Manitoba Committee Hansard — Public Expenditures Committee, Sitting 2 (33rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

33-2-pe2

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING CO MMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Thursday, 9 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. Cowan, Harapiak (Swan River), Penner Messr s. Birt, Connery, Dolin, Johnston, Maloway, Santos, Smith (EIIice), Mrs. Hammond APPEARING: Mr. Phillip Graham - Oscar Wilde Memorial Society Mr. Rick North - Winnipeg Gay Media Collective Dr. A.E . Millward - The Council on Homosexuality and Religion Mr. Lyle Dick - Project LAMBDA Inc. Mr.

Nick Ternette - Urban Resource Centre Inc. Mr. Abe Arnold - Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties Mr. Harry Peters, Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties Ms. Marilyn Wolovick - Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women Ms. Bonnie MacQueen - Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women Mr. Edward Lipsett - Private Citizen Mr. Peter Williams - The United Church of Canada; The Conference of Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario Mrs. Audrey McLennan - The United Church of Canada; The Conference of Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario Ms. Judy Tozeland - Manitoba Ass'n of Social Workers Mr.

David Swan - AFFIRM Mrs. Betty Gross - Private Citizen Mr. Horst Backe - Winnipeg Gay Community Health Ctr. Inc. Ms. Mona Brown- Manitoba Ass'n of Women and the Law Mr. Darryl Kippen - Private Citizen Ms. Bev Suek - Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women Ms. Judy Balabas - Manitoba Teachers' Society Mr. Glen Murray and Mr. Ron Harris - Village Clinic 20 Mr. Waiter Buchko - Private Citizen Ms. Judy Hill - Klinic Community Health Centre Ms. Shirley Tervo - Klinic Community Health Centre Ms. Susan Smiel - Univ. of Wpg. Women's Centre Ms. Chi Emerawa - Univ. of Wpg. Students' Association Mr.

Mark Hughes - Private Citizen Ms. Shellyse Szakacs - U. of M. Womyn Centre Ms. Manuela Dias - U. of M. Women's Studies Association Mr. Jake Bergen - Private Citizen Mr. Ron MacLean - Private Citizen Mr. Eric Anderson - Private Citizen Mr. John Dean - Private Citizen Mr. Davie MacLean - Private Citizen Mrs. Ethel Beck - The Lydia Fellowship Inc. of Canada Mr. Michel Aquin - Private Citizen Mr. Kelly Stephens - Private Citizen Mr. Peter Hagenlocher - Private Citizen Mr. Rick Schmidt - Private Citizen Ms. Kathy Hanan - Private Citizen Mr. Ken Delisle - Dignity Winnipeg Mrs. Anne MacLean - Private Citizen Mr.

Jonathan Much - Private Citizen Mr. David Neufeld - Private Citizen Mr. Wayne Charski - Private Citizen Mr. John Neufeld - Private Citizen Mr. Reinhard Neufeld - Private Citizen Ms. Rhoda Neufeld - Private Citizen Mr. Karl Neufeld - Private Citizen Mrs. Eva Stephens - Private Citizen Dr. J.R.M. Smith - Private Citizen MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill No. 47 - The Human Rights Code; Code des droits de la Personne MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee, please come to order. The next presenter will be Mr. Phillip Graham, representing Oscar Wilde Memorial Society. MR. R GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, I'm very happy at last to be able to advocate inclusion of sexual orientation

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 in The Manitoba Human Rights Act. I believe it is going to be amended to exclude that little bit about consenting adults because of course, as has been presented before, we often identify ourselves as being homosexual long before we've had any sexual gratification, as Mr. Green has put it. I am representing the Oscar Wilde Memorial Society which operates a private club for gay people and their friends, their family, and it is open to all their friends and family of any age and any sexual orientation, I should say.

I'm going to give a little bit of history of how we have come this far so slowly. We made our first presentation to the government back in 1974. Now the first social gay clubs, I guess, were organized in 1971, and it was a private club mainly for the entertainment of its members. They had no gay liberation spirit because most of them were professional people and were too afraid to come out in case they may lose their jobs. I was a gay farm boy from the country. I was brought up in a very religious area and I guess you can imagine the difficulties I had equating my homosexuality with what I read in the Bible.

In fact, I didn't even know homosexuality existed until I read it in the Bible. I thought it was kind of neat when I read Leviticus because nobody else obeyed anything else that was said in Leviticus, so I didn't think there was any harm in my beliefs. However, I soon found out that was in the contrary from the attitude of people. Everybody has concentrated on homosexual orientation, but we must also remember that it's also an affectional orientation. I remember, at 14, I felt a great love, a great needing to be close to my male friends. I hung around them a lot, I wanted to be close to them.

They did not know I was gay. I got a great deal of satisfaction in being with them and discussing their ideas, their beliefs, what they did. I was a good friend and, in many cases, I have continued to be a good friend. They had absolutely no idea I was gay. The area I come from, which is in the Virden area, I have subsequently found there are of course other gay farm men and women who I have now met in the various gay establishments in the city. Just pointing that out and being that this might be reported in the media, people back home may think, who are they.

They'll probably not know who they are and, if they have any suspicions who may be or who may not be gay, because of this, this legislation will not only protect gay people but will protect people who other people may suspect may be gay. A friend of mine had a social, a wedding social, the other day at the Concord. One of his friends went to the washroom there and he was beaten up because people thought he was gay. So this legislation will not only protect gay people, it will protect the friends with whom I associate. I am proud to associate with many straight colleagues and friends.

Our gay establishment is open to our parents, our relatives and our friends. We want this legislation to protect them, as well. Because they attend that place somebody will say, oh, look at so-and-so going in there. They may be gay, which is not necessarily true. Now I graduated in agriculture the same time as Mr. Downey, Jack Murta, Felix Holtmann. I know these people; I do not know their attitudes. I do know Mr. Downey's attitude toward the situation, at least as 21 reported to me. I'd have to hear him report it directly before I would make any judgment. I was on the executive of the student council.

I performed my duties well, was well liked in the faculty. People, of course, were later surprised I was gay but then, when I said my major was horticulture, there was a snicker. Now, that snicker indicates that people do have some prejudice, some foregone conclusions of the occupations gay people may be in, because there are certain occupations, they say, well, you know, so what if this guy's in this type of occupation. That means he might be gay.

Our legislation also has to protect people in all occupations, whether it's those that people may be in, where gayness might be more accepted, or in those occupations where gayness is not accepted at all. I think that's a very important point. So we're not just protecting ourselves. We're protecting our friends, we're protecting our other workers who may be in the same occupation as we. I do not want my friends to be discriminated against because they happen to know me. So we have to change the mindset of the people in the province and, of course, across the country.

We do this first by introducing this legislation, just to kind of educate the people that it is not okay to discriminate against gay people. Now, I did not get into this gay liberation thing easily. I was in the closet. I had the very similar attitudes toward gayness as some of the members of the legislation. I was very negative against it because that was the type of community I was brought up in. I began to hate myself. By the time I was in my mid-20's, I was at the point of considering suicide because I did not think I would be accepted as a gay person.

I could not relate to my friends, which I was very close to. I've always been close to my male friends but I thought, if they knew I was a fag, they would not like me. They would reject me. Well, fortunately, in 1969, I got involved with a gay liberation group at the University of Minnesota. After I graduated from the University of Manitoba, I took my Master's in Horticultural Science at the University of Minnesota and, very reluctantly at first, joined a gay organization, because I was scared. That did give me the courage to go and tell some of my straight friends that I was gay.

Fortunately - and I think many people have experienced this - they said, it doesn't really make any difference to them. Then I got a little bit gung-ho in this gay liberation bit and started running around with Gay Pride buttons and things like that. That did upset them because they were afraid of what other people may think of them. I said, well, you're only feeling some of the fears that I have felt for years. Our organization - we had kind of a counselling organization at the University oi Minnesota, which encouraged gay people at the appropriate time to let their parents know that they were gay.

The appropriate time is when you're feeling comfortable about being gay yourself, that you have the economic background, you have the emotional stability or the emotional strength to take the possibility of immediate or sometimes a short-term rejection by parents. I do not expect people to accept within a few hours my sexual orientation which took me 26 years to accept, that's how long. So it takes a little while for some o1 f f

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 my friends to turn around and accept me as a gay person. However, I was surprised, in most instances, how quickly this change came. This has borne out, with only a few exceptions, that most of the people I have known well before have accepted me, but that does not protect me from people I do not know well - people like landlords, people who may be my potential employers. These are people I did not know before. They only see that I may be gay. Now I am taking considerable risk, of course, appearing here, being unemployed, looking for a job, being in the public eye.

I may be discriminated against and I have been, being gay. In one case, I applied for a job in horticulture and, in one of the letters of references, a person also included that I was gay, which had nothing to do with the position whatsoever. If this legislation went through, that written record could not have been made. That written record is probably still in the files at the personnel department in Alberta. So this type of legislation will keep that type of record from being put in anybody's permanent file.

Now, I felt so good about coming out in Minnesota, of course, I came home and told my parents. lt was no big hassle. In fact, I was a little bit disappointed. My mother got more reaction when my sister came home and said she had to get married. But sometimes I'm disappointed at the reaction, I expected more than there is. That just shows that most people can accept it. If my parents can accept it, I think a lot of other people can. Anyway, when I got to the University of Manitoba - gay liberation was a big thing in the States - I helped bring the gay liberation movement onto campus at the University of Minnesota.

I came back here, there was no organization in Manitoba as yet. There were some organizations in Ontario, and the Counselling Department had some literature from the Ontario organizations. I approached Gordon Toombs, who was a counsellor there, and Mac Watch, who was a chaplain there, and he said, yes. there is a need for gay liberation. Well, he said, for a group - they didn't call it gay liberation, they weren't ready for that yet - for a group of gay students at the University of Manitoba, because they've had people approach them - I'm gay, I'm troubled about it, I don't know where to meet other gay people.

I don't like the gay scene as it was then, which was explore the bars and sleazy places to meet. So we formed our organization and, if you want to blame anybody for the gay liberation movement, you can first blame me. I started it. I'm not the main person who built it up; I initiated it. But anyway, we started an organization and many others very quickly became involved, some at considerable risk to their employment, especially a captain in the Air Force, who participated quite actively in our organization.

Now, there's one thing we advocated right from the beginning was the inclusion of sexual orientation in The Human Rights Codes of the Province of Manitoba, of the country, in union contracts. In some cases, we have been successful, and other cases we are awaiting success. Our organization first built up from that, and it has branched out into many organizations and many representations from which you have heard from already today and from which you will hear more.

I was very pleased to hear the quality of presentations of the people who presented on our behalf. 1t fills me 22 with pride that this has happened, all hough it has taken some time, because it was true when the people wrr1 first came to our organization said you can't changi things overnight. What good are you going to do us? In a way it was true. We could not change things overnight. We're still awaiting legislation, but we have changed a lot. When I first entered the gay scene, we could not be mentioned on radio until after ten o'clock at night.

I was on the John Harvard Show and the Peter Warren Show in '72, but it could not be mentioned. We could not say that the gay lifestyle was a good one. lt was, from our point of view, equal or could be equal to any other lifestyle. I say it could be equal because, until we get sexual orientation included in the Human Rights Act, it cannot be equal because a lot of people are too afraid to admit, let alone to themselves, to their parents, to their friends that they are gay. Now what has this got to do with the Oscar Wilde Memorial Society?

We established an organization before this one called Project LAMBDA, which was to raise funds to establish a gay community centre. We felt that there were not enough services offered to gay people, giving them support. We first started counselling services through GF E, which Chris has already elaborated on, but we felt that we needed a community. The gay scene does make a small community out of a large one, but we wanted a place where gay people and their friends, straight or gay, and their parents and kids could meet in comfort. So we began to accumulate funds in order to establish this organization.

Then, the Oscar Wilde Memorial Society was created to manage the community centre. The Project Lambda has gone on to other activities. The Oscar Wilde Memorial Society was established in 1980. We established our facility, which was a restaurant, a licensed club, library, counselling services, counselling line, and with referral services to health and legal services. We were forced to move to our present location where we did lose our restaurant which a lot of people did enjoy, because they'd come there for a meal.

People would come to the meal, straight or gay, because we had many straight friends who have been at that facility to enjoy our meals. We still have a gay club. lt serves short-order food, it's a licensed premises. 1t does have a library, for which we have reference books which are open to anybody who wishes to use them and guarantee the return of the books. We support other organizations.

Instead of the money of private bars just going into the owner's pocket, our profits go back into the community in this form of various services, whether it's increasing the library, whether it's supporting the other organizations, such as Gay Youth Counselling and Homosexuality in Religion, or other national private funds, which we do donate to, so any profit goes to that. So the people who are spending money at that place can rest assured that any profit being made goes back into the community and serves the community.

I must say the other gay club does also contribute to the gay community, although they are a closed club. That is, they do not like other people in there who are not gay, although that does not stop straight people from going there if they wish to declare that. These new rights may be of some problem to them. I covered the facilities of the organization. lth ho n ge

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 Now I think we have to pick up on what this human rights includes. I see three different areas in human rights. First is segregation. Segregation means separate. In a way, we have been self-segregated and, in a way, we still are, because we are offering services to our members which, by rights, should be offered by society as a whole. But because we have not been able to get proper services from the rest of society, we have set up our own at very little expense to the provincial Treasury. They have helped, on occasion, on some of our forums.

I'm not saying they haven't; we're thankful in any help they have provided. They also helped with some of our literature, which we dispersed earlier in the Seventies, early Seventies. Now segregation, we hope segregation can end. lt may not always totally end, because gay people may wish to associate with gay people in certain situations. Now there's also another part of it is prejudice. Prejudice means pre-judging. That's pre-judging the type of people we are. We are all types of people. Some of us do fit the stereotypes; most of us do not.

I have been a victim of prejudice, both as a gay person and of course as a blind person, because everybody has some ideas what blind people can and cannot do. I will get back to the comparison a little bit later. There is also discrimination. Now discrimination means I don't like you because of the way you are. lt may not be based on prejudice. They may know that I can perform my duties well, but just because of very many beliefs. That is the one that's hardest to deal with.

That says, I don't want you living in my apartment because you're gay, not because they have a prejudice, just because of plain discrimination based on maybe personal beliefs. As I said, I have been discriminated against as a gay person and as a blind person. I would do anything to get my eyesight back and eliminate that part of prejudice against blind people, although I would certainly continue to fight for the rights of the handicapped. I would not do anything to change my sexual orientation; I like it. I believe it's equal, from my viewpoint , to any alternative lifestyle.

But my life would be much more effective, and those of my gay brothers and sisters if we had sexual orientation included in the Manitoba human rights. lt would start changing the person's mindset. lt would end the devaluation of our relationships. If I meet a guy who I think is neat, I want to introduce that person to my community and to my friends. Many of my friends, who I have an affection for, are straight. Some are gay, many are straight. Just because they are straight or gay does not mean that I may not feel a very deep closeness to them. I have maintained these close relationships over many, many years.

I've had one guy lived with me for seven years - perfectly straight. 1t has been a beautiful relationship. I just hope that relationship does not jeopardize his chance at getting a job because he chose to be friends with me. I want to change the minds of people to saying that homosexuality is okay. lt should make no difference in jobs, in housing, so that both gay people and their friends, that friends of gay people should not have any fear of associating with other gay people because their job also would not be in jeopardy.

We want to have our lifestyle recognized as a one of value. 23 Remember, I said it's also an affectional relationship. My sexual orientation was well established long before I had any personal sexual experience. I was a homosexual, as I now realize, at age of puberty or shortly thereaft er. Now, I think I've come to most of the points I wanted to cover. What I have covered does not exactly cover what's in the brief because you can read it. I'm not that fast at braille yet, because I've only recently lost my eyesight and just have kind of headlines here in braille in front of me.

In conclusion, I have found in the population that I have been well accepted, even the rural areas of Manitoba where many of our Conservative members do come from. I know gay people from small towns all over Manitoba. Unfortunately, some of them feel that they have to move out of those areas to come into Winnipeg; some do not want to. There are even a few gay farmers which we do meet in the city, on occasion, when they can get away from their occupation. lt is very uncomfortable for some of them out there because most of them are not out and they are afraid of what the reaction of the community may be.

But what is more fearful is those people who already have jobs especially in those occupations such as teaching, the Armed Forces, in churches, just because certain organizations, church organizatons - and I can name even fundamentalist ones - do have gay members in their church, who may be actively participating in church activities such as choir, laypeople in that church. They find it very difficult to reconcile the attitudes, especially of the more fundamentalist church, and their homosexuality because they do want to have a relationship equal before God.

They would like to have - and if they have a strong belief in God - to have them recognize their affection for a fellow person of the same sex. We want, of course, equal treatment under the law, not special treatment. We want to be able to redress any grievances we have, if we feel that we have been discriminated against in a job with an unnecessary firing because somebody has found out that we were gay. We have been booted out of our residence because the landlord does not want gay people in the residence. This may become more important with the recent increase in homophobia because of AIDS.

I'm sure this won't last long because, as you know, this affliction is spreading rapidly through the straight community, unfortunately. But anyway, we want equal treatment under the law, not special treatment. Equal treatment does mean that, if I have a person who is in a special relation to me, I want to be able to leave him, in a will, my property. I would like that so it's uncontested that he can inherit that without paying exorbitant inheritance tax as a non-relative would.

If I establish a relationship - I don't know who might be the senior working partner - that I would be the recipient or he'd be the recipient of special benefits, as resulting of either of our employment. Retirement benefits, that could be very important because, as a gay person, I maybe dedicate my life to another person, just the same as a straight person may dedicate their life to another person. They can receive benefits. If I do that, I cannot receive the same benefits as a spouse in a heterosexual marriage. Now some people have asked why do people . . .

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. There are 75 people on the list. MR. P. GRAHAM: Okay, I will just conclude that, as an organization that caters to both gay and straight people, we need this protection, not only for gay people but also for those who are our friends and who affiliate with us. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? Hearing none, we thank Mr. Phillip Graham. May I request all presenters on the rule of consideration for others that their presentation be long enough to be relevant, short enough to be interesting? There are 75 people and we want everybody to have an opportunity.

We are ready to stay here until the wee hours of the morning, if necessary. Mr. Rick North, representing the Winnipeg Gay Media Collective, is the next presenter. � MR. R. NORTH: I'm representing tonight the Winnipeg Gay Media Collective, but many of you are familiar faces to me. There are a few new faces but, in a way, it feels a little bit like coming home for me. I think I'd like to start out by reading a couple of excerpts from the brief. The first

section in the brief is a short description of the organization that I represent and what it does. The Winnipeg Gay Media Collective is an organization of gay men and women, which produces regular radio and television broadcasting and audio-visual educational materials on topics relating to homosexual persons. The Collective began the production of a weekly radio program in 1977, which was followed by weekly Cable television programming since 1980. In total, we have produced and aired nearly 500 broadcasts.

In addition, we have cooperated with other broadcasters, including the CBC, in the production of special programming for their use. We offer a wide range of educational materials on homosexuality in video and audio formats, both derived from our weekly progr amming and also � developed specifically for educational purposes. Our , objective is to provide to both gay and non-gay people an accurate and complete impression of the lives of homosexual men and women. Now I'd like to skip to the end of the brief and simply read the concluding

section in the section, "Our Observations," and then "Our Conclusion."

Section (e), because the Manitoba Human Rights Act exists and, more importantl y, because it enumerates prohibited grounds of discrimination, a failure or refusal to include sexual orientation specifically authorizes continued persecution of and discrimination against Manitobans who are homosexual. This addition of the act was composed in the midst of the debate about the social status of homosexual persons. At each stage of the development of this legislation, it was proposed that sexual orientation be added.

In other words, ample opportunity and prompting has occurred to permit the inclusion of protection against sexual orientation discrimination. Since sexual orientation was self-evidently not included heretofore in the act, it is evident that Manitoba's legislators did not mean to include it. The conclusion 24 which is drawn from this, by reasonable persons, is that sexual orientation discrimination is permitted bv nothing less than the province's chief si :ter>1ent agair: st discrimination.

The same conclusion will be drawn trom a new act if it is not passed with sexual orientation included among the prohibited grounds for discrimination. The Government of Manitoba will have sent a clear signal that the traditional and habitual contempt felt towards homosexuals is endorsed, and that discrimination against us is approved, having been by your very proceedings, considered and authorized.

Our conclusion and our recommendation: We conclude from all this that there is no good reason to oppose and much to require the provision of protection against civil rights abuse for Manitobans who are homosexual, and that can only be accomplished by adding sexual orientation to the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Manitoba Human Rights Act. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there questions for Mr. North? MR. R. NORTH: I had a few points that I wanted to make in addition to the brief itself.

In considering this legislation, the Opposition arguments have always begun, we're not opposed to discrimination, but including sexual orientation as prohibited grounds means that the legislation gives special status to this particular segment of the population. lt somehow will make homosexuals a legitimate minority group. Somehow it makes homosexuality an equivalent lifestyle or that it will make homosexuality acceptable. That has been the thrust of the argument. lt seems that nobody is opposed to the protection of people, for whatever reason, from discrimination.

Now it seems to me that, if that's the position of all of the members of the Legislature, there's no reason why they would object to the passage of this legislation. That's all it does. If the legislators would simply stop at that point, saying we're opposed to discrimination and refrain from going into all of their conjecture about what protecting the human rights of this minority group might entail, then the legislation would proceed as it should. Unfortunately, the Opposition has introduced a whole lot of arguments about what might happen if sexual orientation is added to the Human Rights Act.

Now these arguments are not specific to sexual orientation. They are equally applicable to any other prohibited ground in the legislation. For instance, consider sex. lt might very well have been argued that, by including sex in the Manitoba Human Rights Act, it is going to make it a lot easier for women to enter the labour force to the extent that you decrease discrimination against women in the labour force. lt makes it a lot easier for them to get jobs.

Now that might result in a lot of women who might have stayed at home and raised their children and spent that time in motherhood pursuits, utilizing day care and getting jobs. That's a kind of lifestyle factor that could be considered to be a result of protecting the human rights of women in regard to equal access to employment. Similarly, marital status, you might have argued when marital status was included, well this is going to mean that people who are divorced have an equal status with ion by state nst

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 people who are married. lt constitutes a kind of condoning of divorce, and that's against many people's religious and moral beliefs. The Catholic Church doesn't recognize divorce. If you're going to utilize the Human Rights Act to enshrine a particular moral code, then you should be consistent. Marital status shouldn't be in there if you think that The Human Rights Code should follow the religious beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church for instance.

Now the question of whether or not providing simple recourse in cases of discrimination is going to lead to greater acceptance, that is an extremely kind of vague argument. it's obviously the case that, to the extent that you remove taboos or sanctions against something, people are going to feel less threatened. lt was said that, until recently, there were no homosexuals in Red China, a country of - what is it? - 700 million people. The penalty for homosexuality was death in Red China. Obviously, you weren't going to be open about being homosexual in that sort of situation.

Similarly, you might have argued in 1969, when homosexual acts were decriminalized, this is just the foot in the door. If we decriminalize these acts, what's going to happen next? it's going to undermine the entire moral order. lt is the case, it seems to me - and we would be misrepresenting the situation if we claimed that when people are no longer in fear of losing their jobs or being evicted from their housing - that they are not going to be as covert about being homosexual. They're not going to live the hypocritical lives that they have had to until this point.

To that extent, to the extent that you have removed one of the sanctions against being a homosexual in our society, people are going to be more open about themselves. My experience in my life has been that, while at first for my family and friends it was difficult, they're extremely supportive now. I have a large extended family all through rural Manitoba, and they've been terrific - extremely supportive. They have accepted me in a way that they couldn't at the start.

I believe that the extent to which people are open about being homosexual, people will come to understand that they are not destructive, that their acceptance in families and so on is not going to represent any kind of undermining of the social order, and so there will be a growing acceptance. But that was the case with all of the other prohibited grounds.

Political belief - it could have been argued that if you remove the sanction against , well, Communism and Nazism, are the obvious political beliefs that have been persecuted in our society, that people are going to feel freer to be Communists or Nazis and they're going to feel freer about expressing their opinions. To a certain extent, that's true, but the point is we live in a pluralistic society in which it's accepted that there is not a monolithic social order.

The people have the right within the parameters of the criminal law to choose how to live their lives so that, by providing simple basic protection in employment, housing and accommodation of public services, it may result in more openness. But quite frankly, my belief is that these kinds of ordinances make very little difference. If you look in 25 other cities and particularly in the United States, some of the most powerful gay communities exist in places which still don't have any kind of human rights protection.

The gay movement, the kind of emergence of a gay community in society, it's happening quite independent of changes in law, and I don't think this is going to have much influence at all in terms of what happens. What it will do is simply provide individual people · with some kind of recourse when they experience discrimination. When someone is fired from their job, they'll be able to go to the Human Rights Commission, make a complaint and the commission will have some kind of jurisdiction to investigate that complaint.

All of this other speculation about endorsing homosexual marriages or teaching it in the schools, I mean this is just a lot of nonsense. lt has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of human rights legislation or the intent of including sexual orientation. Sexual orientation will do nothing more nor less than give people, when they're fired from their jobs, some kind of recourse.

I would just like to conclude by reading a few pieces of evidence which indicate that currently there is no protection from discrimination and that, if it is in fact the case that you believe discrimination is wrong, then I think you're under an obligation to do something about it. When you express your concerns, you should have some concern about discrimination which is going to go unaddressed unless you add specific reference to the act, and I would just like to read these pieces of evidence.

In 1974, there was a story in the paper about a case in which a printer refused to print a pamphlet which was submitted by a homosexual group. "Jim White, Manitoba's chief human rights officer, said yesterday, 'Unfortunately there is nothing in the act that covers the people in that movement. As a group they have no protection.' He said that sometimes he can do something for individual cases, but there is nothing that legally protects homosexuals from discrimination; they're going to have to push the public for it." That was 1974.

In 1976, at that time Harvey Motz was the executive director of the commission, and he stated: "At present, cases involving homosexuals are termed 'b' cases, and the legislation gives the commission no power to prohibit discrimination against homosexuals." Another case, the headline is, "Not illegal to deny jobs to homosexuals - judge." This was actually a story about a case in Saskatchewan. "Denying employment on the basis of homosexuality or sexual orientation cannot be interpreted as sex discrimination under the Saskatchewan Fair Employment Practices Act, Justice Johnson ruled." Mr.

Justice Johnson held that the provision of the act prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sex would generally be considered to be about whether the person in question was a man or a woman, not on the basis of sexual orientation. A letter from The Human Rights Commission to Gays for Equality - Gays for Equality had complained about a case of discrimination. it's Harry Monk, a human rights development councillor, and he writes: "As you indicated quite correctly in your letter, Mr. Struther's complaint cannot be processed by the commission at this time because sexual orientation has not yet been

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 included among the prohibited grounds for discrimination contained in

section 6(1), which of course deals with employment practices." And then of course, the case in 1983 which has provided the Opposition with a lot of fuel for their fire, about the Rothstein decision, the extension of spousal benefits to the partners of homosexual employees, "Gay civil servant loses benefits battle." The ruling said that the denial of dental benefits is because of Vogel's sexual preference, not his gender, but because there is no reference to sexual orientation under The Human Rights Act. Adjudicator Marshal!

Rothstein said he could not rule on whether Vogel was being discriminated against because he is homosexual. I would like to read from that judgment: "There is no expressed reference to sexual orientation as a basis on which discrimination is prohibited under

section 6. The absence of such words suggests that the intent of the Legislature was not to cover sexual orientation as prohibited grounds of discrimination. Had that been � its intention, there has been ample opportunity for the ' Manitoba Legislature to amend the Manitoba Human Rights Act to cover homosexuality or sexual orientation, and its failure to do so confirms that it did not so intend.

To hold that the Manitoba Human Rights Act covers homosexuality or sexual orientation would be to legislate in an area that Legislature did not intend." So it's very clear that there is no protection under the current act and that, if you believe discrimination is wrong, then you have an obligation to provide some reference in the act which will provide protection for discrimination on this ground. One other little thing I would like to finish up with, you seem to be very concerned about spousal benefits.

Well, I'm the spouse in question and I can tell you my teeth are fine and I'm perfectly prepared to go without any benefits under the employee benefit plan. providing that we don't have to pay for benefits that we don't receive. If Chris receives some kind of rebate for benefits that are systematically denied to him, then there's no issue as far as we're concerned. For us, it's a simple example of discrimination, systematic denial of benefits which are provided to other employees for which we must pay equally.

The issue for us is fair treatment and the argument that we're seeking some sort of special status is, in our opinion, nonsense. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there questions for clarification? Hearing none, thank you, Mr. North. MR. R. NORTH: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The next presenter will be Dr. A.E. Millward, representing the Council on Homosexuality and Religion. Dr. Millward. DR. A. MILLWARD: Mr.

Chairman, members of the committee, the Council on Homosexuality and Religion is a Manitoba based non-profit organization founded in 1976 with a membership comprising both individuals and religious and social service agencies. Our primary object is, through the dissemination of information, to eliminate the unwarranted prejudice 26 against homosexual persons, specifically in the religious context. · The work of the Council brings us into contact and communication with individuals and organizations far more numerous and varied than our own membership.

We are enabled to become familiar with the circumstances and experiences of many homosexual women and men, and with the attitudes and perplexities of many non-homosexual persons. Our intermediary function thus gives us an unusually balanced insight into the diverse factors at work in the interaction between the lesbian/gay community and society at large. The Council supports the amending of The Manitoba Human Rights Act so as to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

We note that this prohibition has been enacted in the Provinces of Quebec, Ontario and in the Yukon Territory, and has been proposed for inclusion in the federal act upon the recommendation of the House of Commons Committee on Equality Rights. We believe that sexual orientation needs to be named explicitly in human rights legislation, because it has been amply demonstrated that neither the general provisions of such legislation nor any present specific categories afford protection to sexual minorities.

We believe that it ought to be named explicitly because the minority sexual orientations are, at present, exposed to discriminatory acts which are not justified through any social harm inherent in the orientations as such. There ought not to be but there is still need to emphasize that, in seeking this protection, the minority sexual orientations are not seeking to be protected against the consequences of wrongdoing, of law breaking, of incompetence or of any penalized disability. This suspicion is not raised when other protected categories are under scrutiny.

That it is raised in the case of minority sexual orientations is a measure of the prejudice which needs to be curtailed and eradicated. Legal protection does not eradicate prejudice, but it can curtail the manifestations of prejudice, while public education works at eradicating the prejudice itself. lt appears to us that, on each side of this controversy, there are two main categories of argument.

For us who urge the amendment of the act, there is first the fact of discriminatory acts which would not have taken place or which would have been reversed if sexual minorities were already protected; and secondly, the expectation of discrimination which presently beclouds the lives of all those belonging to a sexual minority.

For those who oppose the amendment, there is first the belief that the encouragement which would thus be given to the sexual minorities would lead to several specific deplorable social consequences; and secondly, the fear that any attempt to protect these minorities will divide and damage the social fabric.

To make an adequate examination of these four categories would require treatises far exceeding the scope of this brief, but we think it useful to comment upon them. 1t has become commonplace for the opponents of the amendment to assert that anything which could be taken to legitimize minority sexuality will contribute to the disintegration, rather than to the affirmation of the family unit, which is seen both as the characteristic unit of our society and as the necessary source and defence of whatever is valued by our society.

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 In the view of the Council, the open acceptance of homosexual persons holds no threat at all to the family structure, nor to anything else valued by and valuable to Canadian society. The encouragement of self-disclosure which legal protection would give, would not, could not increase the number of homosexual persons, but it would enable all that number to make a more integrated contribution to society. lt would not reduce the number of homosexual persons living in family units.

Rather it would increase the number living in units less liable to fracture, because less strained by sexual imcompatability or by social hostility. One factor contributing to family disintegration is the ignorance of individuals about the nature of sexuality, and about the sexual characteristic which make for family stability. This ignorance will continue until openness about sexual diversity is encouraged by prohibiting discrimination. In general, it may be said that homosexuals grow up imbibing the values of the heterosexual majority surrounding them.

To the extent that those values are embodied in forms made inaccessible to a homosexual, for example, present marriage forms, the homosexual is bound to be critical of the forms and may seem, in criticizing the forms, to be criticizing the values. Wh en homosexuals are free to create forms for themselves, the forms remain embodiments of the values they have learned from their society.

Again, it is asserted the children will suffer if sexual minorities are freed from constraint. lt is asserted that they will suffer either directly, through physicial molestation or through being seduced into joining a minority, or through coming to believe that members of these minorities can be suitable role models. None of these is a substantial argument.

Human rights protection is not a protection against infractions of the law. lt is amply documented that child molesters are proportionally as insignificant among sexual minorities as among the sexual majority. lt is amply documented that whatever goes into the making of a member of a sexual minority, the most negligible element is solicitation by an older member. lt is a strange comment upon our society if we want to shield our children from persons different from themselves for fear that they might see something admirable in those persons.

On the other hand, children are among the victims of the present discrimination. If they belong to the sexual majority, they learn an intolerance which is harmful to themselves and to others. If they belong to a sexual minority, they learn an unwarranted and crippling shame of their own nature. If they have a parent belonging to a minority, they are liable both to the pain of a divided home and to the ridicule of their innocently ignorant peers. A beginning of alleviating all these regrettable situations lies in amending the act.

Again it is argued that members of the sexual majority ought not, because of legislative provision, to have to tolerate the open presence of sexual minorities on their property, in their businesses. They seek to retain the same kind of freedom as is cherished by the whites of South Africa and of the southern States. All of us, to be sure, would prefer to be free from whatever happens to grate upon us. The law gives all of us a measure of that freedom, but it must also set limits upon it. 27 Those who oppose the amendment hold over our heads the threat of the rending of the social fabric.

In the experience of the Council, this concern arises among religionists and politicians. In each group, there are those who have been persuaded that this amendment is both needed and just, but who recognize also that they have colleagues and constituents who are so rootedly opposed that they would rather rend the institution, parish or party than agree to this amendment. Consequently, the advocates of reform go as far as making statements supporting the amendment, but stop short of taking any active measures. (Mr. Deputy Chairman, M.

Dolin, in the Chair.) In our view, if those who assume a responsibility for the welfare of their people, whether in church or in state, do not put that responsibility and that welfare first in their concern, then they have ceased to fulfil! their own social role. In both church and state, it has become an easy argument to say that there is a responsibility toward the proponents of the status quo, as well as towards the advocates of change. What is obscured by this excuse for inaction is the fact that the status quo favours the majority, disadvantages the minorities,

whereas the proposed amendment would protect the minorities without any illegitimate disservice to the majority. Employment, housing and the use of public facilities generally are the areas of most immediate concern in the application of human rights legislation. These are all areas in which the sexual minorities suffer discrimination.

Documentation is inadequate to the reality because the minorities have learned, on the one hand, the futility of the feeling to human rights tribunals which can acknowledge no responsibility towards them; on the other, the risks attended upon drawing attention to the cause of their injuries. Other areas of concern may not come directly within the purview of human rights legislation and may not be so universal in their application, but will nevertheless, in the long run, be affected by this amendment either through indirect legal implications or through the effect upon attitudes.

There is a whole range of issues attached to long term homosexual relationships and their recognition in law, questions of tax and insurance benefits, of property and inheritance, of child custody. There are other matters where the law is explicitly discriminatory, as in the age of consent or where it is commonly interpreted or administered in a discriminatory fashion, as in the regulation of public conduct. Where any form of this discrimination comes into play, it is either a direct expression of prejudice or a consequence of prejudice-inspired fears.

Whether the prejudice is a result of ignorance or is merely a distaste for the unfamiliar, it is unacceptable as a norm for regulating society. If, on the other hand, the lawmakers suppose that the prejudice is justified by the reality, they have a responsibility to demonstrate that the reality is detrimental to society and is rightly constrained by discrimination in law. The Council is convinced that no impartial examination of the realities of homosexual life will justify either the discrimination or the prejudice. lt is easy enough for any individual to misapprehend the attitudes

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 of another but, so long as the misapprehension exists, the consequences are as if it corresponded to the reality. Those of us whose circumstances have encouraged or enabled or compelled us to declare our divergence from the sexual norm have often discovered that the consequences were less disastrous than we had expected. Those persons of importance, materially or emotionally in our lives, did not uniformly cast us off.

This experience tends to make us somewhat impatient of others who remain attached to the fears we ourselves once held and to make us forgetful of the many other circumstances which lead to less happy conclusions. Many homosexuals in fact still have good reason for continuing to conceal their orientation. Family and friendships are still disruptive, jobs are lost and careers thwarted. Because these are facts in the lives of many homosexuals, the fears they inspire dominate needlessly the lives of many more.

In the opinion of the Council, the damage caused in this way is far more extensive and perhaps also far deeper-reaching than the damage of particular acts of discrimination. One can deal with and dispose of any particular injury. A lifetime is often not long enough to heal the wounds of that more nebulous dread, and it will need a new generation brought up in freedom to grow unscarred by the ways all of us here have known. One cannot legislate away an atmosphere, but legislative reform will open up a number of arenas in which the sexual minorities can move more freely. 1t is not only the minorities.

Employers, for instance, who are at present pressured less by their own prejudices than out of a cautious regard for the presumed prejudices of others could then concentrate upon the relevant qualifications of employees. Reform will encourage more individuals to be open and honest about their nature and their life and, in so doing, they will simultaneously give hope and confidence to their fellows and belie the erroneous images held by others.

In conclusion, the Council wishes to emphasize what is at stake and the choice before the Manitoba Legislature in accepting or rejecting sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Human Rights Act. We know that the life of the ordinary homosexual woman or man is as blameless and as productive as that of any other member of our society.

But we say that to continue the exclusion of the sexual minorities from protection is equivalent to saying that existing prejudices are warranted, that existing myths are fact, that existing injuries are merited, that the intolerance meted out on the one side and the indignities suffered on the other are in accordance with justice; in a word, that black is white and falsehood is truth. To accept the inclusion of sexual orientation is one step toward righting the wrongs of generations against women and men whose different sexuality has exposed them to every degree of persecution.

To accept the inclusion is one step toward freeing not only the sexual minorities but all women and men from a tyranny imposed upon all, majority and minorities alike, by the misunderstanding and thwarting of human sexuality. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions to Dr. Millward? Hearing none, we thank you, sir. 28 For record purposes, we understand the person next on the list acting through another will simply submit a written brief for distribution. So we go immediately to Constable K.R. Elliott or D.J. Hamilton, representing the Brandon City Police Department. Constable Elliott, D.J. Hamilton, second time.

Having no response, we go to Constable R. Chrismas, Brandon City Police. Constable R. Chrismas. No response. Mr. Lyle Dick, Project LAMBDA Inc. Mr. Dick. MR. L. DICK: Mr. Chairman, just a small correction, my name is Lyle Dick, but thank you very much. I'm pleased to appear here before you on behalf of my organization, Project LAMBDA Inc. Here are copies of my brief for distribution and, just before entering into it, I would like to just make a couple of preparatory comments, brief comments if I may.

First of all, I was very surprised to hear on an early afternoon newscast this afternoon, on CBC a.m. radio, that gay rights organizations were opposing the government's sexual orientation initiative, because I was here this morning for the entire committee hearing and that certainly does not jibe with what I heard.

What I heard was gay organizations strongly commanding the government for its sexual orientation, human rights initiative, and pointing out that they believed, in order to achieve the aims intended in the legislation, that an improvement in the textual wording of the definition of sexual orientation should be given serious consideration. I understand, from a later news broadcast, that the Attorney-General is taking those suggestions under advisement and is preparing an amendment.

So I just want it to be absolutely clear to the CBC and everyone else that gay and lesbian organizations of this province are highly supportive of the government's initiative, and we congratulate the Attorney-General and the government for taking a courageous and very far-thinking approach to this legislation. Secondly, I would just like to very briefly address one of the comments made earlier by Mr. Sidney Green, leader of the Progressive Party, in which he equated sexual orientation with sexual gratification.

I think we are very disturbed by this misconstruction of what it means to be gay or lesbian, because to be gay or lesbian is to have a collection of attributes which goes far beyond one's means of sexual gratification. In fact, there are a number of gay and lesbian people who don't have sexual relations. That is their choice. But to be gay or lesbian means to have the capacity to enter into loving relationships with other human beings, among other attributes, and we very much regret this reduction of our identities to the seeking of mere sexual gratification.

Let that not stand, in any way, as an accurate definition of what it is to be gay or lesbian. Having said that, I'd like to enter into my brief, which is not very long. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, Project LA MBD A, a non-profit gay community service organization in the Province of Manitoba, appears before you to support the inclusion of sexual orientation among the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Manitoba Human Rights Act.

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 We applaud the Attorney-G eneral and the government for taking this very important human rights initiative at this time, and we endorse the other positive reforms in Bill 47 relating to prohibiting discrimination on grounds of pregnancy and political activity. The sexual orientation amendment will do much to reduce discrimination against gay and lesbian people, and will contribute to our developing a genuinely pluralistic society in Manitoba.

One of the most regrettable by-products of non inclusion of minority protections in the Human Rights Act is violence against unpopular minorities, as has occurred against such groups as Jewish and black people in the past. lt was not until their rights were entrenched that violence against these groups was reduced. A 1983 study cited numerous examples of unprovoked violence against gay men in Winnipeg, including at least one murder. The usual assailants were street gangs of young men.

On June 8 of this year, a news story on the CBC television program, "The National," indicated that such examples of homophobic violence have recently increased, largely as a result of the public's paranoia over AIDS and is blaming gay men for its spread, and that story was prepared in Winnipeg, based on Winnipeg evidence. Clearly, these wanton acts have emerged in a social context in which gays and lesbians have been devalued by hideous stereotypes. We simply do not see this kind of street terrorism being carried out against heterosexuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.

We believe that the great majority of Manitobans do not support the commission of violent acts against anyone, gay or straight, but all of us must recognize our collective responsibility to establish a social and political climate in which such violence will be discouraged rather than passively encouraged. In terms of denial of services and employment, a number of cases of clear-cut discrimination have occurred in our province in recent years. At least one serviceman, stationed in Winnipeg, was thrown out of the army because he was discovered to be gay in his private life.

On another occasion, all the gay employees on a tourist leisure craft were fired wholesale because the management decided they didn't want homosexuals working for them. There have been other instances of teachers being told by principals, on discovering them to be gay, to leave quietly rather than face open dismissal. In none of these reported cases was there any question of impropriety or incompetence. Their offence was simply to be homosexual in their private lives, and is that an offence?

Were these people's human rights already protected under existing legislation, as some opponents of the sexual orientation amendment claim? Did they have full recourse to the full protection of The Manitoba Human Rights Act? For those persons who have experienced direct persecution and the loss of employment because of their sexual orientation, this argument must surely seem a cruel joke.

Some critics argue that the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act would confer on gays and lesbians a "special status," while at the same time stating that they do not believe that homosexual lifestyles should be equal to heterosexual lifestyles. The claim, moreover, that the passage of this legislation would encourage young people to adopt homosexual 29 lifestyles, that these arguments are not well-founded is easily demonstrated. To be protected from injury is not to be treated specially, but to be accorded the right, like everyone else, to live a peaceful life free from harassme Af..

The argument that the legislation would make homosexual lifestyles the equal of heterosexual ones is similarly not true. The revised Manitoba Human Rights Act says nothing about condoning lifestyles. lt states simply that there should be no unreasonable discrimination against homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual persons. With respect to the argument that prohibiting discrimination against gays and lesbians would promote the adoption of homosexual lifestyles, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support this contention.

Psychologists, psychiatrists and sociologists generally agree that sexual orientation is formed quite early in life. Eliminating discrimination might make it easier for gays and lesbians to acknowledge their sexual identities, rather than to live in terror of discovery. The passage of a provincial statute has never been known to alter a person's sexual orientation. We, in Project LAMBDA, understand that a considerable degree of opposition to our rights still exists amongst constituencies such as some religious groups, who choose to regard homosexuality as a sin.

We realize that these views are often deeply felt and we do not criticize those who hold them. But as we do not presume to tell Manitobans what religious beliefs they should hold, we must insist that likewise no group should impose its values on our right to live free from discrimination. To suggest that one should do so runs absolutely counter to all principles of freedom in a democratic society. lt therefore behooves all of us to come to terms with our differences and to try to co-exist in mutual respect and cooperation.

We assert that this is the only prescription for survival in the 1980's. lt is a far bigger issue than the rights of one group or another. This is one step that we all must take if we are to move toward the goal of developing a truly human community. In the last decade, greater numbers of gays and lesbians have found it less necessary to conceal their sexual orientations to friends, families and others. We are increasingly visible in asserting our rights to live openly just like everyone else.

In the face of empirical evidence that we are and always have been law-abiding, responsible, contributing members of society, the old stereotypes are crumbling fast. We are seen to belong to all vocations and social groupings. We work as plumbers, doctors, athletes and accountants and many other professions. We contribute to and organize public educational, sporting and cultural events, even film festivals, and we pay a thousand times as much in taxes as we receive in government grants for these events. If some of our province's citizens have given up on us, we have not given up on society.

We remain deeply committed to helping build a more tolerant and democratic society. A sexual orientation amendment to the Manitoba Human Rights Act will go far to speed this process. We do not ask for any favours or special status, but rather the right to live knowing that we cannot be fired, evicted or refused services simply for being who we are. We have much to give our province and country

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 and we say that all Manitobans, not just gays and lesbians, will benefit from this legislation. We respectfully urge all members of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly to support it. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? The Member for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: Sir, one of the first items you referred to in your presentation had to do with violence against what you called minorities, and you said that one of the most regrettable by-products of non-inclusion of minority protections in the Human Rights Act is violence against unpopular minorities.

The Criminal Code deals with violence and it makes no mention of violence against minorities. lt just makes mention of violence against individuals. In each case, there are sanctions. In the case of assault, very serious sanctions are provided and it doesn't talk about who is the subject of the violence. The Criminal Code is there to protect people from that. MR. L. DICK: Sir, I'm glad you raised that point because indeed the problem is, in the current climate, the vast majority of victims of homophobic violence are so afraid to reveal their sexual orientations for fear of reprisals.

Indeed the laying of charges would entail their having to come out to declare themselves in terms of their sexual orientation, that regrettably the number of prosecutions which we see is nothing but a very tiny minority of the overall incidents of homophobic violence. We can arrange to give you a copy of this report, published in 1983, which documented numerous examples of unprovoked, hideous beatings of gay men, for no other reason than they were gay, most of whom were afraid - tor fear of losing their jobs - to come forward to press charges or to report these crimes to the police. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Portage. � MR. E. CONNERY: You said that your sexuality is , determined early in life. Do people not acquire homosexual tendencies later in life? My concern is: If it's made an alternate lifestyle, will we encourage people to become homosexuals? MR. L. DICK: Sir, I don't believe there is any danger of that ha ppening.

Psych ologists ha ve written extensively on this question and the general consensus is that, if homosexuality is acquired, it is acquired within the first two to three years of life. lt is true that, in many cases, one's sexual orientation does not become obvious to the person himself or herself until the age of puberty, when we acquire those secondary sexual characteristics and we begin to feel attracted towards one gender or the other. That's when it becomes apparent.

Now it is true that many gay and lesbian people, myself included, were forced to try to suppress our feelings, because we didn't want to face up to the kinds of stereotypes tha t we grew up believing that homosexuals were. I didn't come out of the closet until I was in my 20's. I spent my teens basically trying to 30 deny my basic identity. I don't think it is possible- and certainly this is the consensus of scientists - to change a person's sexual orientation, no. MR. E. CONNERY: You mentioned being free from discrimination and the beatings.

I have to agree with you that those things are repulsive that, because you're a homosexual, you should be beaten for that particular reason or fired from a job. Do you think that homosexuality should be taught in school or exhibited as being a normal alternate lifestyle? MR. L. DICK: Sir, I don't know whether I want to deal with that in terms of what I believe because we're addressing a Human Rights Code which in no way provides for those sorts of things.

I believe the children actually should be given straight answers by qualified professionals regarding sexuality at an age at which they're capable of handling the information. If children want to find out about homosexuality, I believe somebody should be in a professional situation to give them the information they need, but whether the proper forum for that is in Family Life Education courses or whatever, that is a decision for governments to make. In any event, your question does not relate in any way to the provisions of the Manitoba Human Rights Act. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other questions? Hearing none, thank you, Mr.

Dick. MR. L. DICK: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: The next presenter is Mr. Nick Ternette, Urban Resource Centre Inc. MR. N. TERNETTE: Mr. Chairperson, committee members, before I begin with my brief, I'd like to

preamble. Having listened this morning to the comments to The Human Rights Legislation Act, especially Sid Green's very interesting comments, philosophical comments, I'd like to just clarify some perspectives on legislation, what legislation is and wha t it can or can't do. Legislation does not legislate morality. At least, I've never believed any legislation ever legislates morality or feelings, as Sid Green might have suggested. If it does, I wouldn't believe in the human rights legislation either. Legislation does not stop discrimination; it never has and never will.

If it did, we wouldn't need a Human Rights Commission to enforce the legislation. We would just have the legislation, as Sid Green indicates, and carry on that way. But what is does do, legislation is a tool, a tool for individuals to use to protect their rights under whatever circumstances. Just like strike is a tool; like pickets are a tool; boycotts are tools; and demonstrations are tools, so is legislation, and that's the way this kind of human rights legislation should be viewed.

Now, I'm here today on behalf of the Urban Resource Centre to comment on the proposed bill as a whole today and its implication to society as a whole. While it's unfortunate that the NDP took over four years to

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 bring forth this progressive legislation, as this Human Rights Commission had held public hearings in 1983, I still must congratulate the NDP for taking the courageous step in introducing this new human rights legislation and ensuring tha t people's rights are protected, and moving this province into the mainstream of society as a whole. Firstly, let us deal with the homosexual clause - and I won't deal too long with it.

There have been far more eloquent speakers than myself on this particular issue which, by the way, as some people have mentioned, does not only include homosexual, but heterosexual and bisexual consenting adults which I think that clause should be amended - I agree with all the other speakers on that - thereby ensuring, in fact, that all human rights of all Canadians are protected, not just minority rights, if we include heterosexual as part of that clause, which it is.

Secondly, a large increasing minority of homosexual and bisexual, ranging anywhere statistically from 10 percent to 15 percent of the total population will now be given the same human rights, not more rights, as any other minority individuals, those who belong to political or religious minorities, bringing this province in line with two other provinces who already have such legislation, namely, Quebec and Ontario, and I understand the Yukon has just also adopted this particular situation.

In fact, in spite of the protestations of the Catholic Church and other religious leaders, as well as a lot of members of the Progressive Conservative Party, the human rights legislation neither approves nor disapproves of homosexuality or heterosexuality or bisexuality, but deals with the issue of sexual orientation in ensuring that all sexual orientations are protected in regard to services, accommodations and employment.

In fact, it amuses me to some extent to hear about some church members attacking the homosexual protection rights when, in fact, in all the churches, you will find a great deal, many homosexuals who have been in the church community, as well as the priesthood, being homosexuals. Whether they are practising or not is certainly not the question. We're not dealing with lifestyle. We're dealing with the protection, particularly relating to the issue of sexual orientation. So in fact, in these cases, I would argue they need protection both on religious rights and sexual orientation rights.

The only other comment I wish to make, in some of my personal experience, a limited experience, that I've had working in a community as a community activist in the field, I have noticed and seen many older generations of homosexuals who have achieved high status in the social services fields - executive directors of many agencies, etc., etc.- who were repressed homosexuals because they feared for their lives to ever be exposed as homosexuals.

That kind of fear and that kind of terror undermined their ability to function in such a way that I feel anything that allows those people to be able to live their lives more freely would assist them in continuing to do a better job than they could possible do because of their repression of their own homosexuality. lt is unfortunate, however, I think that both the Progressive Conservatives and the media have focused exclusively on the issue of homosexual rights to the 31 exclusion of other even more significant clauses, within the new proposed Human Rights Act, which need to be addressed hereforth.

Firstly, we congratulate the NDP Government for extending the concept of political belief and protection against discrimination on the basis of political beliefs, to not only include political association but political activity. However, I do need to caution members of this Legislative committee concerning putting in words that have no specific

definitions which undermine the work of the Human Rights Commission in dealings with discriminations. I know, because I was involved in a seven-year case which I will talk about, relating to the issue of political beliefs. The concept of political belief was introduced by the Ed Schreyer Government in the early Seventies, and I was one of the first individuals personally to test that particular clause in 1977. There were only about two individuals previously, between 1975 and 1977, who ever went to the Human Rights Commission to protest that they were discriminated on the basis of political beliefs.

And surprise, surprise, the Human Rights Commission could not deal with the issue because they had no definition, at that time, of what in fact political beliefs meant. lt was never included in the act, nor was it included in any kind of amendment or by-laws separate to the act. lt took us two years to finally get - with the help of the Ombudsman, Mr.

Maltby at that time - two years to get a definition at that time, in 1979, of political belief exclusively being the membership in a political party, which I thought was a very narrow perspective of what it meant to be a political belief. lt took us another four years, until 1983, to get the Human Rights Commission to look at political beliefs and political activities and define it in the following way. This is the letter that I have received from them in 1983 but which was never adopted, either as an amendment or has never been included in legislation.

This is what the commission in 1983 felt political activity and belief should be defined as. The commission interprets political belief to mean "having a belief as to what is happening, or should be happening in society, or government, or both, and to include participation in organizations or activities which express or advance that belief. The test of political belief is the nature of the value structure of the individual as it relates to relationships amongst groups of people, as expressed through their institutions.

Each case must be decided on its own merits, and the benefit of the doubt as to the existence of a political belief should rest with the person whose belief it is." I think it is very significant that we require, if we're going to include not only political beliefs but political activity, to be fairly clear in definition of what political activity is, especially if we're going to now move from religious beliefs to religious activity. What is going to be defined as religious activity? Are the Bakker-type of mentality, of what's going on in the United States, is that going to be defined as religious activity?

I don't know. The problem with that is that, if we don't have something to work with, the commission cannot act on and will either have to interpret itself and not have input from the Legislature. So I'm simply saying I believe it's a positive step forward but, without some clearer guidelines,

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 amendment type, in relating to this particular clause, you're going to leave it wide open to no

interpretation or an

interpretation that nobody shares. I don't think that's fair to anybody who wants to use the actual process of the Human Rights Commission to get justice done. Furthermore, the Urban Resource Centre and myself are substantially concerned with clause 14( 1 ). We consider that a very significant clause which we feel is actually very dangerous in many ways. I understand the reason for it being implemented is the Keegstra clause, as Roland Penner himself personally has told me.

While I'm very sympathetic to the issue of not allowing people like Keegstra, of his kind or his ilk, to allow to be taught in Manitoba, I am concerned about the wording of this clause which is so vague and subjective as to cause more problems than it's worth to keep people like Keegstra out of Manitoba or other teachers like him. Out of all other professions, the problem lies in individuals using the human rights legislation for their own particular cause to deny individuals within any occupation to promote or teach values which are not in accordance with their own value system.

An example, under this clause, individuals of certain religious beliefs could charge teachers for teaching dominism re the creation of human life as promoting values contrary to subsection (9), which says that you're protecting on the basis of religious beliefs. Unfortunately, badly worded clauses allow individuals to impose their views on others, using the Human Rights Commission forum to do it. I think a clause that says that nothing in this

section prohibits the lawful disciplining of any employee or person in an occupation who violates the duties, powers or privileges of the employment or occupation by improperly using the employment or occupation as a forum for promoting beliefs or values based upon any characteristics referred to subsection (2), is just too vague and too confusing to open up to all kinds of misuse and abuse. lt either should be removed completely or it should be amended in such a way to be clearer to what, who, and what you're aiming at in this particular clause.

Otherwise, you're going to create a nightmare for a good deal of problems that the Human Rights Commission will have to deal with when individuals start taking this particular clause to the Human Rights Commission, laying charges against people who have different employment or different occupations. I think it's a very serious issue that needs to be looked at. The kind of wording and the way you express yourself can create more problems than it's worth. Now, in regard to

section 18 of the proposed new human rights legislation, we're kind of pleased that the word "hate" literature has been formally removed from it, particularly. However, we are concerned with the concept of what is bona fide or reasonable cost. There's again no real clear definition of what is bona fide or reasonable in this case. What about broadcasting of possible hate material? Will it be done after? Who will stop it? Who will monitor it? Will it be done after the broadcast occurs, or will it occur before the broadcast? Who is to judge what is discriminatorial?

I mean in obvious cases the display of a swastika, I can obviously accept that fact, but what about such grey areas, such 32 as protesters handing out literature protesting someone's politicial or religious beliefs, or sexual orientation, for that matter? How are you going to handle that particular thing? Again, the intent is positive, the intent is clear, but I am worried that again the wording is such that it allows too many loopholes and it doesn't clarify the grey areas which it ought to. Either amend it to strengthen it or leave it open in such a way that it does not undermine the Human Rights Act.

Finally, in the same area, we can look at the issue of

section 19(2) on the issue of sexual harassment. Fundamentally, we agree to it, that we must have something relating to sexual harassment, but we have trouble with some of the subjective word meanings, like vexatious and unwelcome conduct or comment, for example. What one individual may make a comment about to someone may be unwelcome to one individual, but may not be unwelcome to somebody else. How do you judge? These are all subjective terminology which undermine the implementation of the act, which is well intentioned, but you can't continue.

We feel words like "demeaning" and/or forms of reprisal, specific sexual harassment should be defined in the clearer language and leave out subjective terminology that can be misinterpreted by all kinds of people from both the left and the right, or from other groups who feel that they can use this kind of language to create all kinds of nuisances, possibilities. I think it needs to be clarified.

In general, in conclusion, all I can recommend is the speedy implementation of this act to recognize that legislation is only a tool to provide some form of change and that, while the intent is fantastic, we approve of it - I think it's the best possible legislation coming forth. The wording has to be careful and, in this case, I will agree with Sid Green. If the wording is unclear or general or vague, it will be misused.

You've got to give some guidelines, because I went through that process. lt took me seven years to get a definition of political belief, and I don't want any other individual to go through that process. I think it's important that this committee start looking at some of the wording, because some of the wording in this legislation, the intent is good, but the wording is poor. I hope you take that into consideration. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any questions? Hearing none, thank you Mr. Ternette. The next presenter is Mr. Gerry Brydon, private citizen. The second call, Mr. Gerry Brydon.

The next presenter will be Mr. Abe Arnold and Mr. Harry Peters, Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties. Mr. Arnold. MR. A. ARNOLD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to be here in association with the president, Mr. Harry Peters, of the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties. We also have with us on our delegation, who might come to our rescue if we have a problem, Bill Converse, the eo-convener of our Charter of Rights Committee. I will make an introduction to this presentation.

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 The Manitoba Association for Rights and Li berties is a public interest, human rights advocacy body. MARL is the primar y organiza tion, assuring vol unt eer participation in the advocacy and protection of human rights and civil liberties in Winnipeg and Manitoba for all its citizens. MARL's objectives are to promote respect for and observance of fundamental human rights and civil lib erties and to def end, extend and foster the recognition of these rights and liberties in the Province of Manitoba.

This brief on the Human Rights Code tonight virtually coincides with the ninth ann iversary of MARL's first presentation to a Legislative Assembly Commit tee, in July 1978. That presentation dealt with a bill proposing amendments to the then existing Human Rights Act. The Progressive Conservative Government of that period paid close attention to our submission and accepted some of the proposals we made for changes in the bill then being considered. Since that time, one of MARL's primary ongoing efforts has been to seek revisions to The Human Rights Act.

The new Human Rig hts Code now before the Le gi sla tur e goes a considerable way in put ting forward many of the changes we have been calling for. Before going on, I think it is important to recount just a little bit of the history of human rights acts in Canada. We have had human rights legislation in this country since the late 1940's, when the Saskatchewan Government un der Tommy Douglas in troduced a provincial Bill of Rights.

The human rights acts which are now in force in every province, as well as in the federal jurisdiction, were developed out of The Fair Emplo yment and Fair Acc ommo dations Acts first introduced in the early 19 50's by the Progressive Con servative Government of Ontario, and then by the other provinces. In the 1960's, after John Diefenbaker introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights, the provinces, again led by Ontario, began to cons olida te their fair practices legislation into huma n rig hts acts and to set up commissions to enforce these acts. The Manitoba Human Rights Act did not come into place until 1971.

By 1975, every province had its own Human Rights Act and commission and, in 19 78, a federal act and commission were established. In 19 84, Judge Rosalie Abella, who headed a Federal Commission on Equality in Emp loyment, declared tha t the Hum an Righ ts Commissions, as then constituted, were unequal to the task of dealing with unfair discrimination in employment. This was due largely, Judge Abella said, to the failure of the case-by-case approach to make a dent on systemic discrimina tory practices. Now, what we have before us tonight is a bill which atte mpts to amend, to deal with some of those problems.

We are particularly satisfied with certain portions of the bill which represent a substantial improvement on the present Human Rights Act. One of these with which MARL agrees is the provision for "reasonable accommodation" in

section 9( 1)(d). We are of the opinion that it is de facto discrimination to fail to make reasonable accommodation for the special needs of the disadvantaged. We are also pleased to note that "perceived race" has been used in

section 9(2) instead of "race" or "alleged race," as it is often not a person's actual racial 33 origin that exposes them to discrimination but rather other people's perceptions of what that person's racial origin might be. We already ind icated our support for the inclusion of sexual orientation under the prohibited grounds of discrimination. We are pleased with the way in which unintended di scrimi nation is now clearly stated as systemic discrimination.

We note that, in the Second Reading debate, the Attorney-General cited the example of the five-foot, sev en-inch minimum height which was formerly enforced for police officers as a case of systemic discrimination. Consideration might be given to a more formal definition of systemic discrimi nation along the lines suggested by Judge Abella in her report on Equality in Employment -I'm going to paraphrase the quotes.

The way I would describe it is that we should consider referring to it as a discrimi natory effect resulting from a system designed for a unicultural community -that's a); and b), a discrimi natory impact resulting from practices based on stereotyped characteristics ascribed to an individual, because of the group to which he or she is a member. MARL also endor ses

section 11 of the Code which permits affirmative action programs. We see this as a means of turning equality of opportunity in employment into reality. We are also pleased with

section 56( 1) on contr act complian ce and are happy that it has been included. In addition, we welcome the inclusion of

section 60 which provides for the commission to enl ist the Ombudsman or other human rights agencies to perform some of the duties of the commission. We hope this option will be used to improve processing of complaints. One more point that I should mention is the

section on advisory opinions which we hope will be used to a considerable extent on a cooperative basis to possibly develop preventive situations which will elimina te the need for people to make complaints. We do have some concerns, in addition to the things that we applaud, and I will ask our president, Mr. Peters, to deal with some of those concerns. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harry Peters. MR. H. PETERS: Good evening, gentlemen. Our first concern is with the inde pendence of the commission. Pardon me, excuse me. I blew it? Okay.

This is actually, I'm sure for many people, a very exciting highlight in their life, and I apologize for missing a lady at the table. Ladies and gentlemen, our first concern is with the inde pendence of the commission. The Code proclaims that the Hu man Rights Commission shall be an inde pendent agency -that's

section 2(1) -but it does not follow through by providing for the appointment of the commis sion on the recommenda tion of a committee of the Legislature which would be an all party commit tee. We urge that the Code provide for the appointment of a Human Rights Commission on a non-partisan basis as recommended by MARL in our 1979 study, and as proposed in the draft Code of 1984. lt should be the object of an all-party committee to ensure a non-

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 partisan approach in the nomination of commission members. Some may argue that members of the different political parties always carry their partisan views with them. As demonstrated in the appointment of the Ombudsman, however, we believe this is not necessarily so. We suggest that members of the Legislature need more opportunities to set aside partisan views. The selection of members of the commission, as we are proposing, would be an important opportunity of this kind.

We further suggest that an all-party comm ittee, if accepted, could meet at prescribed times to re commend mem bers of the com mis sion for appointment. At the same time, it could also recommend a number of alternatives who might be called upon should a regular commission member be obliged to resign in mid-term. We're also concerned with respect to the legislation's requirement, vis-a-vis reporting to the House. The commission should report to the House through the Speaker, we believe, as does the Ombudsman, rather than through a Cabinet Minister. Another area of concern is the adjudication panel.

We support the appointment of adjudication panel as proposed in the Code, and we recommend that the members of the panel also be appointed by the all party committee process. We note that it is proposed to name at least five members to the adjudication panel in

section 8( 1) . The earlier draft Code suggests that the number of panel members be set at six to ten with one of them being named by the chief adjudicator. We believe this to be a more desirable approach. The chief adjudicator, rather than the Attorney-General, could assign each adjudicator to a case on a rota basis as proposed in the Code under

section 32(2). The chief adjudicator might also be given some responsibility for research into adjudication methods, practices and policies. With respect to the Attorney-General's role, our concern is that, if the foregoing proposals are accepted, the Attorney-General may serve as chairperson of the all-party commit tee of the House. lt would still be responsible for commencing a prosecution when requested, as provided for in

section 23(3)(b). An other area of concern we have is with the prohibi tion on designation.

Section 32(3) of th e proposed Code suggests tha t a mem ber of th e adjudication panel shall not be asked to adjudicate a complaint if he or she has previously been involved in any capacity relating to the complai nt. This is understandable. However, it might be preferable to state that no one shall be appointed to the adjudication panel who may be involv ed in any way in the commission process prior to the adjudication stage. Mr. Arnold has some other remarks. MR. A. ARNOLD: We do accept the new definition of unfair dis crimina tion as di fferential treatment on grounds not related to individual merit, which is in

section 9( 1 ), and the extended grounds of discrimination outlined under "applicable characteristics" in

section 9(2). We hope that, over time, more in tensiv e educational programs on human rights will play a 34 preventive role that may lead to the gradual reduction of need to bring complaints under the various grounds of discrimination. We are surprised that so much of the debate on the new Human Rights Code to date has been given over to the issue of protection for sexual orientation. MARL agrees with the inclusion of sexual orientation under the prohibited grounds.

We point out, however, as we are doing tonight, that the new Code includes a whole numb er of new and expanded gr ounds of discrimination, including those dealing with religion and political belief. There is general agreement that such protection should exist.

Now, no one would assume, however, that these protections for religion and political belief confer a right on the members of any religious or political group to go into our schools to teach the tenets of their faith or ideology as equal to, or better than, the beliefs that students acquire from their family traditions or from inde pendent study during their years of schooling. Why then should anyone assume that granting protection from discrimina tion on the grounds of sexual orientation may confer the right to teach the viability of a homosexual lifestyle?

We do find fault, as some other speakers have mentioned, with part of the definition of sexual orienta tion, and we also suggest that the definition which reads " 'sexual orientation' means heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual ," should end at that point, and that the words, "refers only to consenting adults acting within the law," should be dropped. Protection against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation should extend to all persons, and not only adults. There's been a lot of talk, and criticism of this

section has been based on the feeling of some people that sexual orientation is, in itself, a perversion, and I think we should take a little closer look at the kinds of words that we are using. In the diction ary, I found the word "invert." This is used by authors, and it is explained in the di ctionary to mean "someone who do es something di fferently," and it also describes a homosexual, but it is a non-judgmental word.

We all know that "pervert" is a judgm ental word and, in the diction ary, it says that pervert "may be a person who practices sexual perversion," but it does not say that homosexuality is a sexual perversion, and that is in the Oxford dictionar y. I suggest to you that, when you're talking about a sexual pervert, you're talking about a rapist who may be a heterosexual or a homosexual or you 'r e talking about a pedophile who may be a homosexual or a heterosexual. So we should be very careful in the use of words. The next point I want to deal with is the matter of promotion of beliefs.

We have a serious concern with

section 14 (11) which allo ws the disciplining of an emplo yee who violates the duties or priviledges of his or her position by improperly using it to promote beliefs based on characteristics related to the prohibi ted grounds of discrimination. The Attorney-General, Mr. Penn er, has described this as the "Keegstra clause." We believe that accused of abusing positions as educators or in any other capacity should have access to the human rights process to adjudicate those charges in the same way as all others who believe they have been discrimina ted against. Members of the education profes sion, among others, have often experienced in stances of teachers being di scipl ined in their

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 employment because, on occasions not necessarily related to their professional activities, they have espoused unpopular views. The ordinary and usually existing requir ements that employees fulfill the reponsibilities of their jobs are more than sufficient to allow employers and professional associations to prevent abuse of professional positions. The Human Rights Commission should be encouraged to work directly with professional associations and other organizations in preventive educational programs. We would, therefore, urge the removal of

section 14(11) of the proposed Code. MR. H. PETERS: Another area that we have concern is with employee benefits, as dealt with

section 15(2) of the Code, permits the Lieutenant-Governor-in Council to make regulations that override any individual contracts or colle ctive agreements and are automatically deemed to be bona fide and reasonable. We object to the granting of this overrid ing power to Cabinet. This provision creates the impression that the government intends to set discrimina tory terms for agreements, or continued di scrimina tory terms of agreements. lt also creates the impression that the government is prepared to override the colle ctive bargaining process. MARL believes the government should not exempt itself from the provisions of

section 15(1) barring discrimination in contracts. Discrimina tory signs and statements, MARL believes that

section 18 dealing with discrimina tory signs and statements is an improvement over

section 2( 1) of the present Human Rights Act. However, the broad wording of the

section still constitutes a serious limitation on freedom of expression. Human rights legislation should apply to conduct, not to comment.

Section 18(

b) refers to potential di scri mina tion and is, therefore, only opinion. Si nce it also relates to "an y activity or undertaking to which this Code applies," in combination with all the enume rated characteristics, its ramifications are unforeseeable and could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression. The additional stipulation that there must be a bona fide and reasonable cause for the discrimination means that anyone expressing an allegedly discrimi natory opinion would have to justify it.

For example, in the case of religious beliefs regarding homosexual ity, it cou ld, on th e one hand, be imp ossi bl e to prove reasonableness or, on the other hand, it could be all too easy to establish that the reason, the belief, is bona fide. In a democracy, it is not the role of the State to determine the reasonableness and good faith of people's opinions. We would, therefore, recommend that

section 18 (

b) be deleted from the code. Ha rassment, we believe tha t

section 19 on harassment is also too broadly drawn and may result in limi tations on freedom of expression. In particular, the application of

section 19(1) should be narrowed. lt should only apply to such activities as are genuinely destructive of human rights.

Section 19(1 )(

a) should limit the ban on harassment to activities in employment, accommodation or services, as covered in the Code.

Section 19(1 )(b), which in effect deals with vicarious responsibil ity, should apply only to employment and accommodation. Time limits is also another matter which gives us grave concern, gentlemen.

Section 26 deals with the 35 investigation of complaints. Leaving the commencement of inves tigations to such time "as is reaso nably possible" is not acceptable. The Code has many provisions where definite time limits are set, the most important of which is the six-month limitation imposed on the filing of complaints in

section 51 (4). If individuals are expected to be aware of their rights and file official complaints promptly after they have been violated, they should be assured of an equally prompt investigation of those complaints. Particularly in situations involving discrimination in housing or services, which much valuable evidence not to mention the persons involved themselves may well have disappeared if complaint investigations are delayed. MR. A. ARNOLD: Our brief concludes with a

summary of the recommendations which you have before you and I shall not repeat, but I would like to say as a final word that we hope that these amendments can be seriously consid ered and perhaps some action taken on them, but we would certainly not want to see this bill delayed beyond the end of this Session, and we would want to see it adopted.

We hope that some people who have been basing their opposition entirely on one particular clause will see the wisdom of reconsidering their position so that there can be some consensus between the government and at least some members of the Opposition to get this bill through. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there any questions? The Attorney-General. HON. A. PENNER: I have two questions, perhaps to the president, Mr. Peters because they perhaps are questions that touch on legal issues. I'm referring to page 6 of your brief, your reference to

section 15(2), your concern about the power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations. This

section basically, although in a somewhat different worded way, has been in The Human Rights Act for some considerable period of time. How would you deal with this situation then, Mr. Peters, where it is generally the case that, if you're a late applicant for term insurance -let's say the advanced age of 55 -you may get it subject to rigorous medicals, but your premium increases year by year sign ificantly until age 65, taking into account certain statistical knowledge about the life expectancy as you move?

Now that seems to be something which, (a), is statistically justifiable but, (b), would on the surface appear to be discrimination on account of age. Surely, you would agree, particularly if the recommendation comes as it is designed to come, from the Human Rights Commission itself, based on actuarial evidence, there should be the right to take into account situations of that kind. Would you agree? MR. H. PETERS: I have trouble with the example you're giving, Mr.

Penner, because I think there are equally serious areas of discrimination that the government is pract ising now by denying spousal benefits to homosexual spouses that need to be addressed in this section, permits the continuation of that denial and, I submit, that this

section needs to be looked at in light of the pros and cons, once again.

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 Now I agree with you. Statistically, there may be reasons for discriminating, but where does that apply in the govern ment's treatment of contracts it has with its own employees? Are you speaking, ind icating an intention to expand into the area of insurance law? I don't understand the question. HON. R. PENNER: We seem to be not dealing with the same sect ion, Mr. Peters.

The government is covered by The Human Rights Act; it always has been and all the more so because of the paramountcy clause. it's clearly designed to deal primarily with life insurance, accident and sickness insurance or life annuities, that's what it says. There are statistical problems which bias, on account of age, appar ently with statistical justification. I asked you a very simple question. That is, do you not recognize the need for such statistical differentiation, and should not there be the power to regulate in that area? MR. H. PETERS: I unde rstand your comments now. I must admit I misread the

section somewhat. But I can see that there is stat istical jus tification for discrimination, but can't that be worked out, looking at the whole area of all the people who the government is purchasing accident and sickness insurance for? Do you justify the discrimination against a few indi viduals, when you could balance that discrimination by looking at the younger people in the group, the healthier people in the group? Is it really that necessary or are we speaking about a few isola ted cases ?

The great discrimination against a single individual could be reduced by all of the parties bearing that monetary weight. Couldn't it be dealt with that way? HON. R. PENNER: I'll simply make a final observation, that what you appear to be dealing with as group cont racts are covered in another section. This

section deals primarily with individual contracts. I'll move on, just one further question. You were critical with respect to

section 26. Please don't misun derstand me; I'm not criticizing your right to be critical. But you � were concerned about "as soon as is reasonably , possible after a complain t ha s been filed, the comm ission shall cause the complaint to be investigated ." Presume that instead of "as soon as reasonably possible," we have a fixed time. Take your choice - three months, six months. Would the effect of having a fixed time in here be the same as the provision in the Ch arter?

That is, if we didn't meet that time -th ree months, six months -even though it would have been unreasonable in the circumstances for the commission to meet that time, the complaint is therefore invalid? Isn't that the price you would pay for some measure of flexibility with picking arbitrarily a time? Then if that time, for whatever reason, th ree of the staff of the Human Rights Commission take sick or whatever, they cannot meet the obliga tion imposed by

section 26, would it not be better to have some measur e of flexibility? MR. H. PETERS: Mr. Penner, another way of dealing with it is to penalize the commission for failing to deal with the complaint. Instead of invalidating the complaint, 36 there'd be all the more motivation to delay if the complaint was made invalid. Mr. Arnold would like to speak on it. MR. A. ARNO LD: I have another suggestion for consideration, that the term "reasonably possible" would be okay if you took into account the concerns we have expressed about the di fferent types of complaints. You might have to do it by regulation.

That "reasonably possible" may mean something different when it comes to a housing complaint or to an employment complaint or to a service complaint, depending on the exigencies of the particular type of complaint. MR. E. CONNERY: Mr. Peters, you said that you were in favour of granting spousal rights to homosexuals. Is that your particular position or is that the position of MARL? MR. H. PETERS: I think it follows from our position. lt doesn't matter whether it's my personal position or not. We support the provision that discrimination on sexual orientation should be a prohi bited basis of discrimination.

Therefore, it follows that relationships of a nature that now are recognized by the government as common-law relationships only between couples of the same sex should be given the same benefits -dental benefits, medical benefits. I'm afraid it doesn't matter whether it's my personal position. lt is MARL's personal position. MR. E. CONN ERV: Is it MARL's position to be concerned about those who were born homosexual, or is it your desire that people can make a choice whether they want to be homosexual or not and therefore have the same rights? MR. A. ARNOLD: That question was discussed this morning.

I don't think any one of us here are experts on the homosexual lifestyle, but we were told this morning that it is not a question of people choosing it sometime later. People who become homosexuals usually find out at some particular time tha t th ey ha ve had tha t tende ncy. Sometimes it comes at a younger age, sometimes it comes at a later age. So it's a question of those who eventually find out that this is what they really are and that is all it amounts to. I don't think there's a distinction between who was actually born homosexual or makes a choice later.

They may have been born that way and then they are not able to realize it until later in life. MR. E. CONNERY: Could you support those people who wanted as a choice, not because they are born that way, but if people -we talk about the bisexuals and, of course, bisexuals can supposedly be either way. Do you support those who are bisexual? MR. H. PETERS: I'm afraid we're being baited into a discussion which has nothing to do with the protection so that people are treated fairly, no matter what their sexual orientation is. We're being asked if we support certain types of lifestyles. We don't say that. What we

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 say is we're against discriminating against people with those lifestyles, and that's all we wish to say. MR. A. ARNOLD: What we're trying to do is to support human rights protection for people on the basis of sexual orientation. How they got to their particular sexual orientation is not our business. MR. J. McCRAE: Do you have any concerns about the make-up of the adjudication panels? MR. H. PETERS: We're of the view that they should be arrived at by way of an all-party comm ittee. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? No? Thank you.

The next presenter is Marilyn Wolovick from the Manitoba Action Commit tee on the Status of Women. Ms. Wolovick. MS. M. WOLOVICK: Mr. Chairperson, honourable members of the committee, and citizens of Manitoba. The Manitoba Action Com mittee on the Status of Women believes that the government's new Human Rights Code is an historical landmark in the struggle to improve the status of women in Manitoba. Manitoba women continue to face real di scrimination solely because we are women. The Action Comm ittee applauds the government's commitment to provide human rights protection for women.

We are pleased by the specific in clusion of pregnanc y, gender characteristics, marital status, sexual orientation and sexual harrassment as prohi bited grounds for discrimination. The Manitoba Action Commit tee strongly supports the basic intent of the proposed legislation. The establishment of equality is one of our primar y objectives, and we believe that Bill 47 is in accordance with our political mandate.

However, we also believe that the intent of the legislators has been imperfectly realized in a number of areas. lt is to these areas that we call attention and we request that the appropriate amendments be implemented and passed. Our first area of concern relates to the fact that no specific provisions have been made for appointing female commissioners or adjudicators responsible for admini stering The Human Rights Code. Our collective experience has made it clear that the sex of the judge or adjud icator has a direct correlative effect on the outcome of decisions.

Since the Code does allow for affirmative action and clearly und erstands the need for such a provision, we can only hope that the failure to implement theory into practice was an oversight by the legislators. Indeed, it is unreasonable to expect others to assume the responsibility of achieving parity of the sexes when the government allows itself the right to be exempt from such an endeavour.

Therefore, the Manitoba Action Commit tee on the Status of Women recommends that the Human Rights Commission implement an immediate affirmative action program, appointing female representation for both the commission and the adjudicative boards, and that their representation be proportionate to their percentage in the population. Failure to do so would contravene

section 9(3) regarding systemic discrimination which 37 prohi bits "any act or omission tha t results in discrimination within the meaning of subsection (1) , regardless of the form that the act or omission takes and regardless of whether the person responsible for the act or omission intended to discriminate." Our second area of concern is of an economic nature and is pertinent to the viability of women being able to equally partake of the services offered by the Human Rights Code.

According to the Code, and I quote: "Every witness required to attend a hearing is entitled to receive from the party requesting his or her presence witness fees and expenses at the rate of compensation payable to witnesses in the court." On the surface, this seems fair enough but, when you consi der tha t women comprise the hi g hest percentage of the lower socioeconomic strata, then an obvious di screpancy becomes apparent.

A singl e woman raising a family and living on social assistance is going to be very hard-pressed to find cash to bring forth charges of sexual harassment against a landlord or anyone else who might be making her life miserable. Another debilitating factor arises over the possibility of a female complainant having to pay some or all of the cost of any party being affected should her case be decided as frivolous or vexatious. We assume that this is intended to deter abusive situations.

However, given that at this point we have no guarantees that women will be part of the judging process. we believe that some women may well find this an intimidating if not prohibitive factor. Our only recourse is to strongly reiterate our first recommendation and to also suggest a modification of the rules on witness fees. Therefore, the Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women recommends

section 39(7) be given an additional clause stating that women of low socioeconomic status be exempt from any and all costs. Our third area of concern is in regard to sexual orientation. Let it be known from the outset that we fully endorse the intent in the Human Rights Code to prohibit discrimination against any individual or group on the basis of sexual orienta tion, whether that ind ividual or group belongs to the mino rity or the majority in our society.

We firmly believe in the principle that all individuals are to be judged according to personal merit and qualifications, and that each of us is entitled to the same basic human rights. While we applaud the government's recognition that heterosexual ity, homosexuality and bisexuality are all three sexual orientations, we are concerned however with the actual definition of sexual orientation used in the bill. lt is both misleading and redundant. We are referring to the clause, "consenting adults acting within the law." This clause is not pertinent to the definition of sexual orientation.

In fact, it erroneously implies that sexual orientation relates to an activity as opposed to a preferred way of life. A person's sexual orientation refers to the gender a person feels most comfortable in sharing affection and intimacy with, and ought not be considered as merely an isolated act. Further, the aforementioned clause might mislead some into thinking that the Human Rights Code actually supersedes criminal law, which it does not. Perhaps it would be simpler and far more appropriate to make clear the legalities of the Code at the very beginning and not as an addendum to a definition. Therefore,

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 the Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women recommends that the clause, "consenting adults acting within the law," be omitted from the definition of sexual orientation. (Mr. Chairman in the Chair.) Our fina l area of concern is in regard to the interpretive powers granted to adjudicators in a number of areas. The clause, "unless bona fide and reasonable cause exists for the discrimination" leaves the door wide open for adjudicators to use highly subjective reasoning in determining the outcome of a case.

For example, an adjudication board may hold that a view held by a major segment of society in regard to another segment is bona fide and reasonable cause for a person to discrimina te against a member of that group. In other words, it could result in discrimina tory practices being seen as a valid justific ation for continue d di scrimination.

Therefore, th e Mani toba Action Com mittee on the Status of Women recommends that the clause "unless bona fide and reasonable cause exists for the discrimination" be stricken from all designated areas and be replaced with "no cause is bona fide or reasonable unless it is based on objective fact." In conclusion, the Manitoba Action Comm ittee on the Status of Women strongly supports the legal protection in the Human Rights Code of a woman's human rights.

We remind the government, however, that discrimination is perpetuated within a social context where women have less power than men to protect ourselves even under the provisions of the new Human Rights Code. Therefore, we urge the government not to perpetuate systemic discrimination, but (1) , to adopt affirmative action with respect to women on the commission and the adjudicative boards and, (2), to exempt individuals of low socioeconomic status from any and all costs of bringing a complaint to the Human Rights Commission.

We also recommend that, (3), the government omit from the definition of sexual orientation the claus e "consenting adults acting within the law," and (4), that the clause "unless bona fide and reasonable cause exists for the discrimination" be stricken from all areas and replaced with "no cause is bona fide or reasonable unless it is based on objective fact." The implementation of these amendments would help further the objectives of the Human Rights Code in protecting the individual from discrimination rooted in ignor ance, social habit and privilege in recog nizing the individual worth and digni ty of every member of the human family.

Final ly, we cong ratula te Premier Pawl ey, this government and the Attorney-General, the Hon. Roland Penner, for bringing forward this progressive legislation. The Manitoba Action Commit tee on the Status of Women firmly believes that human rights legislation that clearly combats the discrimination all women face in our daily lives will have a profound and far-reaching effect on the status of women in Manitoba. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Wolovick. Questions? The Attorney -General. HON. R. PENNER : Ms.

Wolovick, it migh t seem uncharitable for me to ask you any questions after the compliment which you paid, but just two questions. 38 You asked for the commission to implement an immediate affirmative action program with respect to the commission and adjud icative boards. Are you familiar with the composition of the commission now? MS. M. WOLOVICK: To date, there has only been one woman on the commission. MR. CHAIRMAN: May I know the name, please, for the purpose of the record? MS. M. WOLOVICK: Bonnie MacQueen. MR. CHAIRMAN: MacQueen. HON. R. PENNER: Yes.

In fact, the commission has 13 members, nine of whom are women. MS. M. WOLOVICK: I stand corrected . HON. R. PENNER: Yes. I thought I would like to get that straight for the record. Second ly, a point is raised on page 2 about the difficulty that a single woman raising a family and living on social assistance -and I'm certainly very sensitive to the problems that such women have -is going to be very hard-pressed to find cash to bring forward charges of sexual harassment, and then raises the question of witness fees. Are you familiar with

section 34 of the act which points out that parties to an adjudication under this commission, under this Code, it is the commission which shall have carriage of the complaint? That means that, if a complaint is brought forward to the commission and is accepted, the commission provides the lawyer, subpoenas the witnesses and pays the witness fees. MS. B. MacQUEEN: But it states clearly that the complainant is the one who has to pay the witness fees. HON. R. PENNER: The parties in adjudication under this Code are (

a) the commission, which shall have the carriage of the complaint. MS. B. MacQUEEN: 39(7). MR. CHAIRMAN: MacQueen? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. But 39(7) must be read with 34, and it is the commission which requires witnesses to attend. MS. B. MacQUEEN: So then under no circumstances women will be paying into the cost? HON. R. PENNER: That's right. MS. B. MacQUEEN: Including if the case is found vexatious and frivolous? HON. R. PENNER: If a case is not accepted because it's deemed to be frivolous and vexatious, then it never gets to the point of . . . MS. B. MacQUEEN: Except that it says, if it's found frivolous and vexatious, the complainant will end up paying the cost for . . .

Thursday, 9 July, 1987 HON. R. PENNER: That's entirely discretionary in those cases. MS. M. WOLOVICK: I think our major . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Wolovick, we have to know who is speaking on the record. MS. M. WOLOVICK: Oh, Marilyn Wolovick. I think our major concern is around the issue of sexual harassment cases and the assumption that a woman who is bringing forward a complaint of sexual harassment, it might be construed as being frivolous or vexatious. So if there was any danger of her being required to pay the costs of any of the legal matters, she would be discouraged from even bringing forward the complaint.

HON. R. PENNER: Thank you. I understand your concern, and I've pointed out other sections of the act to you. MS. M. WOLOVICK: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other questions? Hearing none, thank you. The next presenter is Mr. Edward Lipsett, private citizen. Mr. Lipsett. MR. E. LIPSETT: Mr. Chairman, honourable members, I'm Edward Lips ett and I'm speaking in my ind ividual capacity. Regrettably, I don't have a formal written presentation. I'll be making a few remarks. I've got some notes, some previously published things, and the rest I'll be coming in on a wing and a prayer, basically.

First of all, I'd like to congratula te this government for bringing in some very important concepts and for their moral courage in some areas. However, there are some problems with this legislation which I think could be dealt with through amendments without scrapping a whole bill, and I'll try to deal with them. I'll be as brief as possible, but that still isn't -you know, some I hea

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-2-pe2
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 2nd hansardpdf pe2.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	afd9968e556075e4510e98de206a5d5ee39a067f

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).