Manitoba Committee Hansard — 10 July 1987 (Public Expenditures Committee, Sitting 3, 33rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

33-2-pe3

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISL ATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MA NITO BA THE STANDING CO MMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTION S Friday, 10 July, 1987 TIME - 1:00 p.m. LOCATION - Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRMAN: - Mr. C. Santos (Burrows) ATTENDANCE - 11 - QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Cowan, Penner. Hon. Mrs. Smith (O sborne) Messrs. Birt, Connery, Dolin, Mrs. Hammond, Messrs. Jo hnston, Ma loway, Santos, Smith (Ell ice) APPEARING: Mr. and Mrs. Tye and Nancy Gam ey, private citizens Mr. Rheal Hebert, private citizen Mrs. Terry Lion, private citizen Ms. Denise Shavin, private citizen Mr.

Larry Licharson, Big Brother s Association of Winnipeg Ms. Alison No rb erg , Ch arter of Rights Coalition Mr. Gerry Brydon, private citizen Ms. Rhonda Cho rney, Lesbian Phone Line Mr. Ross Davidson, Gay Fathers of Winnipeg Dr. Lois Beckwith, Planned Parenthood of Canada Ms. Julie Enyingi, Planned Parenthood of Manitoba Mrs. Wendy Woodcock, REAL Women of Canada Mr. Dennis Hennessey, private citizen Mr. Ken McGhie, private citizen Mr. Tom Cohoe, private citizen Mr. George Feenst ra, private citizen Mr. Randy Wengel, private citizen Mrs. Louise Brom ley, private citizen Mr. Cornie Friesen, private citizen Rev.

Kenneth Heppner, Pastors' Evangelical Fellowship Mr. Joe Taylor, private citizen Mr. Joseph Caulfield, Christian Council and Service Mr. Ken DeLisle, private citizen MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill No. 47 - The Human Rights Code; Code des droits de la Personne MR. CHAIRMAN: Comm ittee, please come to order. 77 We are continuing the public hearings on Bill No. 47, The Human Rights Code. The first persons to present are Nancy and Tye Game y, private citizens. MRS. N. GAMEY: Members of this Legislature and audience, I am speaking as a private citizen.

I am a strong supporter of the institution of the family in our society. I am concerned about the future my children will have in Canada. Children are unable to protect thems elves in many ways. lt is at birth that they require the most protection and the type of protection that they need changes as they mature. With increasing maturity also comes increasing independence, ability, and accountability for their own decisions until they are com pletely independent and fully accountable for their own decisions.

This complete independence often comes in the latter half of their teen years. lt is my respons ibility as a parent to provide the protection for them as children that they are unable to provide for themselves, in physical, emot ional, moral and spiritual ways. If we buy lifejackets for our children, tell them not to take rides with strangers, why should we not provide them with a moral framework in which to live?

I want to be ensured that if I choose a private educational institution for my child that I will be able to choose it according to its specific moral stance, that is, monogamous heterosexual relationsh ips. I do not want bisexuality or homosexuality taught to my children as acceptable lifestyles. Now let me say that I personally have some close friends who are homo sexuals. They were not born as homosexuals, but came to have their sexual orientation through role models, sexual experiences and choices made in early life.

Through counselling and deep struggles with family and other close relationships, they have come to understand the development of their hom os exua l orientation and chosen to leave that lifestyle behind. lt is possible to change one's sexual orientation. I have seen it happen. As a believer and follower of Christ, I advocate a love for the homo sexual which would allow them to live with a human dignity which is everyone's right without condoning their lifestyle and without giving them the privilege to advocate or teach their sexual orientation as normaL MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ga mey. MR. T.

GAMEY: Honourable Chairman and those of the Legislature, I am speaking as a private cit izen. I do not support Bill 47 but believe very strongly that my own personal rights would be removed if such a bill was passed. I believe, as a private citizen of Manitoba, that my right to choose a private institution for the education of our children that had certain moral standards could be hindered.

Friday, 10 July, 1987 I believe in only monogamo us heterosex ual relationships and that homosexuality is not natural or orientation -received at birth. Sexual preferences can be and are learned behaviour that can be reversed. I speak from a personal position, having known certain people who live and lived and were active in the gay community and lifestyle. Having sought counsel, it has been shown that their sexual orientation was somet hing that was a personal choice, which was influenced by several different ci rcumstances and relat ionships throughout their child hood .

Some have made the decision to change and some have not. I do not believe that anybody should be denied a job or tenancy because of their sexual preference, but that a private institution should have the right to set their own moral standards and not be forced to condone homosexual ity, which may be cont rary to their beliefs and moral standards taught by the institution such as church or private religious school. Within our culture, a basic belief that has risen over many years is that whatever feels good is right. Just because something may feel good does not necessarily make it right.

Thank you for giving me and my wife this opportunity to speak and to make known our personal beliefs. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? Hearing none, we thank you. The next presenter will be Rev erend Kenneth Heppner, representing Pastoral Evangelical Fellowship. The next presenter is Miss Mary McLean, private citizen. The next presenter is Mr. Rheal Hebert, private citizen. Mr. Hebert. MR. R. HEBERT: Mr. Chairman and members of the Legislature, I come here to be against the Bill 47. What I'd like to share first is the reason I'm against it is because I'd like to share an experience I've had in my life.

When I was a child, seven years old, I was used by a homosexual. I was involved in it for three years - from seven to ten years old - but for some strange reason I knew it was wrong. I chose not to do it anymore, but I lived with that guilt for the rest of my life. My relationships with others were destroyed because of it. I could not cope with myself. A couple of times, I tried to commit suicide because of what had happened in my earlier life, but through the grace of God and the love of Christians who I ran into, I learned to accept myself and to know that I was forgiven of that.

I know that there is a choice that people can make in that area. They don't have to be homosexual. They can make that choice not to be. I am against it because of what it could do to society. Because of my early experience in it, I see the danger of young kids learning about it and going through the same problems I went through. And I was not only involved with that, but that also got me involved in seeking for things that would fill that guilt that I had in me. I got involved in drugs - you name it - just to try to cover that up.

But when I finally decided to give my life to Jesus Christ, all these things were taken away and I know that I am forgiven. What I'm trying to point across is that, accord ing to last night at the hearing, I've heard from most gay people that they don't have the choice. 78 That is not true. They do have the choice. They can decide to be or not to be a homosexual, because I made that decision. And I know there are many people out there who can say, through the experience they'v e had similar to mine, they would say yes to this. I can see much danger in the spread of AIDS.

Basically I feel, as a government, you should not promote this because of the danger of it, because of what the Word of God says. lt was strongly amplified yesterday that no man shall lie with a man like a woman, because it is an abomination to the Lord, and I feel very strongly in that personal ly. What was mentioned a lot last night from the gay people was they say that - how would I explain that? - they cannot control their emotions in the area, they need tha t com pas sion, they need whatever. But the way I see it, they look at love in a totally different way than what love is.

Because they take love, and their basis of love is lust, which is not God ly, and that's what their implication is, is lust. I'd like to share a bit of a word here, what I feel love is according to the Word of God. The Word of God says love is patient, love is kind, it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud, it is not rude, it is not self-se eking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs; love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

The Word of God is truth and we need, as a country, to realize that we have to go according to the Word of God because those are the principles that we can live on and this is what I believe. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any questions? Hearing none, thank you, Mr. Hebert. The next presenter is Mr. Pierre Brochu, private citizen. The next presenter is Mr. Joe Taylor, private citizen. The next presenter is Mr. Alan Buckley, private citizen. Next presenter is Mr. Joseph Caulfield. The next presenter , Mrs. Terry Lion, private citizen. Mrs. Lion. MRS. T. LION: Honourable Chairman, members of the Legislature and citizens.

I am a concerned private citizen and I want to express my concern regard ing this bill. I want to talk about three areas. First of all, the area of homosexuals being born normal. I think that's questionable, because if a person was born a homosexual, I have to wonder if maybe they wouldn't have any sperm or they wouldn't have any eggs in order to reproduce. One thing I look at is human nature - if we look at animals outside, they know instinctively that they're supposed to mate with the other sex or that they should mate with the other sex. We don't see a male dog mating with another male dog.

I think that homosexuals, to tell you the truth, need unde rstanding. They don't need people to condemn them and I'm not here to condemn them tod ay. If you say well, they think that's normal and so we should give them their rights, how about prostitutes? They were brought up in maybe an environment where they think being a prostitute is normal, maybe this is all they know. Maybe they didn't have a father or a mother and the only way they can make money is go out there, but we don't legalize that because we know it's wrong. lt's just like any other thing - just because you label it normal, do we make it legal?

Friday, 10 July, 1987 Somebody said to me, how about if we give them their rights so that they can teach, but what if they just leave it at home if they're a homosexual, they leave their practices at home? Well, I don't believe a person can just leave it at home. If my daughter or my son went up to the teacher and said, are you married, and the teacher said, yes, what's her name? His or her name is George. The thing is my son or daughter would question that, and wonder well come you've got a man for a wife?

Then he would have to explain why he has a man for a wife, because it's our teachers and our counsellors who are forming the minds of our children tod ay. I know that I do not want my children brought up in a society where it's taught to believe that you can be a homosexual. Another area, of course, is the AIDS area. In North America, the homosexual community and intravenous users are the highest risk group.

I was thinkin g about that and I thought, you know, if somebody came in from a different country with a disease, we would probably put him in quarantine and we wouldn't let him spread this dis ease; we would do something about it. I think the thing is, we are afraid to offend the homosexual. it's not the person but it's the disease that we have to deal with. The homo sexuals shouldn't look at it as, well they're treating me as the person that is doing the wrong, when really it's the thing, the root, that we have to get to. We should be allowed to discriminate to protect society from an outspr ead from this.

See this bill isn't just going to affect tod ay, it's going to affect tomorrow and it's going to affect the years to come. If we have a teacher or a nursery worker who is a homosexual, and if he has AIDS and nobody knows about it, he could cut his finger and before he wipes it off, it could be bleeding, and he could wipe a little kid's nose and right there he could contact AIDS. Really we have to protect the citizens from people who have AIDS or what could come of that. The last thing I want to talk about is our democratic society.

In our democratic process, it is not necessary for each Manitoban to attend the legislative Sessions to cast their vote on this or any other bill. Each adult has a right to vote for one person to represent them and their views. The man or woman who is nominated and then elected to this body is here, not because of their personal opinions, but to represent the opinions and needs of their constituents. To guarantee that, in effect, the voice of each Manitoban is heard. I've collected some surveys that you've handed out in your different areas, and the majority of the people do not want this to be passed.

I just ask if you are listening to the people that are in your area? Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Wait a minute, there are some questions. The Member for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: Mrs. Lion, you made reference to prostitution and legalizing it. As I understand the criminal law in this country, the act of prostitution is not illegal. The aspect of soliciting for the purposes of prostitution is illegal and prostitution, per se, is not.

So ther efore, I wonder if the government were to go ahead and not withdraw this bill regarding homosexuals, 79 what would your commen t be about why th e government would not be protecting prostitutes as well in the same way? If, hypothetic ally, you were in agreement with the go vernment, th at th e sexual orientation aspect of this bill should go ahead, why would you not be pressing the government to include prostitutes for this protection too? MRS. T. LION: But I'm not in agreement. MR. J. McCRAE: That's right. it's a very hypothetical question but I thought I'd put it in anyway. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The next presenter is Denise Shavin, private citizen. Ms. Shavin. MS. D. SHAVIN: Thank you for allowing me to present to you tod ay. I'd like to thank the government for bringing in this legislat ion. I am a lesbian mother of two children. I live with somebody common law. I consider our relationship to be as equal as any common -law person in this city. I pay taxes, I own a house, my children attend school, Girl Guides, Brownies. We do exactly the same things as any other common -law relat ionship in this city. I was raised in a normal, healthy, happy family of heterosexuals - a Roman Catholic fami ly.

My parents don't understand and don't claim to understand my lifestyle and my choices, but they do love me and accept me and want me to be able to live my life without dis crimination or harassment. Several times, during the last few years since we had moved to Manitoba seven years ago, I have been party to discrimination, myself, my partner and my children. When we tried to buy a house together we were turned down for a mortgage by thr ee banks and two trust companies. Both of us had sufficient incomes and qualified. We were turned down because we were two women buying a house.

I was told by two places had I applied alone I would have gotten the mortgage. We finally did get a mortgage togeth er. At various times in the past few years I have been afraid of losing custody of my children and my job, not due to neglect or abuse but strictly due to my living situation with another woman. Other than that I really don't have much to say. I'm just asking that the government give me the same rights that you take for granted. I want to be able to live in my neighbourhood; I don't want to be harassed. I want my children to be accepted. I want my partner to be able to go to PTA meetings with me.

I want to be able to own a house, have a job and not fear discrimin ation or reprisals because of the person I love and my lifestyle. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? Hearing none, thank you Ms. Shavin. The next presenters are Larry Licharson and John Deacon representing Big Brothers Asso ciation of Winnipeg. MR. L. LICHARSON: I apologize for the fact that Mr. Deacon isn't here. I believe he was held up in traffic. MR. CHAIR MAN: Are you one of the other . . .

Friday, 10 July, 1987 MR. L. LICHARSON: My name is Larry Lichar son, yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, Lichar son. MR. L. LIC HARSON: Ho nourable Chai rperson, mem bers of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for the opportunity of addressing you this afternoon regarding Bill 47. My name is Larry Licha rson and I am president of the Big Brothers Association of Winnipeg. The main reason for the existence of our organization is to provide young lads aged 6 to 14 from father absent homes for the positive male role model, someone they can look up to, admire and emulate.

Although our organization is an autonomous one, we are members of Big Brothers of Canada and subscribe to national standards in the provision of this service. One of these standards is that we do not match adult homo sexuals with little brothers. This is a standard which my board of directors, who are all Manitobans, whole-heartedl y endo rse and supp ort. lt is our understanding that under the proposed legislat ion, we would be considered to be practising discrimination by enforcing this stand ard.

Section 14( 14) deals with occupations paid or unpaid. Wh ile I do not consider bein g a big br other an occupation in the normal sense of the word, under this legislation it would be consider ed so. We would not even be allowed to ask the question - are you a homosexual? - of a prospective Big Brother?

Section 13 (1) deals with the discrim ination in the provision of services. lt is our contention that the little brother is the one being provided with a service, but under this legislation a homo sexual will be deemed to have been denied a service if we do not approve the match. To repeat my earlier statement, our objective is to provide a positive male role model, one which is consistent with the community standards of Manitoba, not other areas.

We do not wish to be put in a position of endorsing or condoning a minority lifestyle or sexual practic e which is inconsis tent with the child's environment, upbringing and lifestyle. What our organization deals with is children, young impressionable children. When these children come to our agency, they are usually coming from homes that have undergone a period of turmoil. What these children do not need at this point in their lives is additional confusion brought on by exposure to a minority lifestyle which they are not capable of dealing with or making rational judgments about.

When these children come to our agency, they are placed under our care, custody and control. We delegate this care, custody and control to Big Brothers who have undergone a thorough screening process. In our situation we in effect become a guardian of the child during the periods of contact between the big and little brother . We do not believe this act should apply in this situation and in similar ones. We believe that

section 14(8) could and should be altered to cover instances where children are out of the home and respectively request that you do so. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? Hearing none, thank you Mr. Licharson. 80 MR. l. LICHARSON: Thank you, Sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: The next presenters are Erwin and Donna Neufeld. Erwin and Donna Neufeld . The next presenter is Lee and Agnes St. Hilaire. Lee and Agnes St. Hilaire. The next presenter is Allison Norkerg representing the Cha rter of Rights Coalition. Ms. Norkerg. MS. A. NORBERG: I'd like to correct the record, it's Alison Norberg, with a "b" and it's one "I".

My mother would want me to say that. MR. CHAIRMAN: One "I". Ms. Norberg. MS. A. NORBERG: Thank you, Mr. Chai rperson and members of the commi ttee. I'd like to start off by thanking you for the opportunity to appear here today on behalf of the Charter of Rights Coalition. Just to clarify, I am a summer staffperson with the organization CORC, that's how I'll refer to it throughout my submission, and also a member of the steering committee prior to and following my summer employment with them. The brie f was prepar ed by a member of our comm ittee - Jerry Bjornson. I am present ing it on behalf of the organization.

Jerry Bjornson wrote the brief for CORC. I also appreciate the opportunity of being deferred to tod ay. We had to receive the brief from North Dakota and though it's with some speed that the comm ittee is proceeding with this, I hope that will ensue to a speedy passage of this bill. So I look forward to that. Also, there will be some portions of the brief that I will be summarizing so I'd appreciate the brief being entered into the record so that it's recorded for its enti rety. The Charter of Rights Coalition is a coalition of 10 groups representing thousands of Manitobans.

Our membership is compris ed of the Elizabeth Fry Society of Manitoba, the Immigr ant Women's Association. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. A point of order being raised by the Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: A point of order. The presenter requested that the brief be entered in the record, I'm wondering, is that, in order to do that, or would the presenter have to read the brief? MR. CHAIRMAN: The presenter has to read the brief, it is being recorded. MS. A. NORBERG: So you don't have provisions to add written submis sions to the record of proceedings? MR.

CHAIRMAN: People who cannot come here have the privilege of just presenting written briefs and that will be taken as such. But the presenters' presentations are recorded in our computer on tapes, and they will appear in print as such. MS. A. NORBERG: As part of the record of proceedings of this committee?

Friday, 10 July, 1987 MR. CHAIRMAN: As part of the records of the proceedings of the committee. MS. A. NORBERG: Oka y, thank you. So would that include portions of my brief that I don't read, or only written submissions? MR. CHAIRMAN: No, only those that you . MS. A. NORBERG: Oka y, well, then, with your indulgence, I am going to read the brief. MR. CHAIRMAN: But it will be in the committee record as such. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, it's a sessional paper. MS. A. NORBERG: Oka y. Thanks for that clarification. As I was saying, our membership is comprised of 10 organizations, the E.

Fry society, the Imm igrant Womens Association of Manitoba, the Junior League of Winnipeg, the Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the Manitoba Association of Women and the Law, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Provincial Council of Women, the United Church of Canada, and the YM-YWCA, since their amalgamation that is included. lt's not on our letterhead and with their indulgence, they are waiting for us to run out of letterhe ad before we add YM to the letterhead.

So it's quite a broad cross-section of organizations that are members of the coalit ion. Our purpose is to education the community and especially women about the potential effect of the Charter of Rights and to involve the public more fully in the ongoing Charter debate, specifically to play an active role in the elucidation and implementation of the Charter's equality provisions. As part of our work, we have completed a partial provincial statute audit which also included auditing of policies and regulations to ascertain provisions which may offend the sex equality guarantees of the Charter.

The first phase of that audit, Charter compliance, selected provincial statutes, included an in-depth analysis of the provincial Human Rights Code as it pr esently stands and included numerous recommendations. These recommendations have been presented to the Provincial Government and are the basis for this presenta tion. I also have a copy of the audit for the comm ittee so that committee members may look at that

section of the audit. lt's some additional paper so I didn't want to add, in terms of copying, but a copy of that audit is available for the committee. I'd like to spend a bit of time talking about

section 15 and also related se ctions of the Ch arter . The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes two sections that are of particular importance to women, that being

section 28 which guarantees all rights and freedoms apply equally to men and women; and

section 15, the equality sect ion, which confers rights and also endorses affirmative action programs. I won't read those out to you - I'm sure you are quite familiar with them. Human rights legislation and the provisions of the Charter work in conjunction with each other .

Section 81 26 of the Charter states that the guarantees in the Charter shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights and freedoms that exist in Canada. Therefore any provision in human rights legislation which go beyond the provisions of the Charter will apply to Manitobans, notwithstanding the Ch arter. At the same time, any human rights legislation passed by provincial Legislature must, at minimum, comply with the Ch arter.

While there is much discussion regarding how far reaching the Charter provisions go, it is clear that they apply to all direct government statutes, regulations and Orders-in-Council. Discussions revolve around whether it applies to goverment-funded bodies, the entire body of common law, municipal by-laws, etc., as well as to the private sector. If the Charter is interpreted marrowly to appl y to go vernment act ivity , protection for indi vid uals will be app lied thr ough huma n rights legislation. lt is ther efore essential that human rights legislation be as strong and as broad as possible.

In commenting specifically on Bill 47, I first want to commend the Provinial Government for this bill which is a substantial improvement on existing legislation. We are committed to working with the Legislative Assembly to ensure that all Manitobans enjoy the benefits of The Human Rights Code, that provides extensive protect ions for Ma nitobans and provides the Human Rights Comm ission that is empowered to administer the Code, redress inequality and educate the population to their rights and responsibilities under the code.

Commenting specifically on some sections of the bill, and I would want to qua lify here that it is by no means an extensive discussion about the bill clause-by-clause, but we have pulled out some areas of the bill that we would particularly like to draw your attention to; so I'd add the caution that it's not a comprehensive discussion of all sections of the bill but some major areas of it that we feel are quite important to draw to your attention. With regard to the

preamble of the bill, we are particularly pleased with the inclusion in part (

e) which makes the statute paramount over all other laws of the province. Such paramountcy is essential if human rights legislation is to operate effectively as a safeguard to women's right to sexual equality. In the past years, the Human Rights Commissions have operated on the assumption that the act did not have general paramountc y and th erefore were powerless to act on blatant complaints of sex discrimination where the offence, act or amendment thereto was passed after The Human Rights Act. We are ther efore supporting the inclusion of part (

e) of the

preamble. In the

section of

definitions, in our previous audit, called for the inclusion of sexual orientation in The Human Rights Act. We are concerned though that the definition of sexual orientation that is presently in the bill - we support those who have raised this concern along with their support for incl usion of sexual orientation. We would therefore recommend that Bill No. 47 be amended to define sexual orientation as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual - period, or to eliminate that from the definition section.

We would concur with concerns that have been raised with regard to the phrase, "and refer only to consenting adults acting within the law," that that seems to be covered within existing Criminal Code provisions.

Friday, 10 July, 1987 With regard to

part 1 of the bill, in order to have equal prote ct ion of the law, women must feel confident that the law will be enforced to their benefit. The responsi bility of the Human Rights Commission and the makeup of the commission are as important as the laws that they are entrusted to uphold. Confidence in the commission would be enhanced through two mechanisms. No. 1, being staggered terms of commissioners, and No. 2, ensuring impartiality of commis si oners. CORC supports th e provision for staggered terms, as outlined in

section 2(4). We would recommend th at the princ iple of im partiality of commissioners be included in that section, by the inclusion of a provision for an all-party committee of the Legislature, as recommended by the commission in their proposed Human Rights Code. Speak ing specifically to the is sue of female representation as adjudicators - as of June 1985, only one female adjudicator had been appointed by the Attorney-General, and that although The Human Rights Code does make provisions for affirmative action in

section 11 later on, there is no mention of this in relation to the appointm ent of adjud icators. CORC would therefore recommend that the government undertake an immed iate affirmative action program with regard to appointing female adjudicators and judges until the goal of parity of sexes is reached. In

part 2 of the bill, although sex is not defined within sect ion 15 of the Char ter,

section 15 is open-ended. Because of the open-ended nature of sect ion 15 , discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, marital status, gender and sex- ba sed ch aract er istics would undoubtedly be protected, either within the definition of sex or as a distinc t non-enumerated grounds. That's within the Charter . Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation would also undoubtedly be a non-enumerated ground. In order to comply with the provisions of sect ion 15 of the Charter and create certainty within the law, CORC supports the inclusion of

section 9 in the bill and its extension of characteristics as outlined in (f), (g), (

h) and (i). That's inclusion of the prohibited grounds of preg nancy, marital status, gende r and sex-based characteristics. We support the inclusion of those. Discrimination on the basis of social or economic status is not presently prohibited under The Human Rights Act and is not included in the prop osed legisla tion. This was an area that we include d recommendations on in our audit.

Some statistical information here - in 1982, the average income of Canadian women, with income, was only 52.8 percent of the average income of Canadian men with income; and also in'81 - 82.6 percent of single-parent families were headed by women and had an average income of $11 ,790. The failure to prohibit discrimination on the basis of social or economic status has a disparate impact on women; so in effect, discrimina tion on the basis of sex, and contrary to

section 15 of the Chart er. lt is also conceivable that discrimination on the basis of social or economic status may be held as an unenumerated ground of discrimina tion under

section 15 of the Char ter. CORC would therefore recommend th at sect ion 9(2) of the prop osed legislation be expanded to include social or economic status as an applicable characteristic. 82 Skipping over to page 6 - CORC believes it is necessary that provisions be enacted to sp ecifically define di scrimination, as including syst emic discrimination and explicitly stating that an intention to discrimi nate is not a prereq uisite to finding discrimination. CORC ther efore supports the inclusion of

section 9(3) within the proposed legislation. We also support the inclusion of the concept of "reasonable accommoda tion" for the special needs of an individual or group. CORC also supports the inclusion of

section 11 , affirmative action being permitted, and we'll discuss that in a bit more detail later on in the brief. CORC commends the inclusion of the requirement for reasonable accom modation in interpreting sections 13 through 18 of the proposed act, but we do have some concerns tha t bona fide and rea sonable requirements are qualifications in that phrase in other parts of the bill. A clear and more comprehensive definition would eliminate this concern.

And I would concur with some of the comments made last night to the commit tee by Mona Br own of the Manitoba Association of Women and the Law with regards to being clear what the intent is in those words. If the intent is to have a subjective and objective test, then say that in the legislation. We have had a lot of experience with

interpretation and I realize that much of the

interpretation of those kinds of clauses has taken that into account. We also have numerous instanc es where the intent of legislators is not interpreted in the way in which they intended, by judges. So we would like that

section to be quite explicit. CORC supports the tightening of the exceptions for private residences in

section 16. With regard to discriminatory signs and statements in sect ion 18, that eliminates some of the concerns that CORC has raised in the past with the government on this area, that we do have some concern that

section 18 does not protect women from degrad ing and dehumanizing affro nts to dignity. There's a specific case with relation to that. That's an area that I don't think will be able to be fully - or drafting of amendment to include that. That could happen in time so we are not including a recommendation to include this at this time. We are willing to wait and see how that particular

section holds out; it's a test of time. With regard to sexual harassment, again this would undoubtedly be accepted as a non-enumerated ground under

section 15 of the Ch arter. We suppor t the inclusion of the sect ions related to sexual harassment and we commend the government for the inclusive definition and the inclusion of the phrase, "if the person making the solicitation of the advance knows or ought reasonably to know that it is unwelcome . . . "We feel that it's a very good and comprehensive definition and we're quite pleased with it. In

part Ill of the bill, we are pleased with the increased powers of investigation and, as well, some of the provisions with regard to damages. Based on past experience, damages awarded on discrimination cases have been extremely low so we're pleased that there are amounts set out within the bill. CORC suports the direction of special remedies as set out in

part IV of the bill. We are especially pleased to see the inclusion of contract compliance as elucidated in

section 56. The specific mention of affirmative action

Friday, 10 July, 1987 programs meets many of the concerns raised by CORC on previous occasions. I'd like to deal specifically now with the issue of affirmat ive action. Affirmativ e action is a systemic remedy to systemic discrimination.

Section 15 (2) of the Charter specifically contempla tes "the amelioration of condi tions of disadvantaged individuals or groups." That

section recogn izes that certain gr oups of Canadians have been historically disadvantaged and ensures that affirmative action programs will not be st ruck down . lt permits a gr oup remedy for dis crimination. CORC also cautions that affirmative action programs do not always operate to the benefit of women. This can be attributed to many factors including paternalistic attitudes towards women and competing concerns of disadvantaged groups.

Some of the measures that I'm about to outline are not intended as measures th at we're ask ing be delineated within The Human Rights Code, but we feel that they are an important backdrop to understan ding the recommendation that we would like to make with regard to affirmative action.

So some measures that are important in affirmative action programs that should be included: the program must relate to a specific group or groups; they must be applied to groups for which there is statistical evidence of past discrimination; they must have limited objectives and be of limited duration, ending when the goal has been met; and they must not result in the maintenance of unequal or separate standards or rights for the target group or any other disadvantaged group.

In order to meet these criteria, it is necessary to include work force analysis, review of present employment practices, mandatory quotas, special measures and a monitoring system. Much of those kinds of measures are currently being add ressed in other areas of the government's agenda. I give that as backdrop for the recommendation that we would like to make. I would point out again that we support the inclusion of affirmative action programs in

section 43(2Xe). lt is the position of CORC that the provisions of Bill 47 do not go far enough to eliminate the systemic discrimination which could be ameliorated through affirmative action. Therefore, we recommend that the Government of Manitoba include in Bill47 the provisions to establish a special arm of the Human Rig hts Commission to educate the public on affirmative action programs for women. In conclusion, I would like to commend once again the government for introducing this bill because it is a substantial improvement on the existing act and we commend our suggestions to you for your consideration.

Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? The Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Yes, I just have one quest ion. Is CORC suggesting sexual orientation as being one of the groups in the affirmative action program? MS. A. NORBERG: Affirmative action programs can be designed for many disadvantaged groups. it's not 83 just women who experience systemic discrimination. That is not an area that was not explicitly dealt with in the audit sections that we did with affirmative action, so I can't speak with complete knowledge on that issue.

I guess I would just say that there are many groups that would qualify for affirmative action programs. I think the important thing in the act is that it does not prohibit the existence of affirmative action programs. I think it would be up to government whether that's within the scope of their affirmative action programs at the present time. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other questions? The Member for Portage. MR. E. CONNERY: You covered the total bill and I appreciate that because there's a lot of material in this bill.

Generally speaking, we've been dealing with the sexual orientation clause which is I guess the controversial clause, but there are a lot of other important issues in this bill that I'm glad you add ressed, but I guess I do have some concerns. Basically, if it centres around the sexual orientation, you're saying the protection of bisexuals should be included in this bill. MS. A.

NORBERG: I think that we recognize that there may be some concern to have some definition of what sexual orientation is for the purposes of this bill and so that we would understand tha t to include heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual persons. I think that

interpretation of sexual orientation clauses in other jurisdictions would take similar

interpretation even though it's not explicit with regards to homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual. So sexual orientation is commonly understood to include those three categories. MR. E. CONNERY: Well, when we deal with bisexuality we are dealing with choice. I have some concern with that particular area. When we're dealing with those that were born homosexual and I do believe there are those that are born or attain it very early in life and don't have a choice and I have a strong compassion and they should be protected, but if we make it an acceptable alternative and we start dealing with choice.

What we do to our family structure and what do we do to our lifestyle as a people when we now say that people can make a choice whether they want to be heterosexual or homosexual? MS. A. NORBERG: I'm not entirely clear what the member is asking me to answer to. I think it's clear that the issue of whether or not orientation is something that is chosen is not something that is within our manda te to answer, and I have some concerns that that kind of a question seems to be a litmus test for where groups stand on particular issues.

So it's not within the mandate of our group to comment on the issue of whether or not a particular orientation is chosen and I don't think it's the issue at hand within this legislation. MR. E. CONNERY: You're saying you approve of the bill, so you must be approving of the context of the bill.

Friday, 10 July, 1987 MR. CHAIRMAN: May I remind members not to argue with the present er, but to ask questions. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. M. DOLIN: On a point of order. I would suggest the Member for Brandon West not direct the Chair. I do not think that is appropriate. I think the Chair has a right to remind members of the rules of the committee and that the Member for Brandon West remember the rules and he would understand that the chairman is doing his job. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's go on with the business. The Member for Portage. MR. E.

CONNERY: Do you accept homosexuality as an acceptable alternate lifestyle in the context that people can cho ose whether th ey want to be heterosexual or homosexual? MS. A. NORBERG: CORC Manitoba has acknowledged that there's persons of various sexual orientations, including homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual, and beyond that I don't think there is anything we need to comment on. We acknowledge that they exist and recognize that various orientations exist and that all should be included within the protection of human rights legislation. MR. E.

CONNERY: The question is not being answered and I think it's important that the question be answered because we're dealing with something that is very basic. Do you support homosexuality as an acceptable alternate lifestyle? MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions are for clarific at ion. We're not supposed to press them into answering. The Member for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: Mr. Chairman, earlier the Honourable Member for Kirk field Park discussed with Ms. Norberg about affirmative action programs, and in your answer , Ms. Norberg, you referred to systemic dis crimination.

Do you think that homosexuals/bisexuals have been subjected to systemic discrimination? MS. A. NORBERG: In terms of the issue of systemic discrimination, given that homosexual and bisexual persons have not previously been protected within human rights legislation, I think we would first need to see the outcome of complaints, whether it's with regard to firing or denial of ac commodation, etc., and what the outcome of those complaints are. I think then it will be on the basis of that that we would have a clear understan ding of whether or not we are also dealing with an issue of systemic discrimination.

So because there have not been the avenues of making complaints with regard to that in the past, I think it's hard to tell whether or not the issue is one of individual cases or systemic discrimination. I think the question on that is open with regard to CORC and we couldn't comment specifically beyond that. MR. J. McCRAE: But the question was put in the context and in relation to affirmative action.

That's the type of systemic discrimination I'm talking about. 84 You declined comment on whether these groups should enjoy the benefits of affirmative action programs, but you did refer to groups suffering from systemic discrimination being the kinds of groups that should be targeted for affirmative action. This is why I'm asking about systemic discrimination to see if I can't get you to agree or disagree that homosexuals and bisexuals have indeed been subject to systemic discrimination and therefore should be entitled to affi rmative action programs. MS. A.

NORBERG: I guess the reason why I've limited my comments on that is that the area that CORC has specifically looked at is the area of affirmative action programs for women. We have not studied in great detail other issues affected by affirmative action programs. We've looked at the principles of and looked specifically at affirmative action programs. lt is a

section that was included in our last audit and I would commend that

section to you. So it may seem that I'm avoiding the issue, but I guess I would say it's not an issue that CORC has particular expertise in beyond the issue of affirmative action programs for women. MR. J. McCRAE: But there are women who are hom osexuals, too. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that a question? MR. J. McCRAE: And therefore, perhaps, as part of the discussion today , it should be addressed. MS. A. NORBERG: I would assume that that would be covered within affirmative action programs for women, period. MR. J. McCRAE: Okay. The Charter of Rights Coalition, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to ask: Is the Charter of Rights Coalition of Manitoba funded directly by the Provincial Government? MS. A. NORBERG: Our funding in the past has come from two primary sources. In terms of dollars to the organization, we've been funded through the Secretary of State Women's Program and also we've had monies from the Attorney-General 's Department in carrying out our audit. That has been supplemented by substantial in kind donations by our member organizations. Some of our organizations have provided us with office space, with photocopying facilit ies, with meeting space, etc., etc.

So I think ther e would be an equal in ki nd contribution from our member organizations so that we have received money from those two sources. Those monies have been used in preparing the statute audits and carrying out educational programs with regard to the content of the audit and Charter equality guarantees for women. So educating women about their equality guarantees within the Charter and, as well, making recommendations to provincial governments that would further those guarantees. MR. J. McCRAE: In addition, Ms.

Norberg, the societies and leagues and comm ittees referred to on the front page of your presenta tion, those groups, a number of them are funded provincially and federally as well?

Friday, 10 July, 1987 MS. A. NORBERG: I think the variety of groups , there is a variety of sources as well for those groups. Some groups are funded by Secretary of State Women 's Program , the United Church of Canada does not receive any government funding to my knowledge and the Junior League of Winnipeg, I can't comment specifically on that, I don't know their financial state, but I think there is a variety of sources , both private and government, depending on the organization and their mandate . MR. J. McCRAE: One more area, Mr. Chairman, briefly.

On page 4, in the middle of the page, you make the statement, "Female representation on the judiciary and adjudicative boards should be proportionate to their percentage percentage of the population" . With that I am in agreement. Then you go on to say, "Evidence shows that there is a direct correlation between the gender of the judge or adjudicator and the tendency to give sympathetic decisions on feminist issues".

Now I may be a little bit naive or maybe behind the times, but I always thought that judges, whether they be male or female, made their decisions based on the evidence put before them in an impartial, unsympathetic and very cool way. Are you suggesting , with that statement, that we should be packing the benches of our courts and our Human Rights Commissions with people who do not look at the evidence in an objective way? MS. A.

NORBERG: I think the area that that is related to is the fact that all of us are socialized and that because the adjudictors - with regards to the Human Rights Commission and as well judges, some of whom are being asked also to adjudicate on cases - are almost exclusively men, that has some impact regardless of the objectivity of any individual, in terms of the kinds of decisions that are made.

Another example of this would maybe be with regard to sexual assault legislation, that prior to enactment of legislation in that area, women could not necessarily be guaranteed of having a sympathetic hearing with regard to a complaint of sexual assault, based on the person involved with the case.

So I think it's pointing out the need to have a broad representation with regard to adjudicators, and hopefully, as we dialogue more about these issues and as government officials and the judiciary become more informed of the issues affecting women, that we won 't need to be concerned about this, that we will all be sensitive to and appreciative of those concerns . MR. J. McCRAE: The Attorney-General has told us that the adjudicators will be judges in every sense of the word deali ng with . . . HON. R. PENNER: I told you that the adjudicators are judges . I never said anything about who they will be. MR. J.

McCRAE: But you said they are judges. HON. R. PENNER: Currently, yes. MR. J. McCRAE: Judges , as the Attorney-General should or would agree with me, deal with evidence on 85 a cold hard dispassionate basis, as opposed to a sympathetic basis. Are you suggesting that there should be a change in that centuries-old principle of law? MS. A. NORBERG: Would you like me to comment? I think if decision makers and judges had been entirely objective, we wouldn't be in a position of having to continue to push for equality rights for women. They would already be fully provided for.

I would also say, beyond tha t, I would like to point out to the committee , there may be other members of the Charter of Rights Coalition who would be able to respond more ably to that issue. I personally am not directly involved with the legal profession and have no training in that area, so I wouldn't wan t to pretend that there may not be other CORC members who could respond more ably to that concern. I've presented it as I understand it and I hope that that satisfies the committee 's concerns. MR. J. McCRAE: You'll be happy to know, Ms.

Norberg, that our Minister of Community Serv ices agrees with you and is in favour of sympathetic judges, according to her comments tha t she threw across the table a few moments ago, so the evidence may not matter if it was left to the Minister of Community Services. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: With respect, Mr.

Chairman , I'm quite able to speak for myself and I think what I was suggesting, admittedly across the table, was that judges should and I think some are capable of integrating both an analytical approach and a humane emphathetic approach , and if I have any hope for the future appointment of judges , I hope that those joint qualities will be looked at seriously . MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions? Hearing none, thank you Ms. Alison Norberg . For the record, the next presenter, Beverley Scott merely arranged to have her written submission be distributed . I call upon Constable R.

Chrismas , representing Brandon City Police Association. The next presenter is Gerry Brydon, private citizen . Mr. Brydon. MR. G. BRYDON: Mr. Chairman , members of the committee, I have a very short brief so I beg your indulgence to read through it. My name is Gerry Brydon. I live at 84 Spence Street in Winnipeg , and I am emp loyed by Turnstone Press as promotion and marketing manager. I am also president of the Association of Manitoba Book Publishers and I have been active in the promotion of Manitoba arts for the past two and one -half years. I am also a gay man and I am here today as a private citizen.

I'm here today to add my voice to those who urge the members of the Legislature , through this committee, to support amendments to The Human Rights Code to include sexual orientation as a category in need of protection. It is important to note how few of us are in a position to make these presentations in proportion

Friday, 10 July, 1987 to the number of gays and lesbians in Manitoba. For most gays and lesbians, such a presentation as this would result in the loss of our jobs, our homes, our participation in volunteer organizations and seriously thr eaten our standing in the community, not to mention increasing the risk of possible physical violence. I am one of the lucky few who live and work in a tolerant environment, where my sexual orientation is not an issue. So as I speak tod ay, I am conscious of my many friends who cannot be here for fear of the consequences in their lives.

That list would include doctors, lawyers, teachers, artists, firemen, policemen, economists, nurses, social workers, members of the media, and countless others. Only when the proposed legislation is passed, will we be able to live our lives without fear of the brutal homophobia and general dis crimination so pervasive in Manitoba. This legislation will not end all discrimination and injustice, but it will give us a toehold, in legal terms, to redress the wrongs committed against gays and lesbians in Manitoba.

As a gay man I have not encountered the front-line discrimination that needs to be add ressed so urgently by Bill 47. I have been active in the gay and lesbian communities in Vancouver and in Montreal and I have travelled widely. In my experience, Manitoba is one of the most brutal societies in which gays and lesbians live. The multicultural idealisms so often espoused by this government has never extended to our culture. The horror stories of discrimination and abuse are legion and have been well documented by the media and in presentat ions to this committee.

I have my own collection of horror stories, including the story of a young woman who was beaten severely with a baseball bat by her brother when she told her family she was lesbian. Also the story of the gay Native man with AID S who spent two months trying to find an apartment in Winnipeg. Visibly sick, he was refused all vacant apartments and eventually settled in a boarding house without proper facilities or protection for his condition. He lived there for some months, shunned by the Native community and by the social service agencies until his recent death.

There is also the discrimina tion that begins in the schools and the huge number of gays and lesbians who never finish high school because they are harassed so severely for being different from their classmates. The results of such wholesale alienation are too many lives wasted through chemical abuse, depression, and even suicide. lt is not a pretty message we receive at an early age from society, the message being we have no right to live as gays and lesbians in any honest open manner. The sad fact is that so many gays and lesbians believe this monstrous homophobia themselves. Dr.

Elisabeth Kubler-Ross has found in her research into death and dying among AIDS patients, that gay men suffer more guilt, fear and resentment than any other group of dying patients she has ever encountered. People who don't believe they have the right to live with dignity are not the kind of people who take care of thems elves, practice safe sex and look after their immune systems. Dr. Kubler-Ross says AIDS is a monstrous disease that society has created by devaluing human beings who find intimacy with members of the same sex.

The massive funding now applied to AID S education is 86 worthless as long as gay people continue to be denied the right the live with dignity. This legislation is the government's best AIDS prevention program. What the AIDS crisis has taught me is that we, as gay people, have become very good at caring for the dying and burying our dead, but we have made virtually no prog ress in gainin g acc eptance in the larger community, to live openly as gays and lesbians.

I hope you will support this legislation and give us a chance to feel a part of the larger society with all the rights and responsibilit ies such access would entail. Unlike the black civil rights movement of the Six ties, we don't need massive expenditures for affirmative action programs in the labour force; we're already integrated into all levels of society in every kind of job. Here I speak as a gay man; I think for women it's a bit different. What we need is this legislation to give us the confidence to no longer remain invisible.

With these amendments to The Human Rights Code, we can start to live as other members of society, openly with dignity and in a tolerant society. The gay and lesbian community of Manitoba is organizing a gay/lesbian pride march on August 2 at one o'clock. We will walk from Vimy Ridge Park, down Portage to Memorial, as far as Memorial Park near the Legislature. Those of us who become confident enough to reveal our true identity will be celebrating our pride in our existence as gays and lesbians. We will also have on hand 300 masks for members of the community unable to take part of the celebration openly.

If this legislation passes, we will be able to celebrate the day when none of these masks will be necessary, I've also brought a book, Morningside Papers, which is a collection of the more memorable moments on Morningside, and one of those is called, "The Closet." lt concerns a piece that Morningside did on a man in St. Cat herine's who was discovered by the police having sex in a washroom. He was an upstanding member of the community and he was afraid of the implications of being discovered, so he drove his car to a secluded area of the city and doused himself in gasoline and burned to death.

After the piece was done, this letter was received by Morningside. lt is from a gay man who is in the closet and I think it describes a lot of members of Manitoba's gay and lesbian community. The people you've seen in these briefs are the people who can live openly, and a very small part of our community. He says: "Let me reveal some thing about myself, about which nobody, and I mean nobody has any idea. I'm a 39 year-old, the product of a very happy and st abl e family environment. I have above-average education, happily married with two small children whom I love dearly.

I hold a senior position in management with a reputable national company, 14 0 people are directly accountable to me. I am actively involved in our local community, sit on many boards, have never been in trouble with the police, and as a confirmed Roman Catholic, regularly attend church. If you met me, I believe I would impress you as a well-spoken reasonably intelligent young man, who is likely to continue to do well in both his career and any other activities in which he is involved. "There is however a darker side to this otherwise perfectly normal, seem ingly well-balanced individual.

I have contact with other men. No, this is not just a

Friday, 10 July, 1987 phase. I have always felt like this, but recognize that this deep desire must be suppressed and will never be fully satisfied because it is just not possible in this or in any other society. "You are quite wrong to assume I want anonymous sexual encounters. They must be anonymous because I just cannot afford them being anything else. If the truth ever got out, it would ruin my marriage, deprive me of my children, affect my career, my standing in the community, and consequently , like my soul brother in St. Catherine , I would have little else to live for.

Hence , the absolute necessity of total secrecy and total frustration in the true sense of the word . "Alt hough this urge is desperate, I just cannot allow myself to become involved with anyone who could possib ly threaten me with my very existence. I would never visit a gay club or bar in my home town , and shy away from washrooms and other places where I know I could find some brief satisfact ion simply because of this overriding fear of discovery .

I would love to have a deep personal rela tionship with someone similarly incl ined but dare not approach anybody with my secret for fear of it being discovered by the rest of the world. "My job allows me to travel occasionally to other Canadian and American cities , and it is on such trips that Mr. Hyde takes over from Dr. Jeckyl. On such a trip, you will find me dressed not in bus iness suits but in a pair of jeans wandering around late at night visiting gay clubs, porno movie houses and the like, just looking for that anonymous person to share a sexual encounter.

"Once about three years ago, I was lucky enough to spend the night with a young man I picked up in a reputable hotel bar. The memories of that one night are the only recent gratifying memories I have. On other occas ions it is merely a faceless and furtive encounter full of fear - fear of discovery, fear of violence , and nowadays, fear of disease . But these fears , no matter how strong, cannot suppress the urge . I feel I am walking a tightrope half the time with a abyss below me - one slip and I'm gone. "This may sound like a very sad story, and in some respects I suppose it is, but spare me no pity.

Unless I want my life to be a lot sadder , I must continue with the masquerade so that neither you nor my family , neith er my boss nor my subordinates , neither my friends nor my colleagues ever find out who I really am. "Perhaps I am the guy sitting next to you on the bus. I could be your best friend, your husband , boyfriend or lover. I could be your son's scout master or school teacher, but only I know the truth. I am a homosexual who dares not come out of the closet." And I think with this legislation, this kind of anguish will no lon ger continue. Thank you . MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions?

Hear ing none , thank you, Mr. Brydon. MR. G. BRYDON: Thank you . MR. CHAIRMAN: The next presenter is Ms. Rhonda Chorney , representing Lesbian Phone Line . Ms. Chorney. MS. R. CHORNEY: I would like to first begin by commending the government for several of the 87 additions and changes to The Human Rights Code , especially those pertaining to pregnancy and sexual harassment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a brief to distribute? MS. R. CHORNEY: Yes, I do . MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Chorney . MS. R.

CHORNEY: I would like to first begin by commending the government for several of the additions and changes to The Human Rights Code , especially those pertaining to pregnancy and sexual harassment. I am here to speak specifically on the sexual orientation bill on behalf of Gays for Equality, Lesbian Phone Line . The Lesbian Phone Line is operate d by a group of women who volunteer their time on Tuesday evenings to answer calls and provide support specifically for women .

We receive a wide range of calls, information about the gay community, women who are contemplating coming out, mothers worried about losing custody of their children , incidents of vio lence, young women who have questions about their sexual orientation. The calls we receive are a reflectio n of the diversity of lesbians . Lesbians are silently represented in most occupations and come from a wide variety of family situations , socioeconom ic and cultural backgrounds. Lesbians are old and young alike, are married , divorced and single, many are mothers.

They work as mechanics , teachers, social workers, bureaucrats , doctors , dentists, lawyers , homemakers and most other occupations . Though the calls we receive are very diverse , the one common thread that ties them together is an overwhelming fear of others finding out about their sexual orientation. Many fear losing jobs, housing , benefits , custody of children and being forced out of school should someone find out. The fear of discrimination is very real and at present there are no grounds for recourse should there be discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Lesbians, as a diverse group , need protection unde r the law to fight discrimination. Lesbians want access to the same housing available to all , fair access to benefit plans and coverage for their family, to be judged on ability and not on sexual orientation in the job market, and to be treated fairly by the legal system in custody cases. Human rights protection would not give lesbians and gays special treatment. It simply would provide a recourse when discrimination occurs.

Of course, legislation is only one small but essential step in providing protection and granting Manitoba lesbians and gays their basic human rights. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? Hearing none, thank you, Ms. Chorney . The next presenter is Mr. Ross Davidson, representing the Gay Fathers of Winnipeg. Mr. Davidson. MR. R. DAVIDSON: Mr. Chairperson , committee members , citizens of Manitoba , I'm here on behalf of

Friday, 10 July, 1987 the group called Gay Fathers of Winnipeg. No bona fide member of this organization trusted that they were sufficiently invulnerable thr ough social censure or reprisal or, indeed, assured continuing custody of their children that they felt that they could make this case. Believing in their cause and feeling not in the same way vulnerable, I agreed to read their brief to you today: We are a group of father s who are gay. Our experiences have been varied and we are united in our determ ination to integrate these two aspects of our lives.

In the past, our roles as fathers and gay men have been viewed as incompatible both by society at large and all too often by ourselves as well. We believe, on the cont rary, that gay men can love and nourish children and provide a safe environment in which girls and boys can mature into loving and productive women and men. We have formed this organization to help ourselves and others in similar situations to continue to grow and de velop in ways which dr aw upon the rich experiences of both aspects of our lives.

We intend to do this by forming a mutually supportive group for building a positive self-image and for creative problem solving by locating other gay men who are fathers and may be struggling alone and by educating profes sionals and the general public to our special strengths and our special concerns. Gay Fathers of Winnipeg believe it's time that sexual orientation be included amongst the prohibited grounds for discrimination in the Manitoba Human Rights Act.

Quebec, Ontario and Yukon have now included sexual orientation in their human rights legislation and we feel the gay people in Manitoba are entitled to the same protection. We strongly urge the government to amend the act to include sexual orientation. Many organizations, including churches, unions, profe ssional organiza tions, etc., ha ve includ ed resolutions recommending human rights protection for gay people. Public opinion polls have also shown that the majority of Canadians are in favour of gay rights.

Statistics indicate that approximately 10 percent of any population is homosexual and that of this group at least 20 percent of gay males have been married. A large number of these gay men have children. This minority within a minority is in special need of protect ion under the human rights legislation. Gay parents and their families are most vulnerable to di scrimi nation in loss of empl oyment, career advancement, child custody and housing. Fear of discrimination has a great impact on the lives of gay fathers.

With the passage of the bill, including sexual orientation, we hope a first step will be taken towards protect ing gay men and their families. Until such time as people are judged on their ind ividual merits, minorities within a society will need all the protection the law can provide. As th ere is at present no protect ion aga ins t discrimination for gay people under The Human Rights Act of Manitoba, we, of Gay Fathers of Winnipeg, are not prepared to risk ourselves or our family's well-being by coming forward at this time to make a presenta tion.

Perhaps this fact speaks louder than our presence could have for the need to have sexual orientation protection included in The Manitoba Human Rights Act. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any questions? 88 The Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, when was the organization t hat you refer to, the Ga y Fathers of Winnipeg, organized? MR. R. DAVIDSON: I'm sorry sir, I can't tell you the answer to that. MR. H. ENNS: I'm sor ry, I must have misunderstood.

I thought that when you were presenting a bill you could give us some indication. it's always of interest to committee members, who are making presenta tions on behalf of the organization, is how the organization is structured. Do you have a formal organization? MR. R. DAVIDSON: I'm sorry. I've agreed to make the presentation on behalf of the group. I know little about the group per se, except I'm in consonance with their stated purpose and their aggrieved oppressive state. Tha t's apparent by the fact that they didn't feel sufficiently available to make the presentation on their own. MR. H.

ENNS: So you can't tell the commit tee at this point, or from your own experience , what we are talking about in terms of numbers? MR. R. DAVIDSON: I'm sorry, I can't do that from a position of knowledge. MR. H. ENNS: Can you tell the committee whether or not the group received any specific funding from the Attorney-General 's Department? MR. R. DAVIDSON: I can't tell you that, I could perhaps HON. R. PENNER: I can, no. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there anymore questions? Thank you, Mr. Davidson. The next presenter is Dr. Brian Evans, represe nting the University of Winnipeg Faculty Associ ation.

Next presenters are Julie Enyingi and Dr. Lois Beckwith, Planned Parenthood of Manitoba. DR. L. BECKWITH: Mr. Chairman and members of the Legislature. We will be making two brief presenta tions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Who is speaking please? DR. L. BECKWITH: I'm Dr. Lois Beckwith representing Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada. Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada consists of 29 branches across Canada. I am a member of the national executive board. I currently work in the field of human sexuality education here in Manitoba. I have a doctoral decree in health education specializing in human sexuality.

I have 15 years experience in training teachers and health professionals in human sexuality. My research and teaching has covered all aspects of family life education. I have worked in a variety of countries and I am actively involved in writing curricula for the use in schools, universities and the community.

Friday, 10 July, 1987 Planned Parenthood Federat ion of Canada is a national, non-government organization whose principal concerns is in the area of family planning and human sexuality. Our organization promotes healthy sexuality thr oughout the human life cycle, and as the sexuality issues are of central importance to the health and well being of Canadians, we feel that it's imperative that we speak out in support of this proposed bill. Planned Parenthood actively identifies and responds to important sexuality issues which affect all of us.

Our organization has advanced the cause for equal rights for ho mosexuals across Canada and had promoted the adoption of similar legislation in other provinces. We commend the government for proposing this very needy legislation. Our society places a strong value on human rights and ther efore the majority will see this legislation is reasonable. The law is not the trend setter. The law reflects common concerns in what society feels is just and reasonable.

How can we, in this day and age, single out sexual orientation from race, nationality, sex, age and disability and allow blatant discrimination against one minority group? We are very proud that we live in a democratic society. However, we are very disturbed that approxima tely 10 percent of Canadians are not granted basic human rights. All human beings have certain rights and deserve to be respected as human beings. lt may be difficult for heterosexuals to understand homosexuality but all of us know what it is like to experience rejection, hurt and discrimination.

We need to try and relate to homosexuals as human beings who are more familiar or more similar to heterosexuals than they are different. In this day and age, we are still condoning the existence of a second-cla ss citizen to a minority group. Very often in our society , homosexuals are victims of prejudice, bigotry and violence. No matter what one's beliefs are about homosexuality, one should respect the basic human rights of every person. Everyone can at least be tolerant and treat gays equally. Sexual orientation should be covered under the human rights legislation.

This is the only way to ensure th at all Cana dians are protected by law agains t discrimination. Our society and our schools promote core community values. We teach our children the importance of equality; i.e., that all individuals have the same right regardless of sex. However, this does need to be extended to cover sexual orientation. Until the law is changed, we will continue to see victimization of gay students and teachers and a general negative degrading attitude that is prevalent among our teenagers.

Our schools teach the value of respect, emphasizing that we need to treat everyone, including oneself, with dignity. How can we sit by and watch students develop an attitude where homosexuals are given no such respect? We also teach social justice - be fair to all people. How can we blame teenagers for negative attitudes and violent behaviour towards homosexuals when our own legal system is in direct conflict and offers no prote ct ion to 10 percent of the population? Children and ado lescents can learn that derogative terms and name calling can be hurtful, unjust and unfair.

Adults have a responsibility to dis courage this kind of behaviour, and by adoption of appropriate legislation and sensitive appropriate education, help eliminate the discrimination and homophobia. Appropriate school 89 programs would focus on human rights issues and core values and would not be promoting a homosexual lifestyle. Children do not learn to become homosexuals, nor do they catch it from homosexuals. These fears are ungrounded. The legislation is needed to address the long-sta nding pattern of hostility and mistreatment of gays.

The proposed improvements to this legislation will provide basic protection for homo sexuals that the rest of Manitobans currently enjoy. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Dr. Beckwith. Julie Enyingi. MS. J. ENYINGI: Honourable Chairperson, members of the Legislature, I am here today as coordinator of the Facts of Life Line, but also representing Planned Parenthood Manitoba. Plan ned Parenthood Manitoba's manda te is to provide and encourage educa tion, advocacy and research in the field of human sexuality, sexuality education and family planning.

I would like to begin by applauding the Government of Manitoba for addressing this controversial issue and proposing equal human rights for the gay population in this province. One of the services offered by Planned Parenthood Manitoba is the Facts of Life Line. This is a telephone information and referral service available to all residents in the province. Counsellors deal with requests for information and support on all sexuality issues, including homosexuality. The Facts of Life line is widely used. We receive over 1, 000 calls each month.

A significant portion of our calls is related to gender identification, confusion and homos exuality. Callers of all ages have expressed concerns about discrimination, citing fear, intolerance and even violence directed at them in their own communities because of their perceived or actual sexual orientation. As advocates in the field of human sexuality, Planned Parenthood Manitoba believes that people of any sexual orientation, heterosexual or homo sexual, deserve equal treatment.

Judging or discriminating against someone, based on their orientation, is no different than the discrimination of racial or religious minorities. The issues are the same. Planned Parenthood Manitoba views homosexuality as a variant in behaviour, not a deviant. We recognize a variety of differences throughout the population, and previous legislation has ensured that these differences are not grounds for discrimination.

This legislation, granting equal rights to homosexuals, is no more a threat to the rights of others than was the granting of human rights to any other minority group. lt is clear that there is a great deal of abuse and mistreatment of gay people in our society . The need for protection of basic human rights is evident. lt is especially critical that these rights encompass the entire population, youth and adult alike. Many of the calls to the Facts of Life Line do come from teenagers, and their stories of harassment emphasize their need for protection of their basic human rights.

This legislation has the potential to ensure that protection is extended to the most vulnerable in our

Friday, 10 July, 1987 society, our youth. As educators and advocates, we promote the universal values of rights, respect, reason and resp onsibil ity . Our society has conti nually demon strated tolerance for a wide variety of lifestyle differences. This legislation would ensure that the same tolerance be extended to those of different sexual orientation. We recognize that some individuals may not be accepting of a homosexual lifestyle, but surely we can demons trate our respect and tolerance of others in this society. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Quest ions? The Member for Portage. MR. E.

CONNERV: I'd like to ask Dr. Beckwith, is homosexuality something that is born into somebody or that they attain it at a very early age, or is it something that can be a choice? We talk about the bisexuals, and they keep on bringing in that they want to have protection for bisexuals, and bisexuals to me means choice. This is the area that I'm struggling with is: When does a person become a homo sexual perso n? DR. L. BECK WITH: If I could answer all those questions, I'd be a very famous researcher.

Unfortunately, we don't have the answers to all those questions, but I can give you a personal viewpoint that might clarify some of it. Yes. a lot of them probably are born. A lot of them discover it during their puberty. I think a lot of people try to suppress those feelings and try to live what we call the normal lifestyle, because of the pressures they would have to live if they tried to come out. I think a lot of people would prefer to actually be homosexual, but are forced to live bisexual lifestyles because of the nature of society right now.

So I can't give you any real conclusive answers on that, but I think all those things are actually functioning right now. MR. E. CONNERV: In your estimation, if homosexuality is given an equal status with a heterosexual lifestyle, will it encourage more people to become homosexual? DR. L. BECKWITH: No. I don't think we're actually condoning a different lifestyle here. What we're saying, we accept you as a human being; we're going to give you basic human rights. We're not saying we condone homosexuality per se. it's a bit like the divorce problem.

I do not like to see people divorce. lt is much better to have a stable family relat ionship, but we have to face reality, divorces occur. The same thing applies in this given situation. I accept a divorcee and the lifestyle they choose to live, because that's their circumstance. That's what I'm asking people to do for the homosexual community. But no, I do not see it promoting it and seeing a large increase in the number. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other questions? Thank you, Dr. Beckwith. The next presenter is Mr. Lewis Martin, private citizen - Mr. Martin. The next presenter is Mr. Rick Wilgosh, private citizen - Mr.

Wilgosh. Next presenter is Ms. Wendy Woodcock, rep rese nting Ma nitoba Representatives for REAL Women of Canada. 90 Ms. Woodcock. MRS. W. WOODCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Chairma n , comm ittee members, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Mrs. Wendy Woodcock. Ma ybe you can make a change on the record. I'm not a Ms.; I'm a Mrs. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Woodcock? MRS. W. WOODCOCK: Mrs., yes. I'm the Manitoba representative for REAL Women of Canada. As such, I represent over 5,000 members provincially and over 40,000 national ly.

Our name is, I believe, it's an acrostic. it's called a Realistic, Equal, Active for Life is what we stand for, and we're a pro-life, pro-family organization of women who come from all backgrounds, be it homemakers or women who choose to work outside the home as well as have families or single women. Some 15 percent of our membership is men. We're a volunteer organization and, unlike other organizations which have appeared before you today and yesterday, we receive no government funding whatsoever.

I speak to you today on behalf of the members of my organization, and we're dealing today only with those areas of the Code which have been app roved as policy by our membership. REAL Women are very concerned about the proposed amendment to the Manitoba Human Rights Code as proposed in Bill No. 47, concerning sexual orientation. The homosexual movement aims to redefine the family away from the traditional model of husband, wife and children. lt seeks a more "functional def inition," which does not require heterosexuality as its foundation.

They promote the idea that the traditional family is only one among many legitimate alternate lifestyles, including same-sex marriages, common law unions, etc. In Ontario, where sexual orientation legislation has been passed, homosexuals can now adopt and provide foster care.

Think of how this will affect the children in our society as a whole, when research by the Kinsey In stitute has uncovered that only 1 percent of homo sexuals have a lifelong part ner, 28 percent have over 1, 000 different partners and, contrary to the idea of homosexuality being a loving relationship, 70 percent confine their sexuality to one-night affairs. lt has been stated many times that homosexuals are not as bad as heterosexuals for child abuse. However, a survey of American national studies carried out by Dr.

Garry Bullard (phonetic) of the Department of Political Science at the University of Seattle has shown that hom osexual assaults on boys represent 50 percent of the entire total sexual assaults and are carried out by homosexuals. Homos exuals are at most 4 percent of the population and, accord ingly, 24 times more likely to molest than heterosexuals. Dr. Nicholas Grath (phonetic), Director of the Sex Off ender s Program in the State of Connecticut, states that 80 percent of the sex offe nders in their program were themselves abused as children. Homos exuals have the same civil rights as other Canadians.

They are protected by the Charter of Rights and by federal and provincial human rights legislation.

Friday, 10 July, 1987 Including sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination, would mean that, in addition to the rights shared by everyone, homosexuals would have special rights, recognizing in law their lifestyle and be h aviour . Tha t is, amending the human rights legislation would mean societies condoning homosexual activi ty.

If such a law is passed, citizens would be punished for taking into account a homosexual's moral cha racter and making some important decisions, such as who will be accepted as a tenant in their home, as a teacher for their child, as an associate in their business or as an employee in their church. If such a law ls passed, homo sexuals would be the fi rst group to have special protection. No other group is protected under law, based on their behaviour. The Charter of Rights protects citizens on the basis of identi ty, not behaviour.

Historical ly, the Code has always dealt with unchangeable states, such as colour, race, place of birth, creed, gender, etc. Alcoholism or com pulsive gambling, for example, do not qualify for such protec tion. Neither should other behaviour such as homo sexual activity . Homosexuality is a changeable behaviour. Research published by Masters and Johnson in their book, Human Sexuality, published in 1982, shows that 50 percent of hom osexuals can success fully be returned to heterosexual ity. REAL Women do not believe that homosexuals are dis crim inated against as a minority. Everyone is against di scri minat ion.

The word conno tes prejudice and bigotr y. But there is a dif ference between permitting dis crimination on an irrational basis, such as race, and permitting employers, landlords or others to exercise a sound discretion based on a legitimate factor, such as moral behaviour. Homosexuality is a psycho-sexual dis ord er, and refusal to pass laws giving special privileges to homosexuals is not discrimination. If we legislate sexual orientation, it could lead to judgments against parents, businesses, organizations and everyone who has convictions that moral character does matter .

A parent should have the right to consider the moral calibre of those who come into contact with their children. This would only be the beginning. For example, gay rights activists are already lobbying to repeal the age of consent for sexual behaviour; for the recognition of homo sexual and lesbian marriages; for the spousal rights of live-in lovers, such as health care, and for other laws promoting social acceptance of homo sexuality. This legislation would benefit the 1 percent of homosexuals who have lifelong partners, and cer tainly be a statement of approval by our government of this lifestyle.

Homosexuality has a harmful impact on society that can no longer be seriously ignored. The new findings on AID S have destroyed the idea that the gay rights movement doesn't injure anyone, and that what they do is their own business. Homosexuals are a medical th reat to their own sex, to those who require blood transfusions, to the promiscuous and their unknowing spouses. The present crusade for condom use will not stop the spread of AIDS. If condoms are only 60 percent to 80 percent effective in preventing pregnanc y, we cannot realistically expect condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS.

In addition, the cost of medical research and treatment of AIDS is mounting daily and is being paid for by the tax payer. 91 Homosexuality is like all forms of behaviour, a continuum. Thoughts become actions, habits become a lifestyle. Social acceptance that will follow "gay rights" laws will give homosexual behaviour a favourable climate to spread even more easily. As homosexuality becomes publicly accepted as a valid lifestyle, traditional moral standards are further undermined. The dama ge to homo sexuals themselves goes far beyond their medical problems.

Their conduct leads to devastat ing psychological consequences. Psychiatrists continue to believe that homosexuality is a disorder of psycho sexual development. The homo sexual is, without doubt, a proper subject for the exercise of compassion on a persona! basis, but sympathy is not shown by pretend ing th at homo sexual activity is no rmal beha vio ur. Sheer compassion comes to the homosexual from treating him as a responsible, moral being, who can change or control his inclinations. Compassion towards these individuals can serve a greater purpose in the form of treatment, not in feed ing their wants.

We should have a greater compassion for the effect this type of lifestyle will result on their innocent victims, who are medically or psychologically damaged. REAL Women are also concerned with

section 2, dealing with affirmative action, etc., permitted. REAL Women of Manitoba support, without exception, the concept that women must have equal opportunity in employment. Thus, all positions must be advertised and open equally to both men and women. REAL Women, however, are opposed to the concept of manda tory af firmative action, which includes female quotas which, in fact, becomes job ceilings for women as it prohibits women from obtaining jobs once the quota is filled.

To give women this preferential treatment on the basis only of their sex is unfair and is reverse dis crimin ation against qualif ied males, as well as minority groups, such as ethnic and Native people. lt is an undeniable fact that males now occupy the vast majority of high-paying positions. This, however, is not necessa rily evidence of sexual discrimination. Rather this may well be a reflection of the fact that women until recent years either have not been trained for or have not participa ted on any large scale in the job market.

Today, women are changing career goals, working mor e on a full-time basis and entering educational and post-graduate programs to gain new skills. More and more, they are working in occupations that have been held traditionally by males. With the number of women in the work force rapidly increasing, the number of women appointed to high paying supervi sory and executive positions will inevitably increase. Women are now protected from discrimination in employment on the basis of sex by the provincial Human Rights Code. Increasingly, more qualified women, if they so choose, will attain better positions.

In summar y, it is the position of REAL Women of Manitoba that appointments should not be made on the basis of gender. In short, appointments should be made on the basis of the best qualified person for the position, regardless of sex. In conclusion, REAL Women of Manitoba appeal to the members of this committee to make amendments to the proposed Human Rights Code, which will reflect the wishes of their constituents, not the demands of

Friday, 10 July, 1987 mino rity gr oups. In this way, we will tr uly have government of the people, by the people and for the people. I thank you very much for this opportunity to speak before the committee on our concerns towards Bill No. 47 and for your attentiveness. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? The Mem ber for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask the individual here with regard to some statistics on page 2 of her brief. She has, in fact, said that 50 percent of all sexual assaults are performed on males.

I think that that's in direct conflict with every single study I have ever read which ind icates - (I nterject ion)-that 80 to 90 percent of such assaults are on females. MRS. W. WOODCOCK: This is a study that I did not carry out myself. lt was carried out by doctors . MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed . MRS. W. WOODCOCK: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceedings in legislative comm ittees are not any less than proceed ings in courts. There are orders here. Therefore, I caution the members of the audience not to make this a sides how. Please be discreet when you show your apprecia tion. Thank you. No rabble-rousing.

You can clap gently at the end. MR. J. McCRAE: The most recent outburst happened just after the Ho nourable Mem ber for River East enga ged in de bate with the presenter to d ay. (lnterject ion)- I'm sorry, River Heights. Mr. Chairman, you earlier cautioned me and other honourable members on this side of the table, as opposed to that side of the table, about engaging in debate. lt was the debate by the Honourable Member for River Heights that caused the outburst. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please.

The function of the Chair is to maintain order. lt can only be done with the help of the members and with the help of the audience. If we follow the rules, the proceedings will be orderly; if we don't, it will be disorder ly. Shall we follow the rules or not? MR. J. McCRAE: Follow the rules. MR. CHAIRMAN: We shall follow the rules. Let's go on with the business. The Mem ber for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I simply want a clarification of the statistics.

Can the person, who has presented the statistics, tell me whether we are talking about 50 percent of all sexual assaults, or 50 percent of the sexual assaults on boys? 92 MRS. W. WOODCOCK: We're talking about 50 percent of the assaults on boys. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: 50 percent of the assaults on boys. MRS. W. WOODCOCK: M'h uh. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Therefore, you would not argue with my statistic that between 80 or 90 percent of all sexual assaults are, in fact, performed on girls? MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. Members are not to debate with the presenters.

They are to ask questions for clarification; that is the rule. I'm not referring to any particular member, I'm referring to all including myself. The Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We should thank Mrs. Woodcock for the brief. Just a simple question - a question that I ask from many organizations, when I hear you indicate the scale and scope of your organization, some 5,000 mem bers provincially and 40,000 nationally. My simple question to you: Is your organ ization either nationally or provincially being funded from any government sources at this time? MRS. W.

WOODCOCK: No, we have been refused funding. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: Mr. Chairman, on that point. I understand that at the federal level, at least, the funding has been denied because of a contention by the Federal Con servative Go vernment in Ottawa th at your organization does not stand for equal rights for women. Would you deal with that for a moment? MRS. W. WOODCOCK: That is correct.

Although the Secretary of State, John Crosbie, has said that we do meet the criteria of the women's program, they would not give us, I believe it's called core funding, but suggested that we submit for - I'm sorry, it's so hot in this room. I've been sitting here for so long, I can't think of what it's called. You get funding for projects - project funding, that's what it is, that we asked for project funding. Then from there go on for the core funding.

But since there was a special committee, and in that comm ittee they specifically dealt with REAL Women and said that we didn't fit the criteria so it's kind of a catch-can situation here. They're saying on one hand we do and one hand we don't. Well, we had difficulty in the first place getting even an application for the funding. We had to introduce ourselves as the lesbian mothers group, and then they sent us an application within a week, but before th at we could n't even get an application form. MR. J. McCRAE: I understand that your group puts a certain - how shall I put it - emphasis on the

Friday, 10 July, 1987 importance of the fam ily to the future of our country and the family being the bulwark of our present society. Is that one of the precepts your organization puts forward? MRS. W. WOODCOCK: Yes, it certainly is. We believe that the fam ily is the backbone of this country, and if the family unit breaks down, then this country will begin to break down and disintegrate. MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order being raised - the Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Could you speak up a little , I'm having difficulty hearing . MRS. W. WOODCOCK: Sure, sorry. MR. J.

McCRAE: Has your group made application to the Government of Manitoba for assistance? MRS. W. WOODCOCK: No, we have not as of this time. We're fairly newly organized in Manitoba and just in the process of incorporating .- (Interjection)- Right. But that has been done basically just by word of mouth too . It' s not been certainly through any big drives or anything to gain membership either . We haven 't had a whole lot of money; we just have our membership fees and gifts that people give in order to get our membership .

Because we are just fairly new in Manitoba and just becoming incorporated now, we have not applied for funding yet from the Provincial Government. MR. J.

McCRAE: Is it the position of the REAL Women that they should be entitled to federal and/or provincial funding, just as the Elizabeth Fry Society, the Immigrant Women's Association of Manitoba, the Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the Manitoba Association of Women and the Law, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women , the Provincial Council of Women and the Young Women's Christ ian Association?

Is it your position that if those groups are entitled to public funding to promote their issues that your groups should also be entitled that funding? MRS. W. WOODCOCK : We don't believe that any women's groups shoul d be funded by the government . Howeve r, we do believe that if the government is going to fund women's groups that we certainly should be entitled to some of that funding. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? Thank you Mrs. Woodcock . MRS. W. WOODCOCK: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The next presenter is Mr. Dennis Hennessey, pri vat e cit izen. Mr. Hennessey. MR. D. HENNES SEY: Mr.

Chairman , and honourable members . While it is laudable to attempt to restrict unreasonable discrimination, ca re must be taken not to enact 93 legislation that will itself be discriminatory . It should be remembered that special righ ts given to any minority group are always given at the expense of the majority, and sometimes the majority takes exception to it. Much, if not all, of

section 9(1) and (2) of Bill 47 is cove red in other legislation , and the passage of this will make more work for the courts in trying to interpret the meaning of the new law in rela tion to existing law. In addition, the literal enforce ment of this law, as written, would result in ridiculous situations. For example, as an employer, I wou ld not wan t an employee to be an active member of the PLO or the IRA. That would not be beneficial to my business. There are many other possible scenarios where a conflict of interest exists , ones muc h more likely and reasonable, but the re is no allowance for these in the legislation, as written . In

section 9(2), the category " sexual orientation " appears and its inclusion doesn't have any rhyme or reason . A well-known pol itic an stated that the government had no business in the bedrooms of the nation and spent a lot of effort in gett ing sexual orie ntat ion out of legislation. It would be better left out. In addition, sexual orientation has to do with personal habits, while the other listed character ist ics have to do with who a person is. Therefore , this is not an appropriate subject for inclusion in th is type of legislation .

"Source of income" also appears to be out of place here , having nothing to do with who a person is. While there is no limit to the possible reasons for discrimination, there is a physical limit to the list of characteristics not to be discriminated against. Said characteristics should be based on some common ground that can be rea dily seen and understood . In general, it appears that

section 9(1) and (2) are unnecessary in that they duplicate much existing law, would be excessively onerous if enforced as written and, in esse nce, would create more problems than they would solve. At the very least, the bill should be amended in order to make it reasonable and usefu l. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? Hearing none , thank you , Mr. Hennessey . MR. D. HENNESSEY: Thank you . MR. CHAIRMAN: The next presenter is Gordon Kooper, Mr. Kooper. The next presenter is Ken McGhie. Mr. McGhi e, do you have a brief? MR. K. McGHIE: No, not to give out, just an oral presentation.

I thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation. I come against Bill 47, the bill, and just recently I got from Stats Canada a listing from 1981 on the many religious groups we already have in Winnipeg that are certainly recognized and it came to a total of 39, back in 1981. These people obviously represented many different beliefs , and with all these different beliefs, it can't be stated that all are believing the right thing . There are people there who definitely believe wrong things, and a bill, like Bill 47, would actually promote the believing of wrong things in many areas. Not all

Friday, 10 July, 1987 religions are certainly believing right thin gs. False religions would be sanctioned and would be promoted in this way, along with just the actual homosexual aspect; that which is not against homo sexuality ac tually promotes it. This, in giving sanction to it, protecting it, act ually promotes homo sexu ality and all th at homosexuality brings with it, whether it be AIDS - a vote for this kind of a bill is a vote for homosexualit y.

I'm in a prison ministry here in Winnipeg in the local area, and I have 10 years in my background as being a prison inmate, and some of the questions that came up earlier - one man asked does homo sexuality bring on homo sexuality and I'm here to tell you that, yes, homo sexuality breeds hom osexuality. I've seen it in many first-time cases, where young man who are duped, were seduced, were many things, into believing a homosexual lie.

I'm in a counselling situation in a prison ministry and I've been confronted with many people and I would say to use the word "sufferi ng," trapped in a homosexual lie, believing a lie about homo sexuality and then counselling them on the basis that this is present in their life. We try not to leave them trapped in a lie, because we do believe we have the ans wer for the homosexual and we present it to them. We've seen many peopl e walk away from homosexual ity, free and clear and clean, without the drawing point of homosexuality. lt is a binding trap; it's a compulsive thing.

We're not trying - I mean the same dis crimination we have against criminals, people who have a compulsion to rape, or a compulsion to shoot a gun at people and murder, we discrimina te against these people and we have to again discrimina te against homosexuals who say they have a compulsion to this type of behaviour. Another member here at the board was questioning the origin of homosexuality and it's not just one origin.

I believe there are many origins of homosexuality and one of them, I think just the aspect of it, it is a lie, and if a person is exposed to a lie long enough, he will receive that lie as actual fact and believe it as the truth, and that's one origin aspect of homosexuality. Another aspect of homosexuality, even in the womb of a mother , homosexuality can be implanted in a child through thoughts, the mother wanting a girl and yet a boy being born, certainly again a strong tendency towards homosexual tendencies. The homosexual himself has a very strong tendency for suicidal - they have a high suicidal tenden cy.

They know it's not right. There's just a natural knowledge that it's not right. But given the reinforcement of believing anything long enough or reinforcing it with the further behavioural action, they'll believe anything for so long. But I think with this kind of a bill that would allow homosexuals especially to take places in jobs and not be discrimi nated against would just throw open the doors for the promotion of homo se xuality .

Homosexuality is definitely some thing that breeds homosexuality. lt's a disease; it's a disease-like entity and I think that if we do not legislate against it, you just throw open - for the many school kids who are wondering about their sexuality or young people who are wondering about thems elves, to give them this option to say, well, yes, our government says that it's something further that can be considered and it's accepted is wrong. lt's wrong, because it's based on 94 a lie.

We hope the lie can't stand the test of time, but as we look back on other civilizations and we see where rampant homo sexuality was truly a point of downfall in Greek societies, in many societies past, and hopefully, we can look to the past and maybe learn something from it, but homosexuality never produced a strong, good, healthy environment. On those points, I just thank you for listening to me. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Elmwood. MR. J. MALOWAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

McGhie, you mentioned that in 1981 in Winnipeg there was something like 39 religions and you mentioned that most of these were false religions. Could you give me a few examples of false religions? MR. K. McGHIE: No, I didn't mention that they were all false religions. I just mentioned that there was 39 on record, and I said that understandably some of them are false religions. MR. J. MALOWAY: Could you name me a couple that are? MR. K. McGHIE: No. I don't think that it would be in my best interests to point a finger to say who is and who isn't.

I'm just stating that not all these people are believing the same thing, and not all of these people are believing the truth in this way. The truth can't be stated in 39 ways. MR. J. MALOWAY: So you're telling us that what you said was wrong then. You can't name me any false religions. MR. K. McGHIE: Well, I didn't say that but I suppo se, if pressed to the point, I could name some false religions. The Satanic religion, I certainly believe is a false religion. There are just many aspects of religion, and I don't believe that religion really plays a real

part in real Christian ity.- (Int erjection)- We won't mention that. But I think that th ere are many dif ferent

interpretations in Christian ity,

interpretations of the Bible that people have clung to and thus we have the many denominations. But definitely there are false religions, religions that won't - and what I mean by a false religion is a false religion is definitely a religion that doesn't present the truth that will set you free. Hopefully, anything that binds you up I believe is of a religious nature, and I think that is actually the root word of religion. 1t actually means a binding, and not necessarily a binding towards the truth, but a binding towards a falseness and a captivi ty. MR. CHAIRMAN: Other questions? Thank you, Mr. McGhie. MR. K.

McGHIE: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The next presenter is Mr. Tom Cohoe, private citizen. Mr. Cohoe, proceed. MR. T. COHOE: I appreciate being able to speak to this committee. I oppo se this bill on the grounds that

Friday, 10 July, 1987 are the contentious grounds here, that is, the grounds that refer to the so-called sexual orientation. Before I go on to dispel any ideas of the kind of people who think the world is divided up into militaristic, supremacist bigots and lovers of humanity, I'd like to say where I stand on a few other issues. On the question of the Native Indians of Canada, I support them in every request they have ever made for funds from anybody in this countr y, that is, governments.

The Free Press, which claims that it is a great slander-up for human rights, recently showed great indignation in denouncing the Indians on their reserve at Sh oal Lake for trying to get some compensation for being the people who are supplying Winnipeg with their water. I think we should give them everything that they want in that. They haven't been unreasonable at all in the demands that are being made through Jean Chretien. I' d like to say that I would like to see an Indian in this country rich enough to build or buy the Richard son Building.

Until we have made at least one Indian that rich through an equally applied program, we haven't given them what we owe them. The question of Nicaragua, I don't like the Contras. I think they're one of the great forces for evil in this world. I don't know anything about what the Nicaraguan Government is or what it stands for.

I know that the Free Press - again, a great slander-upper for human rights - loves to denounce the Nicaraguan Government, and say that it likes this situation where it's being raided by a group of people supported by the most powerful nation in the world, that it likes this because this gives us an opportunity to oppress people in that country. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of! If I were given a choice of who to vote for in the Un ited States as President, I would choose Jessie Jackson.

He is, by far, the most interesting leader in the United States who I know of who's running for the presidency right now. My wife is an East Indian, born in India. Her native language is Malayalam. So if you want to make me out to be a bigot, you're going to have to explain - well, that's not what I mean to say. What I mean to say is that the world isn't divided into left and right. Now having said that, I'd like to say what my attitude is towards Human Rights Commis sions. I think they are abominations. In the past, religious groups had great power.

The Catholic Church in Europe was a great oppressor of mankind. 1t had its inquisitions. The Human Rights Commissions are inquisitions. The reason why Human Rights Commissions are something that I oppo se is not because I don't believe in human rights, but because the notion of the state defending human rights is ridiculous. Human rights are all about defence against power, and the state has the power. Therefore, the state cannot possibly protect people against power, the exert ion of power, and Human Rights Commis sions, by their very nature, can't work. Communist countries think that they can, but they can't.

I'm a person who is being opp ressed thr ough legislation in this province. I'll be speaking to another comm ittee that's supposed to be coming up soon on that account. But I don't want my rights defended through legislation or acts that will say that I have a right because I'm a member of some group. I would rather show that the legislation that's oppressed me is stupid. 95 I think that people have the right to do wrong. I don't know if anybody understands that's what freedom of conscience is.

If you take away people's right to do wrong, to follow their conscience and do other than what the state determines is right, you make them sick and nervous. If you try to determine the moral value of every dilemma and decide which one is right and make the other one illegal so that people have no freedom to decide their conscience at all, you will make a state that will soon die because it will have no creativity. There will be no opportunit y.

The only people who will have any power will be people who have the benefit of nepotism or some form of corruption, which is what always occurs to an order that has power. Possibly, that's wrong. I don't want to make my argument stupid by saying that, but corruption is the general rule for bureaucracies. That doesn't mean all bureaucracies are corrupt, but there is a great force tending to make them corrupt. There is a great gap between the alterna tives of oppressive legislation and legislation that makes it illegal for an individual to discriminate on the same basis that the legislation did.

If you were to try and pass legislation, Mr. Penner, that said that it was illegal for a Manitoban to hire a homosexual, I would say that would be not only discriminatory but it would be persecution. There's a great gap between that position and saying that it's illegal for a Manitoban who is a private citizen to refuse to hire a homosexual. That's not persecution, because it doesn't stop the individual from going to another em ployer and trying to get a job. If there are 80,000 em ployers in Manitoba and one says he doesn't want to hire a homosexual, there's 79,999 left.

On the other hand, if the state makes it illegal and the legislation has any teeth, then that person can be taken to court and prosecuted, which would be persecution in that case. I don't understand why these people who want to defend human rights in government don't understand that there's a position between those two positions, ban ning or getting rid of state legislation against homo sexuality and making it illegal for a private individual to decide, by his own conscience, that he doesn't want to hire a homosexual.

The gap between tho se two alterna tives is to do what one of the previous gentlemen here sai d, and it's jus t not refer to homosexuality in legislation at all. I personally think that homosexuality is immoral, that it does corrupt society but, if you did try to pass a law that said it would be illegal for an employer to hire a homosexual, I would oppose that. I believe that they need freedom of conscience too. That's exactly what I meant when I spoke of the right to do wrong. They have to have that right, and so does the employer.

So if it's wrong for an employer to refuse to hire a homosexual, he still should have that right. Even though it's discrimination, it's not persecution. That's what I would like to speak about is the word "dis crimination ," because it seems to be a word that people are afraid of. Discrimination is what occurs every time you make a decision. If you decide to hire one person out of a line-up of 80, you've discrimi nated against 79 in favour of the one who you hired. I believe that discrimination is not a bad thing.

There are bad forms of discrimination, but discrimination is just a neutral word, and it works like newspeak in the way that people are afraid to say it.

Friday, 10 July, 1987 Larry Desja rdins was reported in the Free Press to have said that he believes that homosexuality is wrong, but he was taught not to discrimina te and that's why he wants to support this bill. Well I'd like to ask him - if he was here, I'd say to him - if you had a position in your office and there were 20 people, 19 of them had no experience and one of them did, and you chose the one who had experience, I'd say you were discriminating on the basis of work experience. Mr. Desjard ins personally thinks that homo sexuality is immoral.

He doesn't, I hope, think that lack of work experience is immoral. Yet if he wants to support a bill that will make it illegal to dis criminate on the basis of some thing th at he thinks is immo ral, then to be consistent, surely he should also want to support a bill that would oppose discrimination on the basis of something that he thinks is immoral. Gary Filmon also seems to be afraid to use the word, and he's making his argument a lot weaker by doing that. I would like to also addr ess what Sharon Carstairs is reported as to what her position is supposed to be.

She is one of the people who believes that homosexuals can't help themselves. Well I don't know anything about the drives - well I do actually, at least I'm going to say what I think about them - but the kind of homosexuality that was until these recent changes were announced was the activity of homosexuality. People do. we believe. have the ability to control their behaviour. They should have the ability to control their behaviour, so there's a difference between saying a person has an impulsion or suffers a temptation or whatever, and succumbs to it.

So if she wants to support this bill because she thinks these people can't help themselves, well they may not be able to help what they feel an impulsion to do, and maybe sometimes people feel an impulsion to steal or something like that too, but we expect them not to. If that's the reason why she supports this bill, it's not a very good one. I think that women in general have a difficu lty understanding why men don't like homosexuals. The reason why is because, for one thing, men can have an experience that women can't have, and that is to have a homosexual approach made on them. Is that hard to understand?

If a man makes an approach on you that's a homosexual approach, I mean to me that seems to be impossible. If a normal approach . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. You are addressing the committee. MR. T. COHOE: I'm sorry. They're heckling. MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed please. Go ahead, Tom. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. T. COHOE: Who's a bigot? Well, just as long as they let me go on, I will ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Carry on. MR. T. COHOE: There are dif ferences between men and women, and men and women can have different experiences.

Anybody who is afraid of that fact is 96 completely driven by ideology or something, I don't know. Men's and women's sexual drives are different too and these can be explained in terms of evolution. Different sexual drives have to have evolved because the method that a man spreads his genes is dif ferent than a woman. A woman invests nine months into reproducing and a man invests a few minutes. So evolutionarily speaking, you can quite easily make sense of men's repulsion to homosexuals and women's lack of concern.

Si nce it take s so much energy for women to reproduce the mselves, they have to be discriminatory in choosing their sexual partners. In other words, they don't have a libido that makes them want to satisfy their sexual urge at every possible opportunit y. If they did that, they would not be selecting for the best genes that they can choose to pass on to the next survivor. I'm not saying this is an intellectual process. This is the way their drive works.

Evolution has defended, protected, selected for a sexual drive in women that is slower to turn on because, if women jumped into bed with the first men they saw every time, they would be producing children who wouldn't be the best to survive, to pass on their genes. So they want to make sure that the man they go to bed with is a good one. That's why their sexual drives don't turn on as quickly.

Men, on the other hand, would have to be a Don Juan to be able to find more partners, if they were individual partners - everyone was dif ferent - to be able to - what I'm trying to say is that, if a man comes across a woman who is willing to go to bed with him, he's not very likely to find another one so quickly after that, that he can't go to bed with her. I'm not saying anything about the prowess of men, but it's for that very reason that women are very discriminatory. lt's hard to convince a woman. I'd also like to say some thing.

The sexual drive itself, the itch, is brainless. it's not an intellectual function at all. lt could be satisfied in many ways. If there were no such thing as what is called homophobia, I don't know what would be stopping men from turning into each other's arms and satisfying their sexual drive. Since all men have a very active sexual drive and it's easier to find a willing man that it is to find a willing woman, what is stopping men from satisfying their sexual drives with each other , instead of going to all that work trying to convince a woman to go to bed with them.

Well, it's the repulsion that men feel, and that's why there's this thing that's called homophobia. Homophobia is not an illness or a disease. In fact, it's natural and it's necessary. If it weren't necessary, the fertility of the race would drop drastica lly. I resent that my homophobia is supposed to be something wrong with me, and I would suggest that homosexuals are people who don't have homophobia. Also, this committee has heard a lot of arguments in favour of this bill. I would suggest that two groups are organized.

The hom osexuals are organized and naturally supportive, and the women for the reason I said, they can't understand homophobia. I don't say you can't intellectually understand it, but you have to do it intellectually. You can't feel it. Thinking can very easily go wrong, so it's not surprising to me that women in general think that we're a bunch of mean-spirited bullies when we say we don't like homosexuals.

Friday, 10 July, 1987 I have nothing against homosexuals. I said I believe they have the right to do wrong. I just don't want to have to associate with them and that means that, if I am an employer, I don't want to be forced to hire one. Ok ay, I guess that's all. MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions? Hearing none, thank you Mr. Cohoe. MR. T. COHOE: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: The next presenter is Ray Schmidt, private citizen. The next presenter is Wendy Peter. Ms. Peter. The next presenter is George Feenstra, private citizen. Mr. Feenstra. Do you

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-2-pe3
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 2nd hansardpdf pe3.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ddbcd7597d104bbda77c8c4fbbc20a8c92d25106

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