and apart from others who have particular traits or something different from what we consider as the majority situation as far as behavioural patterns are concerned.
It was interesting to listen to my colleague the member for St. George who homed in on an argument that has been made in the past, that is that a homosexual is not a homosexual by choice. I suggest she has chosen this argument because using that argument tries to bring the justification for its introduction into the section under the very basic terms that I say are the ground rules under which recognition should be given in the bill; namely that there should be no discrimination if it relates to man's basic condition -- the human condition of man and not his behavioural attitudes.
That member suggested the propensity is there before the person is even born into this world and is somehow preordained so to speak within the human foetus, although there are many people who in this day and age will not even accept the legitimacy of the fact there is human life within the foetus before birth.
It is a very emotional and very personal issue. Without question it is a very sensitive issue and one that involves the testing of one's moral conscience. People can make the argument on a scientific basis, on religious or moral grounds, as other speakers this evening have chosen to do. I respect each and every one of those very personal views that have been put forward, as I would hope those listening to me express my views would respect my opinions although they do not necessarily agree with them.
That is the strength of our democracy. As the member for Huron-Middlesex said, it would be inappropriate if only one point of view was put forward in this Legislature this evening on an issue so fundamentally important -- a societal issue that is certainly one of the most emotional and, for those of us who look at it from a moralistic and religious point of view, also one of the most fundamentally important issues to come before this Legislature in recent times.
9:50 p.m.
My colleague from St. George used scientific bases for rationalizing the argument that these people must be given special recognition because of their lifestyle. I do not accept that as being the reason for taking on this attitude -- that for this reason alone they should be given this special status. In past debates in this House I have quoted from equally illustrious experts in the field. On more than one occasion I have quoted from learned authorities in the American Journal of Psychotherapy pointing out that in their scientific point of view one can identify or label homosexual attitudes as a form of illness.
We can quote from many who approach the subject from a strictly moral point of view. I think I would be inclined to support those who suggest the proposition put forward which states that wilful homosexuality is not a question of responding to a physical maladjustment, nor is it evidence of a mental disorder; it is a deliberately willed, wrong choice in the natural moral order.
Consequently, all the empirical studies showing that homosexuals are not maladjusted and do not suffer mental problems prove nothing at all other than that homosexuality is not a disease, although scientists suggest it is a form of illness. Moralists go on to state homosexuality is a moral aberration. I suppose that is the bottom line for those who look at it from a moral point of view.
Whatever your reasons for opposing or supporting the amendment I agree with all of the other speakers: it is an issue that could and should come down to one position, that of personal conscience.
One of the previous speakers suggested that one of the insidious parts of this whole debate is the fact that those in the homosexual community who, because they have chosen this type of living, have embarked upon a militant course of action to persuade -- I suggest perhaps more than to persuade, to try to impose upon -- the public mind and conscience an attitude that somehow their sexual attitudes towards each other are a state of normalcy rather than abnormalcy.
We understand this has to be the most difficult consideration people who have chosen this lifestyle have. Whether it is a matter of conscience, a matter of personal guilt, or whether there is no such feeling there, they certainly feel excluded from the community at large, for the obvious reason that they are not part of the broader, more conventional community.
I have no personal animosity against those who have chosen to live in this way, as other members of this House have also stated. The laws of this country are such that, in 1969, homosexual activity was removed from the Criminal Code in terms of permitting homosexual acts in private between consenting persons of at least 21 years of age.
The real concern I have is that we would appear to be practising reverse discrimination if we were to single out one special group in this society -- this tolerant society as we have been labelled by other speakers this evening. While the person who used that term was making an argument different from the one I am presenting here this evening, I do agree you will find nowhere on this earth a more tolerant society than we have here in this our own country of Canada, including tolerance towards those labelled homosexual. They feel a sense of discrimination against them because they are different. I think any people who are somewhat different feel somewhat insecure and have a feeling of being discriminated against, because they think or act differently from people in the mainstream of society. Whether in fact that is the case is another thing.
I was disturbed when I heard the member for Huron-Middlesex suggest -- and I think he made a number of the arguments I have made, certainly along the same lines -- suggest in his concluding remarks that on the one hand, while he was so strongly opposed on moral grounds, I presume, to the introduction of sexual orientation into the legislation for the reasons he had cited, he did add a qualifying remark that perhaps, on the other hand, he could accept sexual orientation if there were special concessions made.
That is an interesting argument one could make. I would have been interested in having the member develop that argument in the line of reasoning to fully understand and appreciate under what special circumstances he felt he could accept sexual orientation; that is, to reject it except in special qualified cases. It would be hard, in my mind, to rationalize the argument that it is not acceptable on moral grounds as being against the conventional morality, and yet to find that, notwithstanding, in some areas of our society it would be acceptable and treated with an element of normalcy.
10 p.m.
In conclusion, I think it would be wrong for government to legislate a special status for a special group in our society in our human rights legislation which deals with matters of human behaviour. If we start with one, we have a long way to go. If we start with one, I suggest there could be others it would be more appropriate to start with than that minority group within our society to which the term "sexual orientation" is related.
Many people argue we should not make laws that moralize, preach or set certain standards in our society. Yet those who make that argument the strongest seem to be the ones who support the inclusion of sexual orientation within this legislation which seems to be contrary to the convictions they hold.
It would be inappropriate and wrong for government to give this special recognition and condonation in law in a formal way to a morality that is not recognized in this society as being conventional. It is on those grounds that I conclude my remarks.
I state these views with as much sincerity, personal conviction and feeling as the other members in this Legislature. I look forward to hearing from other members who will also want to express their views on this most important and sensitive issue.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I will not speak at great length, because a lot has been said already. I notice the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) applauding. I certainly would like to hear his comments. I am sure he will speak up with great eloquence as to what he thinks of this amendment. We are all looking forward to hearing him.
Mr. Cooke: With elegance?
Mr. Boudria: Eloquence, I said.
Mr. Chairman, before we start, we are freezing in this part of the Legislature at this point. Maybe something could be done about the heat and then we might be all right. The honourable member to my left and I were just indicating that tomorrow we will bring our snowmobile suits.
Speaking to the legislation, Mr. Chairman, because I know you are going to bring it to my attention soon if I do not start speaking on it, on May 19 I spoke on the second reading of this bill. I want to reiterate some of the things I said then.
Before I do that, I want all members to know that I represent a rural constituency as do many of the other members of this Legislature. As such, I have some concerns that are not expressed as openly as in more urban ridings. Having said that, a few days after I spoke on second reading on this bill, the whole issue made headlines in the local weekly in my riding.
Upon reading the newspaper Le Carillon, from Hawkesbury, I was a little concerned, because in bold headlines it clearly enunciated my position on this topic. Because I was in favour of this amendment and because the newspaper said so, I was concerned that I would have to listen to approximately a thousand telephone calls telling me I was not doing the right thing. That did not happen. As a matter of fact, I have received exactly zero phone calls on the subject.
This may illustrate that some members may be overreacting to the public pressure they think they have on them to vote against this amendment. My own experience is that the public pressure is not there; at least it was not in my constituency. I think the people in my riding and all across Ontario are tolerant people. They are not being asked here to advocate a particular lifestyle; they are only being asked to tolerate others.
As a member of a linguistic minority in this province, I can understand why others in certain minority groups would feel they need protection, why they would want to have discrimination against them prohibited by legislation. The minority I belong to is very different from that minority. Nevertheless, I do feel that some of the concerns this minority has are similar to those of the minority I belong to, because we have on occasion been placed in circumstances that have been unfair, and for that reason I think we should support this amendment.
Other members have referred to the fact that the province of Quebec passed similar legislation a number of years ago and that through agreement among all parties the subject never even became one of controversy; it was simply passed and no one even brought it up.
I suggest to the minister now, as I did in committee, that had this clause been in the original piece of legislation, the whole discussion we are having now would probably never even have started. Everybody would have looked at the legislation and said, "You cannot discriminate because of colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, sex, age, marital status or sexual orientation. I suppose we cannot discriminate against anyone." Fine. We would have gone on to another clause.
We are not discussing this particular amendment because it is the most important amendment of this legislation; we are discussing this amendment because it was omitted. That is why it is here.
I to suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the original legislation as drafted by the minister probably had that clause in it. I know the minister is very progressive, and I assume he would stand for equal rights for all. But I can just imagine him walking into the Tory caucus -- or even a Tory cabinet meeting, for that matter -- with legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Putting myself in the minister's place on that particular day, I can just imagine that I would have been booted right out of the cabinet room or the caucus room or wherever he presented this legislation with what I presume was that clause in it already.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: What are you smoking?
The Deputy Chairman: Order.
Mr. Boudria: The minister is asking what I am smoking. I am not high, Mr. Chairman. I am actually giving credit to that minister for being very progressive. Perhaps he is not. I am sorry if I thought more highly of the minister than I actually should.
Mr. Brandt: Oh, no. He's progressive.
Mr. Boudria: The honourable minister's parliamentary assistant is saying he is progressive, but he just admitted to being regressive.
10:10 p.m.
We are not advocating that particular lifestyle; we are not being asked to do that. We are not being asked to approve of that lifestyle. We have been asked to do none of those things. We are only asked to tolerate other human beings and to treat them with dignity. We are only told that each person is worth as much as the next.
I understand we did not go over the preamble at the beginning. I was not in the House at that time; I was on another committee, the committee on the Ombudsman. But, having come in late, I have been made aware that we did not go through the preamble. That is interesting, Mr. Chairman, because had we done that, we perhaps would have paid a lot of attention to the second paragraph of the preamble. I will read just the first few words: "And whereas it is public policy in Ontario to recognize the dignity and worth of every person ..."
That is part of the preamble of the bill. If we recognize that preamble -- perhaps the minister does not and wants to amend it later -- about recognizing the dignity and worth of every person, then why is there such reluctance on the part of members of this Legislature to accept that amendment?
It is totally incomprehensible. I am one of those people who believes that if we allow discrimination for whatever reason, we all lose. If discrimination is selectively permitted by an exclusion in this case, it is subliminally encouraged. I do not believe that as legislators we can tolerate that kind of situation.
I heard some member -- I believe it was the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) -- state that perhaps this could be used against those of us who support this amendment in future elections. I hope that is not the case, and I am appealing to all members of this Legislature to do two things: first, to show up for the vote on this matter, not to escape; and, second, to vote according to their conscience on it and not try to make political scores either one way or the other.
As members will understand, I do not have much to gain in my own constituency by standing for this amendment. It is obvious that if it were to be used against me, and I pray it is not, I would stand to lose much rather than to gain. Nevertheless, I am speaking in favour of it, because I am one of those people who believes I was elected to speak on behalf of the people of Ontario. I was given the opportunity on March 19 to replace a member who had not spoken in this Legislature for 11 years.
Hon. Mr. Sterling: That's not true. He spoke in 1979.
Mr. Boudria: That is true. He spoke in 1979 and, before that, in 1968. I challenge you to verify that in Hansard. It has been done already.
The Deputy Chairman: Please stay with the amendment.
Mr. Boudria: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I was doing that, but I was provoked by the cabinet minister sitting across there.
As I was saying, I was elected to speak on behalf of the citizens of this province, and I am doing so. I feel that if it ever comes down to that point, and I pray it does not, I would rather be defeated and be right than be elected and be wrong.
Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to enter this debate but I am doing it because I am genuinely confused after listening to the debate for the last 45 minutes.
I heard the member for Oriole and the member for Huron-Middlesex say the amendment of the member for Riverdale is providing special status for a group within our community. I simply cannot comprehend the reasoning in that, because when I read this section it says, "Every person has the right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, age, marital status, family status or handicap."
Now if we were to follow the reasoning of the member for Oriole every single one of these groups would be getting special status. But that is not what this section of the bill does at all.
This section sets out guidelines for the people of Ontario, sets out laws and sets out, as principles of a civilized society, that we simply will not accept discrimination.
The debate here tonight should not be discussing the moral rightness or wrongness of being a gay woman or man. The debate tonight should be centred on human rights in this province. It was just a week ago this entire country was caught up in the debate on the human rights charter with regard to the federal constitution.
If one were to believe what was being said by the Premier, the Attorney General and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of this province, by the Leader of the Opposition and by members of my party, I understood everybody in this Legislature believed everybody was born with equal rights and everybody was born with the right to equal dignity to live in this society.
As I hear the debate here tonight, I get the impression some people think there are exceptions to that rule. Today the exception may be the homosexual community. Tomorrow perhaps the exception will be people from eastern Asia. Maybe the day after the exception will be somebody else, whatever is politically popular. Maybe their rights can be taken away.
Again I say we are not talking about the moral rightness or wrongness of a particular group of people. If anyone is breaking the law in this province, surely he is going to be prosecuted. But if they have not broken the law, are following the federal Criminal Code and are living up to the standards set in our federal legislation, I cannot understand why anyone could stand up in this Legislature and advocate or accept discrimination, whether it be based on some fanciful, unrealistic impression of what the world is all about or whether it is based on what the member for Oriole tried to quote from some books.
I remember when I went through for social work at the University of Windsor. Going by some of my psychology courses, he must be reading books from the 1920s because he certainly is not up to date.
I have really been confused by this debate and I hope some members of this Legislature, including the Minister of Labour, will even at this late stage reconsider their positions and accept this amendment.
Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Chairman, when my leader asked me to assume the role of critic for human rights, I really wondered why I was qualified or why he asked me. I suppose he did it because I had shown a good deal of courage in the matter of the business of discounts in the food business. I was the one who brought forward the evidence that led to the Royal Commission on Discounting and Allowances in the Food Industry in Ontario.
I took the job with a good deal of enthusiasm and found there were some 97 recommendations in the study Life Together, many of which have been addressed by this bill. But I found it to be a very difficult role because few were interested in 96 of the recommendations. The only thing the newspaper people and so on were interested in was this question of sexual orientation.
I shouldered the responsibility because I have always shouldered whatever responsibility the caprices of this world have brought upon me. I even spoke on the matter in a rural community and tried to lay out the problem before the people. There were no repercussions, no red-necked responses, as some people try to impugn is the character of rural people.
10:20 p.m.
In the election of 1981, the Tories ran a vicious whispering campaign against me and it was my habit --
Mr. Riddell: They are masters at that.
Mr. McGuigan: It was reported on CBC that night.
I reported each evening into my campaign office, as was my habit, and some of the younger people there were quite alarmed.
Mr. Boudria: What was your majority?
Mr. McGuigan: Not very much. I always said to them, "Do you believe those stories?" They said, "No." I said: "Neither does anyone else believe them. It only shows that the opposition is desperate. They know they are losing." And they did lose, too, in spite of the fact that --
Interjections.
The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member will address the amendment.
Mr. McGuigan: The man running against me was the son of a cabinet minister, a very wealthy man.
I supported the role that was mine as critic based on the theory of justice for all, a position anyone could support; but I must confess, as time went on I began to have personal doubts, largely brought on by the activities of militant homosexuals in such cities as San Francisco, where the homosexual community was not content with justice. They wanted to go beyond justice; they wanted to set their own community standards.
I discovered there were many myths about the homosexual. I tried to read all these articles that have been mentioned and I do not believe the last word has been said on the subject yet. No one really knows, because there have been so many conflicting reports.
It is said homosexuals prey on children. Perhaps some do, but the literature all tells us that more heterosexuals are guilty of that offence than homosexuals. I believe that until the homosexual community itself, especially the militant section of it, comes to terms with the rest of society the things it is asking for in this amendment will simply not be granted to homosexuals by people such as myself, who were brought up with certain fundamental beliefs and precepts.
We simply find it unacceptable to our consciences and our ways of life. I hope in the future, if social scientists learn more about all our sexuality, whether heterosexual or homosexual, this problem will be able to be resolved and put behind us. I do not believe the present time is ready for it.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, if I may just wind up and comment, I think the tone of the debate reflects the seriousness that all members have indicated with regard to this particular amendment. It is not an amendment or a topic that is without divisions in society nor without divisions in this House.
I say with the greatest respect, anyone who suggests expediency or opportunism or geographical location as reasons for taking certain positions is truly not in touch with the realities of the individual. To suggest that of the member for Oriole, the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel or the member for Huron-Middlesex is to do them a disservice just as it is to do others a disservice, to suggest they state their cause for any reason other than genuine feeling.
I will be very brief, and say it is my view that the positions members have taken here, particularly members of our party as well as members of the opposition, reflect a reluctance to indicate in legislation the positive acceptance or condemnation of a way of life that genuinely troubles and disturbs honest and well-motivated people rather than a lack of interest in the particular problem. I think to say otherwise is to deceive oneself.
For those reasons, the position of the government has been made very clear in the standing committee and we do not propose to accept the amendment as suggested by the member for Riverdale.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Robinson): Mr.
Renwick has moved that section 1 be amended by adding after the word "sex" the words, "sexual orientation."
All those in favour of Mr. Renwick's amendment will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment stacked.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Elgie, the committee of the whole House reported progress.
The House adjourned at 10:27 p.m.