LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITO BA THE STANDING CO MMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Monday, 13 July, 1987 TIME - 7:00 p.m. LOCATION - Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRMAN - Mr. C. Santos (Burrows) ATTENDANCE - 11 - QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Penner, Storie, Hon. Mrs. Smith (Osborne) Me ssrs. Bi rt, Con nery, Dolin, Ma loway, McCrae, Mrs. Hammond, Messrs. Santos, Smith (Ell ice) APPEARING: Ms. Debra Beauchamp, Private Citizen Dr. John McKenzie, Private Citizen Mr. Wes Woodcock; Private Citizen Mr. Ray Schmidt, Private Citizen Ms. Rozalia Bugan, Private Citizen Mr. & Mrs.

Rose & Paul Dubois, Private Citizen Mr. Kell Frandsen, Private Citizen Ms. Denise Sancan, Private Citizen Mrs. Nancy Armstrong, Private Citizen Mrs. Una Johnstone, Private Citizen Mrs. Bertha MacKenzie, Private Citizen Mr. Jake Durksen, Private Citizen Mr. Tim O' Rourke, Private Citizen Mr. Larry McCrady, Private Citizen Mr. Art Cornelson, Private Citizen Mr. Lorn Bergstresser, Private Citizen Mr. Harry Koop, Private Citizen Ms. Joan Mill er, Private Citizen Mr. Stuart McKelvie, Private Citizen Mrs. Eva Kalteck, Private Citizen Ms. Kim Gross, Private Citizen Ms. Sally Papso, Private Citizen Mr.

Gordon Gray, Private Citizen Ms. Marilyn Robertson, Private Citizen Ms. Shirley Lippmann, Private Cit izen Rev. Graham Tyson, Private Citizen Mr. Alien Smith, Private Citizen Ms. Deborah Dworan, Private Cit izen Mr. Nick Jones, Private Citizen Ms. Joanne Chesle y, Private Citizen Pastor Garth McGinn, Grant Memorial Baptist Church Mr s. Gwen Parker , Ma nitoba Women's Institute 155 Pastor Lloyd Peters, Steinbach Ministerial Association Mr. Lloyd Peters, Private Citizen Mr. John Martens, Private Citizen Mr. Kurt McGifford, Private Citizen Mr. Dave Per ry, Private Citizen Ms. Mary Barton, Private Citizen Mr.

Rick Hefford, Private Citizen Dr. Tom Snowd on, Social Concerns Committee of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada - Manitoba and Northwest Ontario Mr. David MacLean, Morality in the Nation Mr. Dave Derksen, Private Citizen Miss Debra Esau, Private Citizen Mr. Randy Loewen, Private Citizen Ms. Heidi Munech, Private Citizen Mr. Michael McDermott, Private Citizen Pastor Ron Adrien, Winkler and District Ministerial Association Mrs. Dora Adrien, Private Citizen Mr. Peter Toews, Private Citizen Mr. Abe Peters, Private Citizen Mr. George Hildebr and, Private Citizen Mr. Ron Epp, Pr ivate Citizen Ms.

Bonnie Kowal, Private Citizen Mr. John McDonald, Private Citizen Mr. Corney Hild ebrandt, Private Citizen Mr. Robert Klassen, Winl<ler Evangelical Mennonite Mission Church Mr. Bob Toogood, Springs of Living Water Cent er Ms. Margaret Cogill, Private Citizen Ms. Margot Johnston, Private Citizen Mr. Mark Fewster, Private Citizen Mrs. Ruth Gamble, Private Citizen MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill No. 47 - The Human Rights Code; Code des droits de la personne. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Standing Commit tee on Privileges and Elections, we shall continue hearing the public on Bill No. 47, The Human Rights Code.

The first presenter tonight, Ms. Mary Barton, private citizen. The next presenter is page 6. A MEMBER: Page 6?

Monday, 13 July, 1987 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. HON. R. PENNER: What do you mean, page 6? What do you mean the next presenter is page 6? MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm starting on page 6, on the top of page 6. HON. R. PENNER: Mary Barton is on page 6. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ann Braun, private citizen; Dave Derksen, private citizen; Bob Blair, private citizen; Sue Sinclair, private citizen; Brian Kel ly, private citizen; Miss Debra Esau, private citizen; Mr.

AI Cooney, private citizen; Marie and Thomas Wiebe, private citizens; Marjorie Kennan, private citizen; Heidi Munech, private citizen; Michaef McDermott, private citizen; Murray Ross, private citizen. Debra Beauchamp, private citizen. MS. D. BEAUCHAMP: Good evening. I am a graduate of the Un iversity of Manitoba La w School and I was called to the Manitoba Bar in 19 82. I'm also a part­ time lecturer at the University of Manitoba. I come before you as a private citizen, having listened to many of the presentations made before the committee and the questions asked by the members.

I feel it Is important to remind everyone here that the quest ion, with respect to the inclusion of sex ual orientation in this Human Rights Code, is whether or not gay, lesbian and bisexual citizens of Manitoba are to be afforded protection from unjust firing, from eviction, and from discrimination in the provision of services based on their sexual orientation. The issue is quite simply one of social justice. The new Human Rights Code does not legislate acceptance based on any of the characteristics outlined in

section 9 of the act. Acceptance can never be legislated any more than open-mindedness can be or respect for each other. What legislation can and does do is it sets out some rules for our coexistence, and the new rule being proposed here is that it will no longer be permitted to discriminate against a person based on his or her sexual orientation. This new rule cannot direct Manitobans to show tolerance, but it can increase the likelihood that such tolerance will grow.

Many of you here are grappling with your own fears and your ignorance around the reality that many citizens of Manitoba are gay, lesbian or bi sex ual in their orientation. I emphasize that the noun "ignorance" derives from the active verb "to ignore." However you choose to resolve your own response to the fact that there is a diversity in sexual orientations amongst the citizens of Manitoba, I invite you to stop ignoring the discrimination that members of all your constituencies are subjected to, based on their sexual orientation. To vote in favour of this Code is to do just that.

I've recently returned to this province, having lived in Montreal for over a year.

Quebec has had legislation in place prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation for 10 years. ft is a province that has fostered a climate of tolerance and this has benefited all citizens of Quebec. 1t is a province where most citizens, who are members of an organized religion, are Roman Catholic; and even the directive of the official church 156 which would obstruct such legislation has not sought the citizens of Quebec from giving expression to the more basic teachings of Christ which, after all, were about lo ve, compassion, respect for each other and about truth.

Perhaps Quebec also recognizes more clearly that, for some centuries now, there has been a separation of church and state. There has been much curiosity expressed here about the question of how a person develops their sexual orientation, especially whether it is a choice or not. This is not the matter that is to be decided through the process of this hearing but, nonetheless, I'm going to comment on it.

There seems to be, on the one hand, a view that stems from a fear that, if it is a choice, then we must defeat this bill, lest children learn to be homosexuals, despite the fact that most children will be raised by heterosexual parents and most people involved in the fives of these children will be heterosexual. On the other hand, if it's not a choice, then perhaps there's some kind of duty to legislate protection because somehow this school of thought thinks that people who "can't help it" are deserving of the same rights and protections already guaranteed to other citizens.

My own view is that this bill is to be supported, not out of pity, but out of recognition that what it does do is extend rights already enjoyed by a segment of the population to others who are no more or less deserving of the same protection. Perhaps one of the choices that we all make in our Jives, and often several times a day, is whether to be true to ourselves or not. Many people will live their Jives without finding the courage and support they need to make the choice to be true to their sexual orientation.

Instead, they will be met with the views expressed by many persons coming before this committee who profess to be members of fundamentalist churches who contradictorally direct people to live their fives as lies. The issue of choice that the members of this committee and all the members of the Legislature have before them with this new Human Rights Code is to choose whether or not to support a prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

To vote in support of this bill is to say that such discrimination will no longer be permitted and to provide citizens who may experience such discrimination with the possibility of lodging a complain t with the Huma n Rights Commission. I invite all members of the Legislature to be clear that this is a choice that is before them. Each of you has the opportunity to be a participant in creating a more just society for the benefit of all Manitobans. I hope you choose to do so, for yourself too, whatever your sexual orientation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? Hearing none, thank you, Debra. Gerafd Friesen; Denise Flynn.

John McKenzie, private citizen. DR. J. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am speaking as a private citizen. I would like to introduce myself as a Professor of Medicine at the Un iversity of Manitoba and also as a Christian, a member of the United Church, who like the Rev. Williams has undergone - I guess over many years - a faith's

Monday, 13 July, 1987 journey, not necessarily believing that I kn ow or that anybody kn ows what God's will is for a particular time, but that I have the great commandments to go by: "Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God wit h heart, soul, mind and strenghth and thy neigh bour as thyself." I do not believe that anyt hing which take s away the dignity and wort h of any individual can be loving one's neighbour. I ju st cannot feel and I have, like the Rev. Williams, felt today the great fear of some of the speake rs in terms of how much a recognition of a lifestyle might mean to the community.

My greater fear is that what we are doing in not passing this bill would be to perpetuate injustice and oppression. I believe that a bill of this nature has to be presented, has to be passed because the Charter does not give sufficient rights to oppressed individuals in the groups which have been named. I am also a father of five children, including one who has recently been able to come to the conclusion that she is a lesbian. This has been despite pain and fear. She grew up in a wel l-k nown secondary school.

She had a great deal of pain in attending that school, trying to decide who she was and how she came eventually to understand that she was indeed a lesbian. I believe that this pain is now ending wit h the recognition that she is a member of the lesbian community. I might say, in fact, that she receives a good deal more support from that lesbian community than she ever did from the heterosexual community. I'm happy that she's been able to make this choice and I, of course, had a lot of adjustments to make myself, and I'm still learn ing.

I can empathize wit h those speak ers of homosexual orientation who ha ve already spoken of fear and oppression. This bill is not giving special rights to any particular group, I believe, but it is a step - and perhaps an imperfect one and I think even those bringing forw ard the bill would agree that it's imperfect- but it is a step in lifting oppression. I really wish to make only one further point, and that is to reiterate how immensely powerful is the fear of discovery at present for homosexuals.

If those who believe that the present laws provide sufficient rights for homosexuals to be able to receive ju stice and equal treatment, why is it that so few homosexuals have been able to come before this committee and, without fear, provide their own testimony? lt has been said many times today that in fact this is a very difficult thing for them to do and only a few have been able to do it.

I wish to ill ustrate that point from a medical point of view by quoting from a lecture which I recently he ard about three months ago from an expert in infectious diseases who told us about AIDS and how AIDS was affecting the American community, particularly and specifically Minnesota. One of the questions which has been raised repeatedly here is that bisexuality is a matter of choice. I believe that bisexuality is often not particularly a matter of choice. lt's a matter of somebody who is of homosexual orientation who is unable to declare himself and therefore has to become a bisexual, if you will .

To illus trate that point and how powerful this fear of discovery is, let me give you the story. You may have heard that there are many people in the U.S. who fear blood transfusions as a possible vehicle for AIDS. A practice has arisen of families and friends donating blood, and that has certainly gone further back than 157 ju st the time that we are experiencing now of the AIDS epidemic, but has become much more pronounced since that time so that those who receive the blood in this case would be free of the fear of contacting AIDS.

Those who had an operation slated and were going to need blood would solicit transfus ions. That ha s occurred wit hi n families and, to my kn owledge, this speake r said that to his kn owledge he kn ew of four families in which AID S ha d been transmitted to a daughter or son because the father had been unable to admit that he was a bisexual. That is fear of discovery. There we have a situation where, in fact, fear is so powerful that the father was unable to carry out his duties as a father, which was to ke ep his children safe.

Therefore I'm for any bill, however impe rfect, which relieves some of this fear, even in small amounts. I believe it's worth supporting, and I strongly urge all members to vote for this bill, including those who have definite and well-recognized fears about the passage of the bill. To my way of think ing, the human rig hts and the dignity of the individual far outweigh the possible harm that may come from providing those who have a homosexual orientation wit h sufficient rights. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? The Member for Portage. MR. E. CONNERY: You mentioned blood transfusions.

What about emergency operations where there isn't time to bring in family and that to donate blood? DR. J. McKENZIE: As a physician, AIDS is not my field, but I do have suffient information to tell you that there is very little or no AIDS-infected blood in the Canadian Red Cross Blood service. There is none now. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other questions? Hearing none, thank you, Doctor. For the record, Jean McGinn had already submit ted some written submis sions.

So we go to Ron Adrien, representing Winkler and District Mi nisterial; Dora Adrien, private citizen; Peter Toews, private citizen; Abe Peters, private citizen; George Hildebrand, private citizen. Wes Woodcock , private citizen. MR. W. WOODCOCK: Mr. Chairman , honourable committee, I'm not an orator and I don't have an awful lot to say, but what I do have to say comes from my own heart. I believe my heart beats somewhat similar to the God who created us, so I'm going to say what I do believe.

I'm opposed to the passing of this bill in its present form because we have morality as a very, very fragile tenet of our freedoms. If we tolerate the incursion of any sexual deviation - and I don't use that term in a negative sense - in our society, I believe that God is going to remove his protection from us as a nation. I wonder if it occurs to those of you who sit in ju dgment of the absolutes of God that you will answer to Him, because you will. I as k you, on behalf of my family and my loved ones, to consider these matters before you ackn owledge pressures for modification to

Monday, 13 July, 1987 a natu ral biolo gy in a spiritual wor l d which you had no say in creating. There is a verse in the Bible that says, in Job: "He makes the nations great, then destroys them and He enl arges the nations, then He le ads them away. He deprives of intell igence the chiefs of the earth's people and makes them wander in a pathless waste. They grope in darkness wit h no li ght and He makes them stagger li ke a drun ken man." And as I sat and lo oked on these things, I just remembered that we all la ck information to make us suitably wise.

But un fortu natel y we're given the task, eac h one of us in this room, of shaping the cou ntry that we li ve in. I bel ieve that homosexu als, li ke other humans, have privil eges affirmed by their status as humans created by a lo ving God, and I might add they are lo ved by God, not by their attempt to modify morality or by changing the laws on the majority of society.

At issue here is the impression of a vocal , powe rful few on the social fabric wo rked out by a heritage of godl y men and women who have their bel iefs and their moral code in this country, much the same way as we do in this time and in this age. I think the only thing I reall y have to say about Bill C-47 (sic) is that it isn't an iss ue of human rights becaus e every one of us reall y , if it comes down to it, has no rights. We can be bl own away by walk ing outside that door by some weirdo. But the fact is, we all have privil eges.

I have a li tt l e poem if you could just grant me a couple of seconds here: "A li ttle froggy hops inside a pan so cozy and warm. He feel s sec u re, and the heat's turned up , yet still there's no al arm. The pan's a-boil, just li ke our la nd; the frog's demise is sure. And once I wondered, now I know, our country, li ke the frog, shall go." Pl ease don't le t it be us who turn the stove on. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? Hearing none, thank you, Mr. Woodcock. Ron Epp; Bonnie Kowal ; John McDonald ; Tina Jerger; Corney Hild ebrandt; Robert Klassen; Bonnie Kl assen; Daniel Skibitzky; Bob Toogood.

This is the la st opportunity - I'm going to start again at the top of the li st, the la st opportun ity for those who registered. Ms. Mary MacLe an; Mr. Pierre Brochu ; Mr. Al an Buckley; lr win and Donna Neu feld; Le e and Agnes St. Hil aire, represen ting Victims of Chil d Abus e La ws; Constab l e R. Ch rismas, Brandon City Poli ce Association; Dr. Brian M. Evans, University of Winnipeg, Faculty Association; Mr. Le wis Martin; Mr. Rick Wilgosh; Mr. Gordon Kooper. Ray Schmidt, private citizen. MR. R. SCHMIDT: I just had a few li ttle points about Bill 47 here.

I'm against Bill 47. lt goes against the family un it. The family un it was meant to be a man and a woman and they're supposed to have chil dren. lt goes against what the Bible says and what God had intended a sexu al rela tionship to be.

In Genesis, it says, "God put man and woman on the ea rth to have chil dren, to reprodu ce." lt doesn't say he put man and man on the earth; it didn't say he put woman and woman. lt says man and woman, and they're supposed to become one and have chil dren. 158 If this bill is passed, it will le ad to le gal ization of homosexual marriages and that coul d al so le ad to adoption of children by homosexu al peopl e who have been married.

I do not want my chil dren, when I have chil dren, to be taught and influ enced by a homosexual teacher in their schoo l and the teache r's due influ ence at the children's school , and that's all I have to say, basicall y. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? There being none, thank you, Ray. Wendy Peter. Rozal ia Bugan - do you have some briefs for us , Rozal ia? Rozal ia Bugan, private citizen, please proceed. MS. R. BUGAN: First of all, I'd li ke to commend you, as a citizen, for yo u r patience and perseverance through all these hearings. lt 's quite remarkable what you're doing he re. Mr.

Chairman, la dies and gent lemen, can you hear me? MR. CHAIRMAN: A li tt l e bit loud er. MS. R. BUGAN: I was deeply moved after Thur sday night 's hearings for I reali zed, even more than I had before, how much the gay members of our society are reaching out for lo ve and acceptance. I heard the word "discrimination" us ed against them over and over again. They claimed that peopl e showed disapp roval of their li festyle s and many act disrespectfull y toward them. I feel their pain, and 1 feel compassion for them as people .

What I woul d li ke to accomp lish, throu gh my speech today, is to suggest that homosexu ality can be corrected and, as such, our society should strive to introduce programs through which these peopl e le arn how to develo p heterosexual rela tionships in order that their needs for lo ve and acceptance coul d be met. I would li ke us , as a society, to stop condoning this practice and to reverse the trend of growing homosexual ity for their and for society's sake. I have done much reading on homosexuali ty in the past, and what stood out to me about its devel opment from all

article s was that psychological factors during the growing-up years were the main reasons for be coming homosexu a l . Homes were usuall y characterized by la ck of genuine lo ve, acceptance and a normal atmosphere for he al thy rela tionshi ps to devel op. Al though I coul d not find those

article s and books I read in the past in such a short time, I did find three

article s wit hin an hour of search that essentiall y says the same. I woul d li ke to present them to yo u in the forms of two photocopied

article s and by reading to you a psych iatrist 's report. The copies are taken from Christianity Today, a monthl y -publ ished magazine. lt is important to mention that the articl es were written in the li ght of much compassion and un derstanding toward the homosexu a l , and le an toward rebu king those Christians who have mishandle d them, and teaching them how to best help a homosexual . This is to say that they are not biased toward Christianity. Now one copy inclu des only excerpts of a lo ng article. By now, you've probably got them, so le t's just lo ok

Monday, 13 July, 1987 at those articles. I'd like to point out to you, first of all, that the articles represent ex-gays. If you look at this one that says, "These Christians Are Helping Gays Escape from Homosexual Lifestyles" and underneath like a sub-title it says, "Where churches fail to reach out to homosexuals, ex-gays are setting up their own ministries and seeing results." You see on the front two pictures of ex-homosexuals and, as you turn over, you will see another two pictures of ex-homosexuals. They are the ones stating the reports. I'm going to be reading a few lines from this and also this other

article which is actually just excerpts from a longer one. I would like to read from that as well but, first of all, from the list, I'm reading from the brief, on the second page. I'd like to quote Dr. Enos B. Martin, teacher of psychiatry at Peny State Univer sity.

He says this: ". . . my own clinical experience supported by the experience of many other clinicians and researchers indicates that homosexual orientation can change, that sociocultural factors play a significant role in the development and change of sexual orientation, and is part of a pattern of inability to attain a mature level of intimacy with either sex. "Concerning change, my own experience in treating and interviewing persons with homosexual orientation is similar to that found by M.

Pattison in his study of 50 ex-gays, 15 of whom claimed to have changed from exclusive homosexual to heterosexual orientation through a religious self-help group. His study is reported in a

chapter entitled 'Religious contexts for change in sexual orientation' in the 'Psychiatry and Religion: Overlapping Concerns."' So let's look at the articles. What I'd like to point out from these, especially what I'd like you to notice, ex-gays have written in it, therefore gays have changed. Also notice that there are organizations that are reaching out to gays and also that cure is available to those who are seeking it. Why don't you read the one with the two pictures on the front? These Christians are helping gays escape from homosexual lifestyles.

Now to support the idea that it is learned behaviour, let's read the first sentences.

"Like a river at its source, homosexual tendencies may develop out of tentative, disconnected tributaries of emotion, learning and circumstance. 'I f those trib utaries don't meet one another, they'll evaporate,' says Ha l Schell, coordina tor of a min istry to homosexuals at College Hill Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati." If you just begin reading the next paragraph, you'll realize that Schell was a homosexual and says: "In Schell's life, those random streams converged with a vengeance." And he went to explain how it came about. The very last line on that page begins, "Since 1982, Schell has set the same ...

"- the same meaning the help that he got - ". . . process in motion for other homosexuals through a church-based ministry called Spr ing Forth. 1t is part of a growing network of evangelical organizations based on the premise that the re is no such thing as a genetic condition of homosexuality." Further down, in the middle of the paragraph, you read, ". . . secular researchers have produced no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is a natural trait." 159 Further down, you read: "Many who minister to homosexuals believe gays need to learn ordinary patterns of friendship with people of the same gender in order to break free of the homosexual lifestyle. 'A false belief about homosexuality is that it is a difficulty in relating to the opposite sex.

No. The difficulty is in relating to one's same sex,' Schell says." Just below the middle of the second column, we read, "lt appears that increasing num bers of homosexuals are seeking a way out." Further down: "In Seattle, a ministry called Metanoia has organized five Homosexuals Anonymous (HA) chapters that involve more than 60 counselees. In 10 other U.S. cities and two Canadian cities, HA chapters, patterned after Alcoholics Anonymous, are rapidly expanding their work. Daniel Roberts, director of HA Fello wship Services in Read ing, Pennsylvania, anticipates 700 chapters nation-wide by the end of the decade.

The program offers 14 'steps out' of homosexuality." Below that, the picture on the right-hand side, I just underlined "Doug Houck," who directs Metanoia and is also a former gay. Also, on the last page, in the very last column, there is a reference to the book that I think which says the program offers 14 steps out of homosexuality is probably found in the book "S teps Out of Homosexuality," written by Worthen, who also was an ex-gay himself. May we go to the other article, please?

Turning to the second page - as you can see, the front page says, "Homosexuals Can Change." I found it interesting that, after Thursday night's hearing, I felt exactly the same way then what I was reading here. lt says, "Acceptance and love,'' and those are exactly the two things I picked up from hearing the gays speak. lt says here: "Acceptance and love are two words that are sounded repeatedly in interviews with homosexuals and those who deal with them." Now it was interesting that, in my previous quote from this particular psychiatrist, he referred to this Mr. Pattison, and my

article that I found also refers to him. lt says: "Mansell Pattison, chairman of the Psychiatry and Health Behavior Department at the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta, in an

article in the December issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry, documented 11 cases of men who claimed not only to have resisted successfully their homosexual drives, but changed their basic homosexual orientation to the point where they have developed satisfactory sexual attraction to females. Eight of them no longer have homosexual dreams, fantasies or physical arousal.

"In other words, these eight were cured - something gay activists often claim is impossible." Now notice again, reading the underlined portion in that column: "All of our subjects remarked on the fact they soon learned how psychologically immature they were and how poor their interpersonal relations were . . .

All the subjects remarked at how surprised they were to experience acceptance, nonjudgm ental evaluation and nonerotic love from both men and and women . . . as a result they began to identify with other mature Christian men, and began to experience and practice nonerotic relationships with these Christian women ... " Now, in the middle of the second column on the right-hand side: "Nevertheless, Pattison's findings are

Monday, 13 July, 1987 significant, because Evangelicals Concerned, an organization of self-styled Christian homosexuals, is adamant about the failure of true homosexua ls to be able to change their sexual orientation. All Pattison 's subjects were true homosexuals." I do encourage you to read the whole thing , but I don't want to take up the time of reading the whole thing but just the underlined sections. So let's read on . In the bottom: "Donald Tweedie, a clinical psychologist in suburban Los Angeles, has counseled about 300 homosexuals in 25 years of practice .

He is more optimistic than Pattison about reversing homosexuality, although he doesn 't believe a 'cure' necessarily implies a life free from homosexual temptation . He explained that many of his patients have gone on to satisfactory married lives. He sees homosexuality much like alcoholism, an addictive practice. "Many others who have tried to determine its roots don 't picture it like that, but most agree that it's a learned response, whether conscious or subconscious.

Those who contend it's something a person is born with are in the decided minority among the experts." Just a few more lines here, now here we are talkin g about Worthen who wrote the book . " Frank Worthen of 'Love in Action .' the longest running of the so-called ex-gay ministries , believes that overcoming homosexuality is extremely difficult ." I did want to include this because I recognize the fact from my reading that it is not an easy issue . It's not something that somebody can overcome very easily. But listen now as to what he says: "He believes most people who attempt it don' t make it.

Yet he's strongly convinced it can be done, and he offers himself as proof ." I believe this man became a homosexual after 60 or 70 years of age. He was quite a bit older when - no, I'm sorry. He became heterosexual. He left his gay lifestyle when he was older. He says a lot of them don't make it but not because it's impossible but they don't try hard enough . He says he's convinced it can be done and he offers himself as proof. "He said " - further down - " 'I persona lly think (homosexuals) have an excellent chance of going on to marriage and a family. Not many of them do, however.

They 're usually held back by fear, inhibitions and the like. (At Love in Action) we have seen a lot of marr iages. I have seen all kinds of people come out of the gay lifestyle and develop a heterosexual response. This isn't to say it's easy. It's never easy. It requires a real heavy commitment to Christ .' " And this was his answer to the dilemma . I'd like to read on in my presentation . I would like to mention at this point that I myself worked together with and talked to ex-gays , males and females, in Las Vegas where I spent six mon th s doing inner-city missionary work.

I esteemed these people highly and loved them , for they were capable , intelligent and lovely people. They testified to me that leaving their homsexual lifestyles beh ind felt like being set free from a bondage for they knew very well that they were doing wrong . This is what they told me. Now I would like to give two reasons why the public seems to be hostile toward the homosexual and his lifestyle . This is not necessarily my viewpoint , but I think this is the way the majority feels and to, I guess , protect the rights of the way the heterosexual society feels.

The two reasons I'd like to give, one is disapproval and the othe r is fear. Disapproval, I hate to compare ourselves to the anim als, though scientists label man as only a higher form of animal , but I cannot help not icin g that, in all forms of life , there are two and only two distinctly different sexes for a reason far too obvious , which is procreation. There are no in-between sexes. Due to the gays ' intense brain-washing efforts, I can see many people who have been influenced by their thinking , rationalizing it away, it is left out, and rejecting that which is most obvious and normal.

Two males or two females cannot procreate , however hard they try. It seems to be a shame that, in order to come back to reality and to learn what is normal , we have to observe and learn from lower forms of life. The natural thing is that the opposite sexes attract to each other. In this life, is it surprising then that heterosexuals find homosexuality repulsive , distasteful, disgusting and that it makes them feel uneasy and uncomfortab le around them? It is no small task for many heterosexuals to overcome these feelings .

These feelings are innate instincts of the majority of men and women and, when you top that with deep conv iction that what they are reacting this way to is perversion, it takes very strong and loving persons to overcome their negative feelings and to replace them with love and acceptance towards homosexuals but not their lifestyle. To feel free from such negative , disturbing and unpleasant emotions is one of the rights the majority of society is wishing to mai ntai n. Can and should they have that right?

The amendment to Bill 47 will annul that right. 160 Fear, now we hear a lot about fear coming from homosexuals, which I can understand, but let us look at fear from the heterosexual point of view : ( 1) In th ei r quest for love and acceptance, the homosexuals are becoming increasingly aggressive, using intimidation and coercion . Coercion is not subsiding but increasing, whatever is believed by the present government will be ach ieved by the approval of this bill. I have heard the gays last Thursday night demand family and health benefits , among other things, just as it is found in heterosexual family units.

And they will not stop until they get all their demands! This is scary! When will the government stop this movement? Maybe the publ ic's eyes are more open than the government's to see the disaster coming faster than one can imagine.

(2) The second reason for fear, parents are panicking for their children. If you are a paren t here today, ask yourself thes e questi ons . Now, here I'd like to make it more personal on your part because I feel that sometimes, when there is an issue and it is just an issue that may not touch me or it's just out there , I found myself thinking differently than when I make it very personal to myself. So I'd like you to think right now - and I assume most of you are parents - and ask these question s: (

a) Would you like your child to become a homosexua l? (

b) Would yo u like your child taught that homose xuality is normal sexual orientation ? Just think for yoursel ves.

Monday, 13 July, 1987 (

c) Would you like your male child to become a victim of child prostitution? (

d) Would you like your male child to become a male prostitute? Remember there was no such thing before the homosexuals came on the scene. (

e) Would you like your child to contract AIDS though any means? (

f) If, God forbid, you and your spouse would die shortly, would you like your child to be adopted by homosexual parents or to be partially nur tur ed by a homosexual Big Brother or Big Sister? Remember they are presently fighting for these rights.

(3) Homosexuality is on the rise, as are incest, drug abuse, crime, divorce, pornography, etc. How can that be? Whose right is the government really protecting? How can all immorality be on the rise? Are the laws partially responsible for this? Is it not obvious that we are suddenly being drawn into societal suicide? If allowed to grow, how will homosexual society procreate? A society is as strong as its family units are. Families are the foundation and cornerstone of our society and, when they fall apart, society falls apart. We, as responsible citizens of our society, have to live by moral laws and principles.

We cannot live by our feelings alone, doing what feels good and right. We all have temptations to do things that might feel very good, but we cannot do them because they are wrong and would hurt - the word "hurt" was left out by mistake - would hurt us or others or all involved. Thus, for example, stealing or destroying someone else's property may feel good, especially if done in revenge or if it provides one with challenge, but they are obviously wrong and destructive.

People may face temptations to commit adulter y, incest - which is rampant in our society, but not much talked about yet - or rape, but they cannot do them because they are wrong since they violate the rights of others and cause much hurt and pain. Homosexuality is also destructive psychologically. We have to face it, admit it and offer real help to these love-craving people. I'd like to put it right here that they are very afraid to admit that. They are scared and fearful to admit it, but that is the exact step for them to admit it to for healing, and this is what they use.

We also have to admit that this is a problem and we have to deal with it. On my last page here, I'm going to suggest how we can deal with it more correctly. MR. CHAIRMAN: it's just the announcement that the Session is starting in the House. MS. R. BUGAN: Shall I go ahead? MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed. MS. R. BUGAN: I'll speak louder. MR. CHAIRMAN: We can take a break while the buzzer MS. Fl. BUGAN: I'm almost finished, though. MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed. 161 MS. Fl.

BUGAN: Homosexuals are recogmztng the public's attitude toward them and, in their desperate search for love and acceptance, they are trying now to force the members of society, legally , to accept them. They are out to change society's view of them and to force them into loving and accepting them. Unfortunatel y, the craving for love and acceptance cannot be filled by people who are forced by law to do so. I suggest that instead of allowing them to change our society as to how to think, believe and act, they take steps toward seeking help to change themselves.

I do recognize that in some cases, although definitely not in all, it seems an almost insurmountable task. However, through the voluntary, non-judgmental and loving support by the members of our society, which is something we admittedly have to work on, together with governmental support by providing rehabilitation programs, of which many exist in the U.S. for homosexuals, we will get much closer to solving the problem for each of these individuals involved and for our society as a whole.

The key is that instead of focusing on, condoning and supporting what is wrong, the government should focus on the love and help homosexuals can be provided. lt is possible that some self-supporting groups will arise even as a result of these hearings. I would like to encourage the government to get involved in supporting already established and newly arising programs for helping the homosexuals find what they are yearning for, which is love and acceptance in the heterosexual society. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? The Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you.

In the brief that homosexuals can change - and there seems to be a page missing, by the way, page 173. lt runs from 172 to 174, and 17 2 ... MS. R. BUGAN: Yes, I mentioned that I just took excerpts because it is a long article. MR. M. DOLIN: Ok ay. I would like to ask you a question about the statistics. The ministry that Pattison mentions had 300 cases in five years and reported 30 cases of claimed changes, which is 10 percent. I assume that all of these 300 cases were people who were motivated the change and who came for help.

I would assume there's an awful large community out there who are not motivated for change. The question I have is 10 percent who motivated for change did achieve some sort of change from their own point of view. lt is possible then, you're pointing out and as the

article points out, that homosexuals can change. The question I have for you is: Must they change? What about the ones who did not come for assistance? Should they be brought in for ministries and attempts made to change them to heterosexual behaviour? MS. R. BUGAN: Sir, these people are so much yearning for love and acceptance. I believe the fear they have, the fear they feel is not so much of others, but what they feel inside. I feel they're fearful of themselves, finding out their own emotions; they're fearful, very fearful.

Monday, 13 J uly, 1987 It is true , the problem is with us that we are too judgmental and would rather look at the sin and judge the sin , rather than having the sinner and accept them . We have to learn, we have to change the community to accept and have them, to encourage them to talk to us. But they go to each other because, unfortunately, we haven't been giving them that support.

What happens when they go to each other, all the more they encourage each other because that's where they find it, and maybe there are others who are looking for love and acceptance , especially among gays, and they are attracted more to it. I think they should because I think they're craving for it. Why are they doing what they're doing right now for hetero sexuals in communiti es to accept them? Why are they legalizing acceptance , if that's not what they want? That's what they want. They wan t u s to accept them. I don' t believe it' s t rue, l ike through Bill No. 47. I'm again st the bill per s e.

I thin k we have to change our society, and government doing rehabili tation for their sake, as well as ours . MR. CHAIRMAN: Quest ions? Hearing none , thank you Ms. Bugan . Rose and Paul Dubois, private citizens . Mrs . Dubois . MRS. R. DUBOIS: Yes, good evening . I was here this afternoon , and just something that Reverend Williams said is that in God 's word, there's no absolutes against the act of homosexuality, and there are absolutes from the Bible that I read . I find absolutes that God is not against the person but agains t the act of homosexuality , and He says that He hates that act .

I believe in the Bible and , just with the absolute , he said there were none. There is a Scripture that says that. I am totally opposed to the bill, particularly the · incl usion 0f " sexual orientation. " To clear up things, I do believe in equality for all people , homose xuals or not , but I do not believe in special privileges for any group. Right now the bill may not appear dangerous but , looking down in years , I would not approve of my child being taught or influenced by a homosexual for the reason that I do not believe or agree in this alterna tive lifesty le.

I've heard it stated here that the lifestyle would not influence the children , but from my own exper ience at s chool and with my teache rs, their lifestyle affected me and many of my classmates . I believe that that lifesty le of homosexuali ty will also affect the childr en. I believe if we do a survey, the major ity of p arents - and I believe we should do a survey wit h the majorit y of pare nts and all populatio n - that they woul d feel the same way. As the law stands now , I believe there is equality and protec tion for all peop le.

T he basic argument that I have heard - and there have been oth er arguments - but one t hat I have heard is th at the prote ction for homosexuals is not effi cient, and that the re have been a lot of threats and beatings goi ng o n. Just reading an

article that I read i n the newspaper , it talked a bou t in a park where there are a lot of beat ings and thre ats gJing on t here. I don 't beli eve those people should be going there . I wouldn't go in the par k late at n ight and 162 just sit around, because I know I'd be asking for trouble if I went there . I believe, if this bill is passed, the people in Manitoba are making a big mistake . We will be fulfilling the Scriptures, where men say that evil is good and good is evil. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? Hearing none, thank you. Paul Dubois . MR. P.

DUBOIS: I think the biggest thing that's come out of this, when you h ear the gays for equality side and the homosexual side and the Christian side , I don't want the Christians to come down as people who think the y're pious and above the judgment of God, because we're all in the boat together. We're all peo ple who live on the face of this earth. What I want to say i s that God is a r ighteous judge and he judges sin . Sin is sin, whether gays do it, Jimmy Bakker does it - it doesn 't matte r who d oes it - Christians can sin, and sin is sin. Homosexua lity is sin in God's eyes. We canno t hide that .

But I think the issue here is, I don't believe the gays should be fearful of the Christians, they should not . If anything , gays , homosexuals and lesbians should be able to turn to the Christian church for help. I believe that the Christian church has the answers for them . Jesus Christ is alive and He's real. He can change your lifestyle, He really can. MR. CHAIRMAN: Orde r please . Until the presenter is finished , you don't show appreciat ion unt il he's done . MR. P. DUBOIS : I just want to say, I'm not try ing to say if they don't change that we just " X" them out of society , that 's not it.

Because if you look at the life of Jesus , He always sat with the publicans , the sinners, the tax collectors, people who were looked down upon and frowned upon by the hierarchy, okay. But do you know what ? He always said He was the doctor and it was the sick people who needed the docto r, not the peop le who were well. So I think we, as a Christian body, as the Christia n chu rch , shou ld reach out in love and compassion, but with a g ospel that is tru e a nd ever-changing. People can change, G od c an change people. Thank y ou. MR. CHA IRMAN: Questions? Norman Woods. Kell Frandsen, private citizen. MR. K.

FRAND SEN: Before I get into my brief, I'd just like to tell you wher e I'm coming from. I'm coming as a pri vate cit izen. Some of m y c omments in my brief are from my experience as a former police offi cer, and also from ap proximately seve n t o ei ght years of experience as a min ister on the stre ets . Something I'd just like to address before I get into my brief, absolutes have been mentioned quite a bit th is afternoon. I saw something rather interesting as I was driving here with my wife . I saw a car that was full of rust, and it was kind of sitting like this beca use the rust had just eaten it.

It says: "rust never sleeps" . That's an absolute, like it's too bad if you don 't agree o

Monday, 13 July, 1987 with rust, it's still there; it's an absolute. If you jump out this window, you're going to fall. Yhat's just the way it is. Our United Church Ministers have said, well we believe that it's right for homosexuals to have those rights and stuff like that; that's an absolute. I hate to break it to you, but that's an absolute. The reason homosexuals are what they are is a number of different reasons. One of them is, the Scripture says, "A man is what he thinks." You start saying, I'm a homosexual, I'm a homosexual, I'm a homosexual; that's exactly what you're going to be. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair and the committee. MR. K. FRANDSEN: Well, they're behind me. I don't want them to throw stuff at me. HON. R. PENNER: That's out of order. MR. K. FRANDSEN: Ok ay, sorry. MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed. MR. K. FRA NDSEN : The point is that there are absolutes, and you could take God's absolutes or you can make up your own absolutes. Whatever it is, it's an absolute. If you decide to go with this law, that's your absolute. That's what the law becomes; that's the absolute in this country, in this Province of Manitoba. Anyway, I'd like to go on to my brief.

What I'd like to present is some empirical information in a couple of different areas. The first one is medical, and most of my quotations are from a book called, "The AIDS Cover-up" by Gene Antonio. The first point is that over 50 percent of syphilis reported in the U.S. occurs in homosexual men. Incurable genital herpes is almost everywhere among practising male homosexuals and is linked to cancer of the tongue, rectum - l can hardly say this - nasal pharyngeal, that's an area behind the sinuses. Ninety percent of active homosexuals have carried the herpes virus infection.

Many homosexuals have venereal warts, anal warts, a common disorder among homosexuals. lt produces intense itching and fecal discharge and is very painful and embarrassing. Repeated exposure to semen and urine in homosexual activities leads to a breakdown in the immune system. That's why you have, like in the case of San Francisco, a 2,400 percent increase in venereal diseases. In 1979, in San Francisco, an average of 10 percent of all patients - in a symptomatic contact reported to the San Francisco Department of Public Health re diseases, fecal samples - were employed as food handlers in public establishments.

Forty-five percent of all sexual offences committed on children under 14 years of age are homosexual, and that's a study by Richard Knudten, "Crime in a Complex Society." This is empirical evidence. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. K. FRANDSEN: A follow-up study of a segment of 6,875 homosexual men initially seen at a San 163 Francisco city clinic between 1978 and 1980, the number testing positive for AIDS and infection increased from 4.5 percent in 1978, to 74.5 percent in 1985. At the end of 1985, Dr.

James Staff, the Medical Investigator of the National Institute of Health, estimated 70 percent to 90 percent of practising homosexuals in San Francisco had the AID S virus. Parasitic diseases among homosexuals are from 40 percent to 50 percent. In the U.S., between 1976-8 1, 94 percent AIDS in homosexuals or bisexual men. In Europe - this is from a 1986 report - homosexuals were over 85 percent of the AIDS cases. In the U.S., over 75 percent of all AIDS cases are homosexual.

At the present rate of infection in the U.S., just taking exactly what's happening right now, they double every year; and by the year 1990, at the present rate, there will be 64 million people affected by AIDS. That's sickening. The AIDS virus, when it's isolated, can be found in plasma, serum, saliva, tears, semen, urine, cerebrospinal fluid and the brain tissue. These are all medical facts. I'm not a doctor, I'm just quoting guys who have studied this stuff - the practices of homosexuals by the New York Times, J.

Crofts, October'85: "Homosexual clubs all over the States and Canada have dimly-lit orgy rooms and multiple partners. More avant-garde establishments practise sadomasochism and bestiality as part of their activity. Twenty-eight percent of homosexuals will have over 1,0 00 different partners in their lifetime; 70 percent have one-n ight encounters. Evidence clearly demonstrates the rectum is not designed for admission of actual or makeshift sex organs - fists, forearms and the like which are used in homosexual practices." I have a friend in Vancouver who is a homosexual.

He regularly has homosexual men from San Francisco at his house for sexual orgies. That's just the way it is. Two homosexual couples that I've met in this city, they'll sleep with anybody and they have no respect for one another like heterosexual relationships. There's no loyalty; they'll sleep with anybody. That's just the way it is. You know, my wife and my daughter were riding down here along Memorial Park, Assiniboine here, and the lawn just cluttered with guys with G-strings on, like totally emba rrassing - you know, there's just no modesty.

I have a friend of mine who lives in the Colony area - well, he actually works for me - he lives in the Colony area over here which has a large influx of homosexuals. He drives home - we worked nights for a while - he drives home and he gets eyed from guys in cars. I'd like to just say what God says about this, from Romans. lt says that they are full of lust, anger, burning desire, depraved mind, wicked, greed, evil, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, insolent, slanderous, haters of God, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, untrustworthy, unl oving and unmerciful.

God says that His wisdom is above your wisdom. I hate to break it to you but God was around a long time before you were and I was, and He's a little bit smarter than we are, and His wisdom is above your wisdom and He says that the wisdom of man is foolish to Him. The conclusion is that, people of Manitoba - look, we're all people, okay? We're just a drop in the bucket

Monday, 13 July, 1987 of humanity . Let's decide where we want to go with our lives. Let's decide whether we want something good, healthy and moral in our society. Let's stand up and get some guts in our bellies and stand up for what is right. In the Old Testament, those who were foolish enough not to bow to God's laws and committed homose xuality were stoned . And do you know what God says? He says, because I love you , I gave you this instruction . Now, that doesn 't make a lot of sense , does it, to our sentimental hearts? But you know , I'd go and arrest somebody when I was a police officer.

There was a law there, and a lady was beaten to a pulp by four other ladies , and we arrested her and that was a loving act to do because they committed a crime against that lady. And God says that this homosexualt ity is a crime against the homosexual, against society . It perverts them inside. It causes all those things I read before in them . Many homosexuals work with food in restaurants,

whereas my friend in Vancouver works as a nurse's aide, and transmission of the AIDS disease or other diseases through a number of means occurs with these people. When it first came out, it was almost exclusively homosexuals who had this disease . Now the next percentage who have the AIDS virus are people who do up on drugs because they get it from the needles, from other homosexuals who do up drugs and they pass dirty needles, and that's the next percentage .

People who practise orgies, multiple sex partners , bestiality and sadomasochism , and who are full of social diseases presents a grave danger to society medically, morally, and spiritually. It seems that tolerance is one of the gods of this age, and homosexuals need protection from themselves through society recognizing their lifestyle as unacceptable and providing them with medical, psychological and spiritual protection, rather than promoting the ir cause with this legislation . This province has come a long way.

You know , I've talked to customers who told me, elderly people , 40 years ago , women could walk downtown here in Winnipeg and they would never have to fear about being molested. People didn 't have to lock their doors . The family unit was strong and - you know what? - 70 percent of Canadians went to church regularly . Now rapes are epidemic. Little girl prostitutes who I minister to down there, they' re all over those streets. We min istered to one last Friday night. She was down there because her boyfriend had forced her and beat her and we got her off those stree ts and into a home to minister to her.

They are down there. Why don 't you put some legislation to stop that garbage? I'd never let my son come down here in this area at night. My son is a very good looking boy. He's got blond hair and I would never ever let him drive down here . I would be absolutely crazy because he would have a danger coming down here , and that's just the way it is. You know , in this lax society , crime is escalat ing. I work a lot in Tuxedo and almost every home has been broken int o. Isn't that sick? There 's a country called Wales.

At the turn of thi s century , 1905-1906, that had a might y visitation of the outpouring of God 's spirit. Within one year - and I have a friend who worked for me from Wales who talked to 164 peop le wh o remembered the revival and it 's documented - within one year there was no crime in Wales. The police force, because of a Christian move of God's spirit, there was no crime , the police officer s had nothing to do. They formed barbe rshop quartets and they fixed toys for kids - that's what they did - and they sang at the different functions .

God is a loving God and He says, if you abide by my laws, I will preserve man and beast , and it says, in your light, there is light - you walk away from God's light , you're in darkness . And God says, what you sow is what you reap . That's just the way it is. And God says to you tonight and every day, I've set before you life and death, and He says, choose life. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? Hearing none, thank you, Mr. Frandsen .

Rob Friesen , private citizen ; Doris Friesen; Bett y Friesen; Harv Thiessen; Richard Koopany i; Henry Dueck; Ian MacPherson ; Nancy Abos ; Pastor Dan Neufeld; Estelle Carson had already submitted a wr itten submission for the record ; Alber t Faudet; Denise Sancan; Nancy Armstrong. This is Denise Sancan . MS. D. SANCAN: Yes, good evening, Mr. Chairman, committee , ladies and gentlemen . Can you hear me alright? MR. CHAIRMAN: Louder, please . MS. D. SANCAN: I thank God that this is a free country where I can offer my opinion . I respect and admire the opinions that have been presented here today.

I think a lot of things that were said revealed a great deal of integrity , of people standing on their convictions and their belief, and revealing an unusual amount of honesty . I'm proud to associa te myself as a Canadian citizen . I pray that it will always be this way, that our country will always be free and equal. With regard to Bill 47, I am here to speak out as a concerned citizen and as the representative of My Lord , Jesus Christ. Now, you're not going to see Jesus Christ walk down the hall and stand up in front of you.

All you're going to see is Jesus Christ living in the lives of those who have chosen to give their life to Him . And so, I pray that you may see Jesus Christ somewhat in my person tonight, as I present my brief to you. God loves all people - all people - including homosexuals , but the practice of homosexualit y is against the law of God. Nowhere, nowhere in the Bible is a marriage between the same sex ordained , nor is it considered a righteous lifestyle . God dec lares the practice of a homosexual lifestyle to be immoral.

I do not wish to support a system whose schools teach that homosexuality is accepted, legal or an alternative lifestyle, nor do I feel that the adoption of children by same-sex parents is appropriate or healthy. God created man first and then He crea ted woman as a helpmate to man, as a compleme nt to man. He did not create woman for woman or man for man. Now I realize that you've hear d this before toda y and I'm grateful for the opportu nity that all of you have had to hear so much Scripture, because I love Scripture with my whole heart.

Monday, 13 July, 1987 A God-ordained marriage between a responsible man and woman is right. lt is orderly and it is approved of by God, for such a union is the cornerstone of civilization. When decency is removed from society, then society decays, just as it did in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah when Lot left. When Lot left, he took with him the sembla nce of all human decency, and so the city fell in upon itself; God destroyed it. But in fact it fell in upon itself because it had nothing to uphold it.

To pass Bill 47 is to legalize indecency and immorality and I am here, with God as my witness, with Jesus Christ as my Saviour, to say that I take a stand against Bill 47. But I'd also like to add something. I'm sure that everybody here has heard the story of David and Goliath. You know it very well. Maybe many of you have told it to your children.

I'd like to read it to you or a portion of it: "David said to the Philistine or the giant, you come against me with sword and spear and javel in, but I come against you in the name of the Lord Almighty." I'd like to paraphrase that somewhat to make it relevant to today with regard to Bill 47. If you challenge God's law by presuming your own to be superior, then you fight against God.

You come against God's laws with your bills, with your statutes, with your ideas, with your proposals, with your statistics, with your pomp, with your glory, with your doctrines, with your diplomas, with your position and with your earthly power. But I come - or David came - in the name of God, in His name. So you see, the Goliath of today is the corruption of civilization. lt is in fact the perversion of truth. And the David of today is what has always been, God's eternal word which is without beginning, without end, which is absolute, and which is pure truth.

That is my stand, and I thank you most graciously for having heard me. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? Hearing none, thank you, Denise. Nancy Armstrong. By the way, there's a correction here - it's U-n-a Johnstone. Nancy Armstong. MRS. N. ARMSTRONG: Mr. Chairman, committee members, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Mrs. Nancy Armstrong and I make the following presentation as a public citizen residing in the constituency of ln kster. I am strongly opposed to Bill 47, The Human Rights Code, and in particula r, subsection 9(2)(h), sexual orientation; subsection (1 1), affirmative action.

As a Christian, as a Canadian citizen, without threat to my life or that of my family, I am given the privilege of standing before mem bers of a committee representing the Legislative Assembly for the Province of Ma nitoba and stating my opposition and my declaration, as a Christian, believing in the Judeo­ Christian lifestyle and values as taught through the Word of God. This freedom is allowed to every Canadian citizen. That is our human right. I do not believe in nor do I condone the chosen lifestyles of the homosexual and bisexual. I do not support their issues or their rights, as supported in Bill 47.

The passing of this bill would allow an open door to the already fast-bre eding immorality in this country. 165 We live in a very powerful country, to which entry is sought after by many foreign citizens. This country was built on a firm foundation and united east to west, in 1867, by a government with good moral judgment. But just like the powerful Roman Empire, which crumbled due to its immoral behaviour, Canada could be and will be destroyed in the same like manner if we allow bills to be passed which support this immoral and unnatural lifestyle.

The Charter of Rights in Canada strongly emphasizes equality for every one of its citizens. lt opposes di scrimination to minority groups or those characteristics as I find defined in

section 9(2) of Bill 47. How much further must we pursue this issue? Why should the Government of Manitoba feel it necessary to give special privileges and condone and support the rights of the gay society? I do not believe a large majority of Canadian citizens would look upon the Government of Manitoba with respect for their support of a homosexual lifestyle. If we legislate sexual orientation, it could lead to judgments against parents, businesses, organizations and everyone who has convictions that moral character does matter.

Because I am so strongly opposed to the issues in Bill 47, I took it upon myself as a Christian duty to inform the members of my congregation at church on Sunday morning. I explained Bill 47 and presented my concerns as a Christian of the effect this bill would have on our society. The support I received from the congregation was overwhelming. Some of them have written or phoned their MLA's. Others have joined me here today and all were anxious to declare their opposition to Bill 47. Many signed a prepared petition that I took with me to church.

So for the record, I can say that I represent over 50 concerned citizens. The membership of my church may not be large, but the members represent various constituencies in this city. I appeal to the committee to consider the harmful impact on the society as a result of supporting the homosexual lifestyle. Every day, new victims are being struck down by the deadly disease of AIDS. Some of the innocent victims are children. This is a good example of what could result from homosexual activity.

Medical research costs are mounting higher and higher, resulting in a good deal of these costs being paid for by the taxpayers, but still every day the death occurs in our country, in other countries afflicted with the AIDS disease. We have got to stand up for what we believe to be good and moral standards of life and begin to put a stop to the immorality which is plaguing our country. On the issue of affirmative action, I am opposed to the concept of mandatory affirmative action.

To give a woman preferential treatment on the basis only of her sex is unfair. lt is reverse discrimination against qualified males, as well as minority groups such as ethnics and Native people. I have been in the work force for 23 years and have considered myself to have held some very responsible and administrative positions. I have been a private businessowner for part of those years, owning and managing my own business. I have never felt threatened by my position, by any other individual, based on the fact that I was a female.

I obtained my positions based on my qualifications as a person who could do the best

Monday, 13 July, 1987 job and had the ability to perform the duties needed in that capacity . Should I have been refused a promotion or denied a position , i t would have come to my mind that my qualifications did not meet the criteria, and I would continue to upgrade my qualifications and ready myself for the next opportunity . I believe the majority, either males or females, would pursue this same course of action. It is my position that appointments should not be made on the basis of gender. Appointments should be made on the basis of the best qualified for the position, regardless of sex. In this way, I oppose

section 11. In conclusion, I appeal to the members of this committee to delete subsections 9(2) and 11 from Bill No. 47, The Human Rights Code. I ask you to search your heart and conscience and to uphold the moral values of our country. In this way, the Government of Manitoba can maintain pride and gain respect as a government who did not base their decisions solely to support a minority group who have chosen an immoral lifestyle . I thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? Hearing none, thank you, Ms. Armstrong. Una Johnstone. MRS. U. JOHNSTONE: Thank you. Mr.

Chairman and members of this committee, it is important that I, as an individual member of the community, inform the government and at the same time express my views on Bill No. 4 7. This is democracy in action . I would like to say that I will not be invoking God or grandchildren . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: As the members can tell, there is now a vote calling members to the Chamber . However, what we'd like to do is continue on with the presentations here until we've satisfied ourselves that all members are ready to come into the Chamber for the vote .

We would then adjourn this committee temporarily while that vote takes place and then come back after the vote. So in order to allow the presentations to continue, we'll continue on with the bells ringing for a short period of time until all members have been summoned to the appropriate place. MRS. U. JOHNSTONE: The following are points I wish to make :

(1) This bill does not indicate in any way that the homosexual lifestyle is unacceptable to the mores of Manitobans as a whole . MR. CHAIRMAN: Please speak louder, or pull the mike in a little bit . MRS. U. JOHNSTONE: This bill does not indicate in any way that the homosexual lifestyle is unacceptab le to the mores of Manitobans as a whole.

(2) Children and teenagers learn not only from books , but by perception of the actions of their parents , 166 teach ers, clergy et al, and in fact from everyone they meet. You can be certain that the students in school are very much aware of their teachers' lifestyles, who they are - in the vernacular of the day - "shacking up with. " In my younger days, this was called " companionate marriage," the prelude to today's version . Thus if teachers and others in authority can hold these positions of trust, ergo it is an acceptable way of life and is condoned . So, do we want this? I say no, emphatically no.

(3) The governments have started to put in their stamp of approval on common-law relationships or marriage so-called, in giving this relationship the status of marriage and the exemption on the income tax . I may not be correct in this remark, but I understand that homosexual couples are seeking these same exemptions . The die is cast.

(4) The family unit is threatened . In the paper recently was the news that some airlines in Europe were contemplating giving homosexual couples family fare discounts.

(5) Can a homosexual couple, if they can adopt a ' child, get maternity or paternity leave? After all, women will now be able to call maternity leave a sick leave in order to obtain full salary instead of maternity leave pay. This is just one of the questions that will have to be answered in the future. In closing, I would say that the

section defining harassment as vexatious and unwelcome conduct or comment made on the basis of, among other things, ancestry, religion, age, sex, pregnancy and political belief, is superfluous because these are already protected under the Charter of Rights. My warning is that, in the present trend , we are following in the footsteps of the Holy Roman Empire whose downfall was hastened by the society's practice of homosexuality. I sincerely hope this brief will assist you in your deliberations . Somebody broµght up the subject of prostitution .

A friend of mine told me a delightful little incident that happened to her. She was in the lineup at a Safeway store , and there was a very personable young lady in front of her who went up to the cash register and the two girls looked at each other and the one that was the customer said : "What are you doing here?" The cashier said : " Well , it 's much better than Austin Street ." Thank you . MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? Hearing none, thank you, Una Johnstone . Bertha MacKenzie . MRS. B. MacKENZIE: Mr. Chairman , and members of this committee .

You will notice in my brief that there are a num ber of questions, but these are for rhetor ical reasons only, not for the panel to answer because I know that I am not to ask the panel questions . Civilizations have flourished because of the strength of the family unit, as civilizations have also fallen because of moral decay. By condoning the lifestyle of the homosexual, we are set on destroying the moral fibre of our present -day society. In this present day of so-called civilized and enlightened society, we should

Monday, 13 July, 1987 be aware of the destruction of the earlier societies by moral decay. Where are the leaders of organized religions on this vital issue? We have not heard from any of the leaders, not Archbishop Exner of the Catholic faith, or Rev. Scott, head of the United Church, nor have we heard from the Angl ican Church - I beg to change that because we have heard from a numb er of United Church ministers today, but this was done yesterday, so if you'll correct that on your paper. The only one who we've heard from is an evangelical minister.

My rhetorical question is: Are the organized religions afraid to speak out? Time was when they upheld the morality of their flocks. This is not a political issue, this is really a moral one. And what of the people's party? Are they considering the will of the majority of Manitobans? The majority of Manitobans and the political Opposition have told them that this deviant lifestyle is not acceptable, but they are not listening. Like many have said before me, I do not want to see these people persecuted, nor do I want to see their lifestyle promoted. This Bill 47 must be defeated to save our social structure.

Our moralistic Cabinet Minister says that her first consideration is the welfare of the children. If this is so, how can this government consider allowing children to be brought up in this deviant lifestyle milieu, where these innocent babes would be more likely to be sexually abused? This Bill 47 must be defeated if we are to maintain the family unit which, to date, has been the backbone of our society. The question in my mind is: Why has this minority deviant group been singled out for special consideration? One would almost think it embodied a death wish on the part of the Provincial Government.

I would suggest that perhaps some people, some mem bers of the Legislature, might read Wilder Penfield's book called "Man and His Family." In it, he says: "Times have changed, but basic moral values and codes change little. The codes of behaviour that are taught to children in a good Christian or agnostic or Muslim home are remarkably alike, and the child could be brought up in any type of home as long as it is a nurturing and loving home." Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? Hearin g none, thank you, Ms. MacKenzie. There is a misprint in here. lt should be Jake Durksen , private citizen. Mr. Durks en. MR. J.

DURKSEN: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I have attended over 12 hours of these sessions. You have attended more, I'm sure, and it seems to me that, during these last few hours, there has been more heat than light presented, and that saddens me a bit. Much information, much light, has been given to you. No new light has come across, as far as I can see. lt has been repeated over and over again, so I would like to be very brief and present my case.

I am presenting this statement in opposition to the inclusion or the clause "sexual orientation" in Bill 47 for the following reasons: On e is in the matter of education it is important to us, as parents - and I am a parent with three children 167 -t hat our children be well educated, including the Family Life instruction. Last year our daughter, who was ir. Grade 5, was to have a teacher who, in our opinion, was questionable in terms of her lifestyle. This was the year that Family Life education was to be taught.

We decided to take her and our son out of the public school system and send them to a private school - and by the way, they were not beaten in the private school. Secondly, if Bill 47 were passed the way it stands now, it would eventually mean that employers and organizations such as Big Brothers as well as churches would, by law, be forced to hire homosexuals against their principles and beliefs.

That is the principles of the organizations and the church and thus their rights being take n away. lt seems to me that The Human Rights Code makes everything right until there are no wrongs and I, for one, believe in the absolutes of the Scriptures. If this nation will not heed to the commands of the Scriptures, judgment is the only result and no human court can withstand the judgments of the Divine Court. Lastly, I would just like to clarify one thing.

I am a teacher in the Province of Manitoba and, on Thursday night, I was here and heard the Manitoba Teachers' Society presentation present ing their brief indicating that, at the general meeting of the Society, support of Bill 47 was passed. I could agree with that. it was also indicated that the delegates voted according to the decision of each division but, according to my findings this morning by phone, nothing of the kin d was discussed in our particular division . I didn't hear about it; neither did the people on the council that I spoke to. lt was not discussed at all.

So, in my opinion, it seems to me that the vote taken was an individual vote out of the, I think, 275 or 25 7 delegates that were there at that AGM meeting. So I believe that statement was a bit misleading. So, Mr. Chairman, I stand here as one who is opposed to Bill 47 with the inclusion of that sexual orientation clause. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? Hearing none, thank you, Mr. Durksen. Sid Mander. Tim O' Rourke, private citizen. Mr. O' Rourke has some briefs. MR. T. O'ROURKE: Thank you. The personal identity of an individual human bein g can be premised only on two alternative assumptions.

The British Empiri cists such as David Hume and Ad am Smith, for example, insist that man is defined by his irrationalistic, hedonistic impulses for seeking of pleasure and avoidance of pain or looking after his own desires. Christian ity most emphatically denounces the doctrines of Hume and Smith as the most debased immorality. Christianity insists that the human identity is not located in the sensual appetites, but rather in the individual's divine spark of potential for creative reasoning or in that individual finding the will of God. This defines three different types of personality.

Let the symbol "A" signify perfection of the individual's potential for creative reasoning, and let symbol "B" signify the individual's surrender to irrationalistic,

Monday, 13 July, 1987 hedonistic impulses. This prov ides us with only three possible combi nations. All right. So we have the person in sectio n A who wants the will of God and the person in

section B who doesn't want it. I will illustrate by using Dante's "Divine Comedy" to show the general levels of mankind 's possible deve lopment. Level or combination AA, the man who is after the will of God - that's the human condition of Dante 's paradise ; level AB, the human condition of Dante's purgatory; and level BB, the human condit ion of Dante's inferno. Dante Alighieri, who is an Italian poet , describes 100 degrees or cantos of human progress from the inferno to paradise - also 100 degrees of decadence - with approximately 33 cantos in each of the inferno, purgatory and paradise .

These degrees take into account not only the development of man's rational powers but also the individual 's sense of purpose in developing these powers. Paradise, in Dante's "Inferno," is obtained not merely by the development of reason but by the love of God and the love of His Truth. The essence of morality is the individual's recognition that, at the point of death all memory of sensual pleasures die .

An individual who lives as Adam Smith prescribes, e.g., becomes at least or at best or less than nothing when he or she dies, the moral individual is concerned primarily with that which survives his death, that which is the beneficial consequence of his having lived. Any Canadian citizen who has not violated his oath to uphold the law commits his life to the general welfare of all of our posterity as well as the general welfare of the living . The moral individual is therefore driven to discover the nature of the true good that he might order his personal development of his rational powers accordingly .

If the individual can be assured that his . MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me. Order. The Honourable House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: I'm sorry to interrupt the presenter , but we have our members in the Chamber ready to vote now. Members from the committee need to go in there . So if we can beg your indulgence for about 10 minutes, we'll go and complete the business of the vote and then return back here. Staff will wait here until we return, which should be hopefully within 10 minutes . I apologize for interrupting the brief . (RECESS) MR. CHAIRMAN: We are resuming the proceedings in the committee.

We have ,been hearing presentations from the members of the public . Tim O'Rourke is in the middle of his presentation . Please resume. MR. T. O'ROURKE: Thank you . Should I begin at the beginning? MR. CHAIRMAN: The record , it has been recorded in there already . It will be repetitious. MR. T. O'ROURKE: All right . 168 If the individual can be assured that his personal development is guid ing his actio ns in a manner consistent with the love of the good , the individual walks proudly and happily through life in that degree .

For the moral individual, this is the essence of his personal iden tity, the essence of his or her self-interest. To those who are able to override those contrary hedonistic impulses or those contrary desires which prompt him to violate his self-interest have achieved at least or at best one of the degrees of what Dante represents as paradise. Those who wish that they might live so but are unable to resist contrary hedonistic impulses much of the time are those who inhabit what Dante represents as purgatory .

Those who hate the imperative to do good , those anarchists and existentialists who view this as a denial of the complete freedom to be irrationalistic in service of hedonistic impulses, are inhabitants of the inferno. Satanic evil is that quality of hatred of the good which impels the individual to commit acts not so much in service of hedonism or of his flesh as to violate the principle of goodness sadistically . The lesser degree of this evil is typified by the criminal mind who does personal evil for personal sadistic motives.

The more profound evil is that typified by such a Lucifer­ worshipping man as Aleister Crowley whose motivation was the eradication of the tyranny of the good from this planet . With the 1960's came the introduction of the rock­ sex-drugs counterculture, a culture that wooed many youths from Dante's purgatory into the inferno. First , "rock, recreational drugs and sexual liberation " were promoted as forms of pleasure seeking, tending to drag infected youth down into the inferno by that means alone.

Second, recreational drugs and sexual liberations both involved activities which were either outrightly illegal or which at least were in violent defiance of prevailing morality. A large part of the pleasure taken in these activities came from the excitement of partaking of the forbidden . The R-S-D counterculture is spreading among our pre-mid-life crisis -age generations and becoming more and more explicity satanic as the process continues. But the majority of the Canadian population has not adopted this countercultu re.

Rather, over the course of the years , the majority of the population has adapted itself to toleration of the counterculture as a "legi tim ate political current." The counterculture has been accepted or at least tolerated as an accredited constituency of a pluralistic society. A social contract has been established to this effect within some political parties 1 and within some of the courts . It is the tolerat ion of the counterculture minority by the majority, which is the root of our nation 's loss of the political will to survive .

A cultu ral shift has taken place in our society in the last 20 years from a Judeo-Christian system that believes man can live a life pleasing to God , with His help , to a hedonistic pleasure-seeking , uncaring counte rculture . We must do two things: (1) regard the rock, sex, drugs counterculture as a pandemic disease which it is most fairly described as being ; and (2) regard the Canadian poli tical process as the victim of infecti on with this disease.

We must not only consider the disease itself, but also the inab ility of the political proce ss to immunize itself effectively against this terrible social disease.

Monday, 13 July, 1987 The case of AIDS proves that I and other concerned citizens are not indulging in mere analogy. AIDS is characteristically - I say characteristically - a pandemic form of tropical disease capable of spreading into temperate zones of habitation. However, as if by fluke, it happens that homosexual practices and drug usage are two atypical or not typical conduits through which this disease can spread like wildfire. Neither homosexuality nor recreational use of drugs are behaviour of the human species. They're both inhuman aberrations, not typical or atypical behaviour of human beings.

The counterculture itself is the worst of all infectious diseases. The measure of a nation's moral fitness to survive, even physically survive, is the nation's immunological potential for destroying the attempted infection of its people by the counterculture. In closing, man must change for the good of himself, his nation and God. We must not be like Sodom and Gomorrah and be destroyed. Homosexuality is a perverted lifestyle. it must not be encouraged. Man must change because God will not. God is God simply because of the fact that he doesn't change, so obviously God won't budge. Man has to budge.

This is my belief and I believe that I am accepted by God because of who I am, but the reason that I can stand before God, the only reason, is because I want to change. I realize that God is unchanging and that I must fit into his mold and that God cannot change into 5 billion people's molds because he's only one God. So I must fit into God's mold, and all 5 billion people on this planet must fit into God's mold to find that perfect happiness. If it's wrong, it's wrong. Me, as a heterosexual, if I do something wrong in the sight of God, then I'm doing something wrong and I must change.

This is the whole essence of the thing is that we must be willing to change and agree with what God says and then reap the benefits of it. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any questions? Hearing none, thank you, Mr. O' Rourke. Before we proceed any further, I wish to announce to all the presenters, because of the constraint of time, we would request and urge them strongly to make their point direct and, if possible, self-discipline themselves into five minutes so that we can go through all the presentations. Thank you. Mr. Larry McCrady, private citizen. MR. L. McCRADY: Thank you very much.

I would like to just explain, I am speaking as a private citizen, but also one who has worked in the public school system for 25 years and who takes a great deal of pride in the accomplishments of that system. In that light, I would like to, in a sense, place or put some questions to you. I know you cannot respond, but there are questions I know that I am being asked at the present time by the public I serve in the small rural school division of where I am superintendent of Schools. First of all, Bill 47, as you can see by the number of speakers, has created quite a good discussion.

What I hope does not happen is that for one part that all the bill itself is destroyed. But what I would like to point out here is that Manitoba Education is in the process 169 of developing a unit of work which is to be presented in the fall and this is pertaining to AIDS. We are, in the school system, along with Mani toba Hea lth, cooperating to present this information to the parents and then the students of our school division. In this presentation on AIDS, the homosexuals are designated as a high-risk group.

What I am being asked at this time by parents and board members, if you are required - and I say "if," because I don't really know what is coming yet - to equate a homosexual with that which has been the traditionally accepted lifestyle in our area, what are we really saying to the people? We are saying one thing and then we are saying we are then going to accept something which has been contributing to the spread of AIDS. That question has been placed to me already and people have only been following this in the papers and on the radio.

This concern then is real, and our credibility and your credibility is at stake and we have to deal with it very carefully. I think that is something that so often when we make statements we often forget the people back there in the field. I know that I am in contact with them on a daily basis and I think that is important that you people also get that feedback.

If we are required to teach specific aspects of homosexuality as comparable to the lifestyle of the traditional heterosexual relationship, then will it mean that parents who have misgivings on moral or religious grounds about what their children are exposed to in the public school system, will those same parents demand that we prepare a separate or a tailored curriculum for their children away from what may be suggested? Now this is something that is allowed in the school system. lt is.

If you want to check in the administrative handbooks, we are allowed to modify the programs to meet what we believe are the community norms and expectations. If this happens - and in some of my communities I know very well that the homosexual lifestyle is not acceptable. They have been very specific - very, very clear. Some of the people have spoken and will speak about that. Will we be contravening the Bill 47 if this

section is included on the homosexual? If we do not handle or do not present that on an equal basis just as we present creation/evolution in our system, will we be in a position then of contrave ning that bill? I would hope not, but we don't know because we really haven't been informed to this point. Have those responsible for drafting this Bill 47 talked with the representatives in Education Manitoba, Manitoba Health and in the Attorney-General's office? Is this a joint effort?

Because - and I have to be careful left and right here when you are speaking to a joint committee of this group - sometimes in government, we in the field say that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing or saying, and we have the illus trations of that with examples of new fire regulations when a brand new building is built that they just don't match and we have to make modifications immediately. So there are those things. it's an assurance that we need at this time. In a haste to pass this kind of legislation, is this overriding this consultation? And we would hope not.

I would like to comment further on the Family Life program that was introduced into the Province of

Monday, 13 July, 1987 Manitoba . As you are aware , the Calgary program was brought in, it was then withdrawn - and I give the Minister of Education full credit - and , because of the public outcry, realized that som ething was in this . The program has been redrafte d in spite of what you have heard today . It is acceptable to many people today because of its emphasis on the going away from the idea of the moralless, they felt the moralless cur riculum to one of specifically talking about abstinence and so on.

Adding this other aspect to what may come forward , people are saying well, is this part of a hidden agenda because at one time we were told this whole area of sexuality, now you have this package, you can deal with it, now this is being added to it? There is mistrust and we are having a hard time dealing with that because we don't know in fact where you people are coming from . We have to have some answers as well. We will deal with it as we have in the public system to the best of our ability.

Now public trust is something very important , and I hope to all the members of the Legislature, and I know at this time it is at a bit of a low ebb . I think you will realize that people, once they start to not believe that those who are elected to their office or those who are working for those people are not acting in the public interest do take things into their own hands .

You only have to follow the recent newspaper stories of the Calgary drugstore shooting and what was the result of the court hearings, the subway shooting , if you want to borrow from the States, what people will do, what happened to the jury in the situation. A few years ago, there would have been no question , but what was the answer this time? People have a way, once they say or see that they feel that their governments and the people who are working for the governments are, in their opinion, not listening; they have a way of going around what is put down in writing .

That can mean discrimination , and that is something that we will have to deal with . No law passed will change the attitudes of people in the sense that I have heard here today . It takes time, and people are very capable and very innovative in finding ways to consider a solution to a problem they feel that we are not dealing with correctly .

The final point I would like to make - and this is more of a personal point - I take exception to turning over to the judges of our country almost total responsibility to working out the complex balanci ng that political decisions that are being made in this Legislature and the Canadian House , as well, these political decisions that are placed before society. Justice works very slowly and at times in a very - well, shall we say - strange manner. Some problems take years to get responses. Is this going to happen with this kind of legislation and are we going to be left in limbo for this period of time ?

I would ask that these be considered and I would hope that , with all the expertise that is available in this province and with the very capable leadership that is available, we can come to some decision in that sense. I would t,Jpe that we get those answers soon because the questions are being asked, and I hope the members here have had that opportunity and the people all realize that ther e are a great number of people aski ng questions but are not prepared to come forward at 170 this time because they are looking to ourselves in the school system and you people for those answers .

I hope you are there to be able to answer those questions when they are being asked . Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any questions? The Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: The presenter made reference to the Family Life education curriculum . Would it be satisfactory with you that the AIDS curriculum, which would be part of this program , would remain optional for each school division to decide to opt in or opt out of the program . MR. L. McCRADY: You're asking would the AIDS instruction itself be optional? Is that what you're saying? MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Yes. MR. L.

McGRADY: I, personally, for my family - and I have two boys - want them to be given that information . MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Would you then want any local viewpoints , curriculum adjustments to be made with regard to the particular objectives of your local community? MR. L. McGRADY: Yes, there will have to be in some of our communities. I could point out the reason why we have had situat ions - and remember we're representing small rural area that in one situation we had, because of difference in beliefs, 95 students pulled out of one school at one time.

Now in some of the centres, such as I saw the member for the Morr is constituency , if we were to pull 25 out of the school of the community he lives, because of this kind of issue, we would destroy that school as a viable entity; we'd be down to 25 to 30 students. We take pride in our small rural communities . We work to sup port them, and our board is on record of supporting those small schools . So we would like to try and keep our people together on those issues, if at all possible. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: Do you believe and do you think it is part of your community's belief that each pare nt should have the right to opt out a child even though the curriculum might be acceptable to the school division, but each parent should have the right to opt out? MR. L. McGRADY: That is the policy within our division and I had a hand in helping to develop th at, yes. HON. R. PENNER : Yes, I just wanted to thank Mr. Mccrady for raising some of the questions that he has raised .

Although I'm not permitted, nor could I in every instance, answer the questions , I would invite him, if he chooses to send me - invite anybody else - the questions and if I can answer them, I'll try to. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questi ons? Hearing none, thank you, Mr. Mccrady. Art Cornelso n.

Monday, 13 July, 1987 MR. A. CORNELSON: Mr. Chairman, members of the hearing committee, the proposed Bill 47 as it stands now is of great concern to me and many others, mainly because of the practical consequences that may result from it if passed in the Legislatu re. The bill says specifically that no person shall discriminate in the provision of a service, accommodation, facility, good, right, benefit program or privilege available to the public or a

section of the public. Homosexuals are already protected, both by the Canadian Human Rights Act and provincial Human rights Code. What they want is special recognition of their lifestyles and sexual preference. So it appears that those who wish to add sexual orientation to The Human Rights Code refused the term "equal rights." Instead, they asked that homosexuals receive special status. Were they to obtain this special status, the rest of the public would be discriminated against.

As a Canadian, I believe all Canadians, including homosexuals, should share equally in the privileges of a free and democratic society. I hold the view that homosexual practice is unacceptable and will certainly affect our credibility in our already faltering society. lt further has the potential of criminalizing the behaviour of ordinary people who are applying the ordinary standards of prudence and moral judgment. Therefore, I oppose the passing of Bill 47 as proposed. I'd like to also add to this, I have a concern because of the financial aspect.

Those of you who read Time Magazine will have noted that, in 1986, the government of the United States had an expense bill of something like .5 billion. They are now saying that by 19 91, in just four years, they can expect $37 billion to be spent on medical care, which is a spinoff of the dreadful disease of AIDS. I also talk to you tonight as a school trustee in the public school for six years, and I want to also tell you I appreciate the Minister of Education's effort in keeping our funding limits down. I think this is a benefit to the whole province to cut our expense items.

So it seems kind of ironic to me to cut back in educational services when we want to promote something like this. I simply can't see this connection. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Quest ions? Thank you, Mr. Cornelson. Lorne Bergstresser, private citizen. MR. L. BERGSTRESSER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of this committee, and respected leaders of this province. I thank you for this opportunity to express my thoughts on the proposed legislation included in Bill 47.

I really have very little problem with any of the other proposed legislation in this bill, other than the one item referring to sexual orientation. The so-called experts expr ess many reasons for the relatively higher proportion of our population today engaged in the homosexual lifestyle. These reasons, we have heard many of them today and I am not going to go into them in the interest of conserving time. In many ways, the acceptance of homosexuality is a sign of our times. In our efforts to be broad-minded 171 and tolerant, the dividing lines between levels of morality have become markedly blurred.

The "anything goes" philosophy, whether in the short or long term, always bears its fruit. AIDS is presently the most dramatic harvest of the homosexual lifestyle. By now, you undoubtedly know where I am coming from. That there be no question whatsoever, I believe that the practice of homosexuality is immoral just as heterosexual promiscuity is immoral, but this personal conviction of mine is not the focal point of my concern regarding the proposed legislation. I want that to be perfectly clear. I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuals receiving the same human rights as everyone else.

We live in a pluralistic society and I understand that. Every Manitoban, as a central tenet of his belief system, needs to express and believe in the intrinsic value of every human being and we all deserve the same rights, but I have a probl em with singling out a specific minority for special inclusion in any Charter of Rights. Do we believe, for example, that fat people are included in our bill of rights, in our rights legislation? Of course we do. But because obese people do experience both outright and subtle discrimination, should we therefore mention them specifically in a Charter of Rights?

Are they not already covered? Of course they are! What about the handicapped? Because there has been and probably still is some discrimination against them, should they be mentioned specifically in a bill of rights? No, they are covered. What about our Pakistani population? We all know there is an undercurrent of discrimination against these people and all the many other minorities in our society. Do we give them special status in our Charter? No, they are already covered. They have recourse to the same rights as any one of the rest of us. So why single out sexual orientation?

Homosexuals, too, have recourse to the same human rights legislation as you and I. Should we really not then be looking at including every possible minority group in our Charter of Rights? Aside from lis ting immigrants . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. L. BERGSTRESSER: ... from 150 or more countries, should we not include every other variable? Should we not specify: "There shall be no discrimination against any fat vegetarian homosexual Pakistani paraplegic who wets his bed on alternate Thursdays"? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Yeah, yeah! MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please.

We want to hear the gentleman. MR. L BERGSTRESSER: There is no need to be specific. This specific human being that I mentioned is already covered by existing legislation. If so-called "sexual orientation" is the legitimate basis for any form of discrimination, that human being who is just as

Monday, 13 July, 1987 worthwhile as you and I can already access the courts and have a judgment awarded for or against him. Again, why specifically mention any particular group in a Charter of Rights? All terms in a Charter of Rights have to be generic. Our laws rightfully protect morally neutral characteristics such as race, creed and gender. There is no need to include morality in our Charter. The inclusion of sexual orientation in our Charter would open a whole new drum of worms, the only beneficiaries of which would be lawyers.

For example, what about an adult male who uses juvenile boys and claims that is his sexual preference? Would he or would he not have the full protection of the Charter of Rights? There are lawyers who would love to get their teeth into that one. Will the North American Man Boy Love Association be lobby ing for their group on the basis of sexual orientation? There are many other areas of sexual expression whose proponents may well claim that their particular "orienta tion" should not be discriminated against. I won't go into any detail, we heard lots of that today.

These things may not occur tomorrow, after this legislation is passed, but they will happen down the line. The door has been opened and that door swings only one way. What kind of world do we really want our children and grandchildren to grow up in? There are other implications which somehow seem to escape the attention of many of us, although we can be certain that the lob byists for inclusion of sexual orientation are certainly aware, at least, of them.

With all due respect to the Minister of Education, whom I personally appreciate immensely, there is no way that he or anyone else can guarantee that, down the line, schools will not be pressured to advocate or at least inform students that a homosexual lifestyle is a very normal alternative to heterosexual marriage and lifestyle. This action would obviously affect Christian and many private secular schools where demands are made that teachers maintain strong moral standards.

As a trustee in our public school system, I personally would strongly object to such pressure in an area of our province where the overwhelming majority of our population adheres to traditional Jude o-Christian values. Much has been mentioned about the effect that this legislation may have on Christian churches, synagogues, and other religious groups. The homosexual community could, without or with serious investigation, misconstrue that such teaching by these groups is an attack against them.

Just as the medical profession teaches that smoking is harmful, many Christian groups, on the basis of Scripture as we heard today, teach that homosexuality is harmful. The doctors don't attack the smokers. Christianity teaches love for the sinner. The law isn't broken by doctors teaching that smoking is wrong, nor should the law be considered broken by Ch ristians or any other group teaching that homosexuality is wrong. The law of the land does not presently legisla te against homosexual relationships between consenting adults, nor should it.

But no one group should, by direct or implied force of the law, be pressured into teaching that homosexuality is a normal viable lifestyle, nor should teaching against this lifestyle be construed as discrimination. Volunteer groups and agencies have been mentioned. Four hundred and seventy-five miles down the road, 172 in Minneapolis, 10 years ago this summer, if my memory or my facts serve me correctly, the Big Brothers faced this very problem in Minneapolis. Check the records and you can see what happened. Affirmative action was commanded or judged in this situation.

They had to advertise in the San Francisco newspapers for homosexual males to come to Minneapolis as a form of affirmative action. Hopefully, this would never happen in Manitoba. One of the shortest-term effects of the proposal to include sexual orientation in the Charter would be the legalization of homosexual marriages and, down the line, homosexuals adopting children. Whether we consider such a course is right or wrong, that result must be considered inevitable with this legislation. Mary Smith has lost her husband. She's raising her two children.

In an effort to supplement a rather meagre income, she rents out a basement apartment to a man who she finds out to her chagrin is a practising homosexual. She doesn't wish to have her children so close to that situation and asks the renter to please leave. Discrimination, he charges. Bi11 47 would support his position in English and French, thus trampling all over her rights. Pierre Trudeau, a gentleman whose previous office I deeply respect but with whom unfortunately I seldom agreed, once said government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. In the context of Bill 47, I totally agree with him.

Please look very closely. Those who propose adding sexual orientation to human rights legislation are not looking for equal rights. They are looking to receive special status as a uniquely protected group. I affirm justice and equality for all, including homosexuals. I strongly oppose providing special Charter protection for them. No thoughtful human being, regardless of his sexual orientation, will deny that the growing spectre of AIDS is the end result of homosexual activity. Victims are to be pitied and cared for, albeit at astronomical cost in terms of money and even possibly lives.

Can it be possible that any one of us is so naive as to think that providing special status for homosexuals will not have the effect of legitimizing their actions and even promoting their lifestyles? Who will be benefited tomorrow when seven people think that homosexuality is okay, where only five did today? Who will be benefited when four AIDS victims die tomorrow, when two die today? Who will be benefited when the AIDS epidemic triples rather than doub les within a specified period of time? All at least partially do, to our legitimizing the cause of AIDS in a Charter of Rights.

As school trustees, we repeatedly hear that education is the answer to the AIDS problem. I agree that education is a major weapon against AIDS. But if on one hand we discourage homosexual activity to forestall the spread of AIDS, and on the other hand inform our population that we must accept the homosexual lifestyle as legitimate, we are chasing the horse into a barn with two open doors. We're telling people, to avoid drowning, you must learn to swim. We teach him to swim, he becomes an expert, and then we take him out into the middle of the Pacific Ocean and tell him to walk a plank.

Some would say that the homosexual practices of great civilizations of the past were at least in part, and

Monday, 13 July, 1987 maybe in large part, responsible for their demise. I am not a historian, I can't prove that. Virtually all investigative historians, however, would agree that homosexuality was rampant during the last years of the Greek and Roman empires. lt is a dark mark on human nature that we almost never learn from history. lt would disappoint me immensely to think that the legislators of my home province would give special status - special status - to a practice which closely accompanies the decline of empires.

Ladies and gentlemen of this committee, I submit to you that we do ensure the rights of homosexuals, blacks and Jews, fat people, whites, Hispanics and Hutterites, East Indians and Natives, workers and managers, police officers and victims of crime and criminals, Muslims and Christians, and etc. Within our legal system, we already have all the tools necessary to protect the rights of homosexuals against unfair discrimination.

Let's use those tools effectively without at the same time trampling on the rights of many others to teach and practise their own values which, as we've heard today, many firmly believe are set in place by a power infinitely superior to any government on earth. An issue of such magnitute as the one before you today goes a way beyond - and I use this term advisedly - fickle politics. I urge each one of you to vote according to the dictates of your deepest conscience, giving much thought both to the issue itself as well as to its many ramifications.

No Manitoban will condemn any of you for voting for what you honestly believe is right, even if it means changing your minds or voting against party lines. Sincere thanks for allowing me to express my opinion. I truly appreciate it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? The Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Yes. Mr. Bergstress er, you asked whether any member of the committee has checked the record in the Minneapolis case. Have you? MR. L. BERGSTRESSER: Yes. HON. R. PENNER: You're familiar then with the judgment of the court in Big Brothers Incorporated versus Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights? MR. L.

BERGSTRESSER: No, I'm not. HON. R. PENNER: Are you familiar with the passage, the court looked at the nature of the service being provided by Big Brothers and ruled that the organization could qu estion applicants about their sex ual or affectional preferences and could communicate this information to the parent of the little brother who was then treated to determine whether or not the little brother was to be paired with that applicant? MR. L. BERGSTRESSER: The information that I read on the case did not include the subsequent follow-up to that court action. HON. R. PENNER: I see.

If you're interested, I can give you the citations so you can read it for yourself. 173 MR. L. BERGSTRESSER: I would appreciate that. Thank you. HON. R. PENNER: Secondly, have you read Bill No. 47? MR. L. BERGSTRESSER: Yes, I have. HON. R. PENNER: You've raised the question of Mary Smith, who might have a problem if she rented her basement to someone who turned out to be a homosexual. Are you familiar with

section 16(2): "Subsection (1 )" - that is, discrimination in rental premises- "does not apply to the choice by the occupier of a private residence of a boarder, roomer or tenant for the residence or any part thereof"? MR. L. BERGSTRESSER: Let's not confuse the issue. HON. R. PENNER: No, I'm just dealing with the example that you gave. I'm using the example that Mr. Bergstresser gave, that's all I'm doing. MR. L BERGSTRESSER: I just feel, Mr. Penner, and honourable members, that when we are looking at a situation like this with this kind of legislation, anything can go. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other questions?

May I remind again that the presenters may or may not want to answer questions? That's their privilege. Mr. Bergstresser, thank you very much. MR. L. BERGSTRESSER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: I appeal again to the members of the public. We counted the number of people waiting to be heard, and we have 90 on our list. I appeal again to self-discipline. If they have a brief longer than 5 minut es to read, could they kindly point out the highlights? But that's voluntary. We are appealing to the members of the audience. A MEMBER: They should all be heard, Conrad. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, that's what we're trying to do. MR.

CHAIRMAN: That's what we're trying to do, to hear everyone. Mr. Harry Koop. MR. HARRY KOOP: Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I will take one minute. I am a principal of a school, students K to 12 with 300. All people should certainly receive equal treatment before the law. The schools in our province are expected to give equal opportunity to the rich and the poor, the gifted and the not-so-gifted, the athletic and the handicapped. We do not question the religious belief, nationality or creed of our students.

Our churches and synagogues, etc., differ from schools in that becoming a functional member usually means emb racing certain beliefs. Both school and church forever welcome all to attend and teach universal values such as honesty, mutual respect and acceptance.

.. Monday, 13 July, 1987 The Golden Rule is still generally belie ved to promote cooperation, respect and appreciation of all men. However, accepting a person for what he or she is is not the same as accepting his or her behaviourism. We love our children and the students in our school, therefore we counsel, therefore we teach, therefore we challenge them to choose the best options.

We do not want our children to receive the message that choosing a lifestyle, whether homosexual or heterosexual, is the same as choosing whether to live in Winnipeg or Brandon, is the same as choosing whether to become a teacher or an engineer. We do not want our children to receive the message that a homosexual relationship or a wife and family are two equal options. Our laws already protect individuals as ind ividuals. Equal rights before the taw - yes. Suggesting or promoting homosexuality as a lifestyle that is just as acceptable as a heterosexual lifestyle - no. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions?

Hearing none, thank you, Mr. Koop. f\I!S. Joan Miller, private citizen. MS. J. MILLER: Hello. My name is Joan Mill er. I'd just like to mention that I'm from rural Manitoba and I enjoy the acceptance and friendship of my neighbours who are mostly conservative and Christians. I support sexual orientation being included in the Human Rights Act. I will keep my presentation short. I could talk to you about the discrimination against lesbians and gay men, but the presentations against the bill clearly document the discrimination we face every day of our lives.

I think it's significant to note that, while many presentations have been made both for and against Bill 47, 30 of the presentations in favour were made by organizations, while less than 10 groups presented against. Further, I'd like to repeat a statistic for which I do have a source, which is a Gallup Poll conducted in 1985. Over 70 percent of Ma nitobans support protection from di scrimination based on sexual orientation. Some presenters have focused on the inclusion of orientation in the Human Rights Act as a moral issue. If justice is a moral issue, I agree.

Including sexual orientation gives support to the principle underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that all of us are equal before and under the taw, and have the right to equal protection and benefit of the taw without discrimination. The qu est ion to be decide d is not whether homosexuality is moral but whether it is moral for society to tolerate discrimination against a minority group of its citizens. Including sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act does not confer special rights or privileges on lesbians and gay men. Inclusion simply confers the same rights enjoyed by other Manitobans.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? Hearing none, thank you, Joan Mill er. We can applaud without shouting. Stuart McKelvie. Mr. McKelvie, private citizen. MR. S. McKELVIE: I am here as a private citizen. I'll give some introductory comments while the brief is 174 being passed around. I feel I'm a minority here. I'm a businessman and the only satisfaction I can have in being here is not only did it cost me but it cost the government, because they lost some of the revenue as wel l. I'm also a father and a husband, and come with those credentials and only those credentials.

I believe that Bill 47 is good legislation, but I have some concerns with the inclusion of sexual orientation, which I'll address. The committee, I believe, is very serious about hearing from the public. I was very encouraged in some of the conversations I've had with its members. Marty Dolin was one who encouraged me to stick it out and stay up here. I've had a good experience by being here. I want to preface my remarks by giving you a little bit of background into my personal relationships.

An extremely good friend of mine who passed away on December 6, 1985 from a complication arising from AIDS was a practising homosexual, and that fact did not affect our friendship one bit. I was very grieved to have this happen. I've also had a chance to meet Chris Vogel and find him a very good and interesting gentleman to talk to. He could teach my children almost any subject. I wouldn't have any problem with him in any kind of normal encounters through the community. There is absolutely no fear on my part and, as a matter of fact, Chris, you're welcome to come to our church anytime if you're free to do so.

I'll now refer to the points in the letter, and I'll try to be brief. I' ll have to apologize. I referred to Honourable Roland Penner as the Chair of this Committee. I was unaware that he was not. lt was hard to get the information. I'm concerned about the far-reaching nature and broad scope of subsections 1(c), (

d) and (

e) and because of the lack of conclusive evidence surrounding sexual orientation. I believe it would be unnecessary and could be an irresponsible act to grant special status under the Code for those defined under sexual orientation, which would be heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals. 1t may be expedient to include this in subsection 9(2), but I think the consequences would far outweigh any advantages to expediency.

In my brief, I've outlined just some of the reasons for not including sexual orientation in The Huma n Rig hts Code, and I' ve recommended alternative action steps which could be taken to ameliorate the circumstances where discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has occurred. I first find that sexual orientation is fundamentally different than the other applicable characteristics lis ted on

section 9(2). Sexual orientation is a practice or a behaviour which is chosen intentionally or unintentionally by an individual, and that individual should be afforded and accorded every equality of opportunity with all other individuals. But The Huma n Rights Code is having trouble separating the practice from the individual. I think that by this difficulty it would unintentionall y, as it stands in these sections - again I remind you I'm talking about sections 1(

c) and (

d) and (e) - it can unintentionally result in promoting and furthering sexual practices as defined in the Code and going beyond what is intended by the Code in the first place. I have given an example

Monday, 13 July, 1987 of such legislation, which I will not read. There are two exa