Would you be good enough to present yourselves? I understand you have complementary presentations.

Mr. Eric Vernon (Director, Law and Social Action Committee, Canadian Jewish Congress): That’s correct. Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Eric Vernon and I am the director of the Ottawa advocacy office of the Canadian Jewish Congress, the representative organizational voice of the Jewish community of Canada, some 360,000 strong. It is with pride that I note the long-standing involvement of the honourable chairperson of this committee in my organization’s activities.

Because this still is on the fast track, really the Bullet train or the Très Grande Vitesse, our senior leadership is unable to join me today, but on behalf of Canadian Jewish Congress President Goldie Hershon, I thank you for inviting us to speak before the committee today in support of Bill C-33.

From our perspective there is an upside to fast-tracking this bill: it will become the law of the land without further undue delay. This amendment has been long in coming, and we commend the government for honouring its commitment to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I wish to say at the outset that I am not here today to talk about pensions, benefits or marriages. I am here today to talk about provisions for full civil equality, statutory protection for basic human rights and the willingness of a strong and humane society to salve the pain and anguish of discrimination based on minority identity.

Unfortunately Jews have considerable experience in these areas, both in the long historical picture and in modern Canada. It was just a generation or so ago that nobody would hire a recently graduated lawyer named Bora Laskin because he was a Jew.

Considerable progress has been achieved in breaking down some of these systemic barriers in Canadian society, although we must always be vigilant to counter the corrosive effects of discrimination and intolerance. In a very real sense, the quality of the society our children will inherit tomorrow will depend on our determination and political will today to build a Canada based on compassion and diversity.

Much has happened in the intervening years since the Canadian Human Rights Act took effect in 1978, not the least of which was the establishment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our interpretation of human rights concepts has evolved considerably, and of course several of the provinces and territories have included sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination in their human rights statutes.

The parliamentary committee on equality rights recommended such an amendment to the federal act in its report, Equality for All, tabled in 1985. As we all know, in the interim the courts have taken the lead in setting policy in this important area.

In considering these issues, people sometimes ask why a list of proscribed grounds is necessary at all, and further, why sexual orientation and not, say, left-handedness or height should be included. I would suggest that the list enumerated in clauses 2 and 3 of the revised CHRA as proposed in Bill C-33 is necessary and accurate precisely because it precludes the inclusion of capricious or frivolous claims and enumerates the vulnerable minority groups that have historically suffered discrimination in a variety of ways, including the specific areas within the ambit of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The record shows, I believe, that sexual orientation meets these criteria.

It was in 1992 that the Canadian Jewish Congress first established its policy in support of an amendment to the CHRA to proscribe discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. At each stage of the process to adopt this position, the discussion focused on the critical context of the issue, in keeping with the aim of the Canadian Human Rights Act to promote equality of opportunity for all Canadians.

It was understood that the proposed amendment had nothing to do with the advocacy of a particular sexual orientation and everything to do with affirmation of statutory protection for the rights of persons not to be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. As such, it was recognized that a person’s sexual orientation should not be considered a factor in the ability to do a job or to have access to services available to others.

.1515

Canadians are currently engaged in yet another round of self-scrutiny to determine the nature of our society and the values that bind us as a nation. Few would disagree, I hope, that an enduring principle of Canadian life is the notion of equality and the right of full participation in society for all Canadians.

While we recognize that governments cannot and should not legislate attitudes, they can and should regulate discriminatory behaviour. The statutory protection and legal remedies afforded by the Canadian Human Rights Act are critical tools in this struggle against discrimination, and it is time for the Parliament of Canada to exercise its rightful jurisdiction and move expeditiously to include sexual orientation on the list of the act’s proscribed grounds.

The Canadian Jewish Congress supports Bill C-33. It is the right thing to do, and we recommend its swift passage into the law of Canada.

Thank you. Merci. After Mr. Friedman speaks, I would be pleased to answer any questions dealing with the issues that I have discussed.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Vernon.

Mr. Friedman, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Rubin Friedman (Government Relations Director, B’Nai Brith Canada): Thank you Madam Chair. I’m speaking to you on behalf of the B’Nai Brith Canada, an organization established in Canada for 125 years which has always fought for human rights.

[English]

B’Nai Brith Canada has, for a number of years now, been calling for amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act that would recognize and deal with the basic human rights of all Canadians and would ensure that all Canadians, including gays and lesbians, have equal access in areas such as employment and housing. On behalf of B’Nai Brith Canada, its president, Brian Morris, and executive vice-president, Frank Dimant, I’m here to express strong support for the swift passage of Bill C-33.

Mr. Vernon has described some of the historical issues that Jews have faced in the past. In terms of the attitudes of people and in terms of some of the anti-Semitic incidents, we know that remnants of what existed in the past are still around today. The annual audit of anti-Semitic incidents in 1995 showed an increase of 12.1% over the incidents that were recorded in 1994. Recent events show that Jews across Canada have to be concerned about their security in a way that was unthinkable even fifteen or twenty years ago. Jewish community centres and synagogues now have constant security concerns in a way that they never did in the past.

All this is to say that B’Nai Brith, its members, and the Canadian Jewish community are very familiar with the notion of discrimination and the feeling of being under attack - the feeling that one cannot openly express who one is in a public place. We therefore would like to call upon the government to continue to meet its commitments and to pass swiftly into law the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

We realize that the courts have been taking the lead in reading sexual orientation into many areas of the law. And indeed, as Mr. Vernon has mentioned, several provinces have included sexual orientation as prohibited grounds for discrimination. Nevertheless, we think it is crucial for the Parliament of Canada to set national standards and to indicate what Canadians as a whole see as important in the protection of the rights of all minorities in the country.

I thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

[Translation]

I would be pleased to answer all your questions at the end of my presentation. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

.1520

[English]

I have a question. The police chief for the city of Ottawa was here and we were discussing the question of lists, numbers, and the extent of the identifiable groups. While he was talking I thought to myself that B’nai Brith is able to identify and audit anti-Semitic incidents, yet the police are not able to identify or audit the incidents related to homophobia. And yet protection for all minorities is inherent in a civic and democratic society. It’s probably one of the litmus tests.

I’m glad you raised the question of Calgary because terrorism and fundamentalism, just like anti-Semitism and all forms of hate, really have no place or no home here in Canada, and anything we can do to ensure the safety and security of our citizens by right, I think, in the sense of non-discrimination, is vital.

Is it possible there could be an audit procedure so we are more familiar with the incidents that we have to be concerned about?

Mr. Friedman: Both the Canadian Jewish Congress and the B’Nai Brith League for Human Rights are participating in a working group to set up a national network to promote standardization on the reporting and monitoring of all hate crimes.

Actually, I’m surprised there wasn’t information in Ottawa. I believe there are some statistics for the Ottawa-Carleton region that relate to the criterion of religion, the criterion of sexual orientation and the criterion of race or colour. I have seen some such statistics. According to the statistics I’ve seen, the leading groups or the leading incidents reported were, in order, against blacks, against gays and lesbians, and against Jews.

The Chair: Yes. I don’t want to misinform you. That was definitely brought to our attention and I didn’t ask the question at that time. I wondered if there was a way of quantifying. He seemed to indicate that there was a lack of ability… Maybe I misunderstood, but the quantification of saying…not that it’s important, one is just as bad as a hundred, as far as I’m concerned.

Mr. Friedman: I think it’s the issue of standardization across the country to ensure that the same methodologies are used. Unless you do that, it becomes hard to compare statistics.

Mr. Vernon: I just want to add a couple of points. Part of the problem is a matter of self-identification. I think that gay-bashing is likely under-reported simply because of the stigma attached to sexual orientation, unfortunately. I think that factor makes it even more complex.

But I think it’s also worth pointing out that the government did the right thing by including sexual orientation in Bill C-41. This particular section of the bill dealt with enhanced sentences for hate crimes and included crimes against people that are based on sexual orientation. So now that’s part of the law and part of the sentencing regime, and we’re hoping that crown attorneys and judges will take that under consideration.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard or Mr. Bernier?

Mr. Ménard: It will be me, Madam Chair, because your friends are my friends.

I’d like to welcome you. I notice that your presentation is in the same vein as those we heard this morning. It’s great to see that you ask us, not only to support this bill, but also to be careful and prompt in passing it.

Concerning its passage, two questions are continually asked of this committee. Since the courts have interpreted it, the Canadian Human Rights Act is unconstitutional, and this since the Haig and Birch decision of 1992. It should read as if we’d already included sexual orientation.

All of this, of course, is related to section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights, which calls for equal treatment for all. The charter has been in effect since 1985, following work that the chair of this committee was very much involved in and of which she is quite proud, politically.

.1525

The two questions we must ask of this committee are the following: do we believe that, in the preamble, the definition… The preamble is not an operating provision of the bill. It is an interpretative clause which, as you know, the courts will probably have to rule on, as with any section open to interpretation. In this respect, do you think that, in the preamble, there should be a more explicit definition of family? If that’s the case, does your association have a definition to suggest to the committee?

Here’s the point of my second question. We around this table understand that the step we are taking now is to put an end to discriminatory practices based on sexual orientation. Of course, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has received complaints concerning discrimination based on sexual orientation over the last ten years, and has even set up tribunals to deal with them.

And it has happened that one or another of the tribunals in this country has granted, in an isolated and fragmented ruling, benefits to same sex spouses.

In actual facts, the government hasn’t completely recognized the notion of same sex spouses and be aware that the bill that I tabled was defeated.

So my second question for you is the following: are you asking us, in the more or less near future - which we don’t have to specify here - , in the weight of our works, to legislate and pressure this government so that it will eventually recognize same sex spouses?

Mr. Friedman: For my part, I think that what is important in the preamble and the act is to set standards, even if the courts and tribunals have already, up to a certain point, included sexual orientation amongst unacceptable grounds for discrimination.

As for the principles you set out concerning the definition of family, I must admit that we didn’t really look at them. So I don’t have any suggestions to make at this point. With a view to the future, I think those questions should be examined for all to understand exactly what the implications of the legislations you’re going to be changing today - not today but…

Mr. Ménard: …in days to come.

Mr. Friedman: …in a very near future, let us hope, as well as in all other areas not just those of employment and lodging.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Eric, do you want to add anything to that analysis of place and role of the preambular statement?

Mr. Vernon: I have just one quick point, Madam Chair. I think there may be some utility to leaving the term “family” vague at this particular stage. It may allow for wider interpretation. It may be a more inclusive term than if we try to pinpoint precisely what we mean by it at this particular time in the legislative discussions.

With respect to a definition of family that we may have or a particular position with respect to same-sex couples, these are issues that are very complex, of course, and we are struggling with them. At this point, we don’t have a particular position that I could articulate to you, but we are always looking at them as they evolve in the public forum.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. McClelland.

Mr. McClelland: Thank you very much for your testimony. I have two questions and I’ll try to pose the short one first.

I take it from your testimony that as far as you are concerned, this legislation deals exclusively with discrimination issues. It doesn’t enter into any employment equity or recognition issues beyond that. If it did, would your approach to this be similar? Now I speak for the people who feel threatened and say that one of the reasons they object to it is that they feel threatened that it will inevitably lead to this.

Mr. Friedman: I’d like to answer that question with a comment Mr. Ringma might have made at some point.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

.1530

Mr. Friedman: You’re asking a hypothetical question.

Coming back to your first point, I think it’s important to stress that whenever you get into the area of things such as employment equity, you have to have some kind of statistics to demonstrate that this group has been disadvantaged with respect to the thing you’re examining. Now, given the fact that many people have hidden their sexual orientation and may actually have risen quite high, it’s going to be hard to demonstrate that people have been disadvantaged on those grounds. It’s going to be hard to do.

Mr. Vernon: I would just add that once we accept the initial premise you propose, that this bill does deal strictly with discrimination, the rest of the question becomes moot.

Mr. McClelland: The more difficult question pertains to considerations Bernie Farber raised a couple of weeks ago. The program hosted by Elwy Yost, Saturday Night at the Movies, had a retrospective on discrimination and prejudice. In my view it was really first-rate. It was tremendous. The first movie shown I believe had the title Crossfire. It was produced in 1946. It was about homosexuals, but you couldn’t use the word at that time, so they made it anti-Semitism.

In the course of the conversation Bernie Farber linked the necessity of linking the fight against discrimination to sexual orientation - and I hope I’m getting this right; forgive me if I don’t - to anti-Semitism and denial, and Holocaust denial specifically, which is perhaps the biggest threat to our society today: the denial of what is historical, or the reinvention of history and the rewriting of history in a laundered fashion so as to make it palatable. I felt those were very worthwhile and insightful comments, because I truly feel people who are prejudiced and who discriminate will find a reason to be prejudiced or to discriminate against anyone. They’ll pick a target. Historically, I appreciate that minorities are targets.

For the record, would you expand on that? I hope I haven’t paraphrased Bernie Farber incorrectly.

Mr. Vernon: Mr. McClelland, as Bernie’s colleague, I can attest to the fact that he’s done extensive and very important work on these issues.

I would make two points. First, it’s worth remembering in tying in the Holocaust with these issues that those wearing the yellow star in the camps were in the camps with people wearing the pink triangle.

We know that discrimination sometimes starts at a small level. But as Bernie often says, there is a line of discrimination, and we know the line ends with Auschwitz. Where you get on the line is what matters, and where you try to break that chain of events.

Racism, to use another metaphor, is an ugly weed, and it sprouts in many different forms. I think it’s important that we understand that any vulnerable minority threatens all of Canadian society. That is one of the reasons why we’re particularly supportive of this amendment: because we understand the pain and anguish that go along with the suffering of discrimination by a minority group.

Mr. Friedman: I just want to add one quick comment. I didn’t see the show, but I wouldn’t myself make a direct connection between the Holocaust and what we’re dealing with here today. I do, however, accept very strongly the notion that once you start discriminating against one minority, it’s inevitable that others will get thrown into the hopper. Stephen Scheinberg, former national chair of the League for Human Rights and current vice-president of B’Nai Brith, has said that in the United States right now gays and lesbians are like the canaries in the coal mines because they’re the most vulnerable group. That’s where people start, so you have to watch how they’re being treated.

.1535

Matt McKay was arrested in Winnipeg for the 1991 alleged beating murder of a 48-year-old man on the basis that he was thought to be gay. Matt McKay is the same individual you see on the tapes in the Somalia inquiry saying, “Ain’t killed us enough of them niggers yet”. He is also wearing on his chest a tattoo of the Celtic cross, which is a symbol of white supremacy and anti-Semitism in many of the white racist groups. So there is an obvious multiplication of groups once you get started down that road.

The Chair: Ms Augustine.

Ms Augustine: There is still a question that I’ve been asking in several different ways because I think it’s the crux of the decision we have to make when we get this back into the House and have to stand up to vote. By increasing awareness, public information, acceptance of sexual orientation, are we conflicting with traditional Jewish religious beliefs?

Mr. Ménard: Good question.

Mr. Friedman: We agreed on the same answer.

The Chair: You should have asked me that, Jean. I would have given you the answer.

Mr. Vernon: I think the same answer I gave to Mr. Ménard applies here. We’re talking about very complex issues and they don’t avail themselves of easy answers. We are not rabbinic scholars. I think it would be best to put that question to somebody who has a deeper knowledge of the issues.

Mr. Friedman: To add the obvious observation, there is a wide range of views on this issue among people who call themselves Jews. It would be very difficult for us to give one position on it because there isn’t one.

Ms Augustine: This brings me back to the problem that faces us as we discuss this. There are those of us who see it purely along the lines of justice and discrimination, and those who see a whole series of other moral issues involved and base their position on what they consider to be religious and moral beliefs. This is where the discussion is, and it’s going back and forth like ping-pong.

Mr. Vernon: Ms Augustine, I would echo the comments made earlier in response to a question Ms McLaughlin raised, which is that we regard this strictly as a human rights issue. We prefer to focus on the particular aspect of it dealing with discrimination. That’s a short answer.

Mr. Friedman: That’s seconded.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Robinson: Madam Chair, I apologize for being late. I came directly from the House and very much appreciate being able to catch at least the tail-end of your evidence.

I also wish to say, and I trust that others have said this, that both the congress and B’Nai Brith have been on the front lines of this struggle for many, many years. I recall working with my colleague and friend Sheila Finestone back in 1985 as a member of the equality rights committee. I knowMr. Vernon is a veteran of these struggles. I don’t personally know Mr. Friedman, but I know that he was -

.1540

The Chair: He was behind the scenes and working with Heritage Canada.

Mr. Robinson: I just wanted to say how much I value the consistent and longstanding leadership of both B’Nai Brith and the congress on this issue.

I have two questions. If they’ve been asked, just tell me and I’ll read the record.

The first question is with respect to the issue of the commonality of discrimination. Frankly, I agree that this equation of the Holocaust is one by which I personally am troubled. I don’t think that’s appropriate.

Certainly when I look at some of the arguments used in this area… I look at how children are used. Children are the most vulnerable and precious people in our communities.

For a long time, anti-Semites have suggested that Jews will convert our children. They say they’ll take their children away and convert them or that gypsies would abduct their children. Of course, gay people would seduce their children. Children have been used in that very powerful way.

People are making links with pedophilia. Just today, again, unbelievably, another Reform Party member of Parliament, Dave Chatters, is suggesting that somehow gay people shouldn’t be allowed around young people in schools. Every single member of that party voted against this amendment, including Mr. McClelland, and some of them are making those links. Some Liberal MPs are making the same links. When we say “shame”, that shame applies right across the board.

I wanted to ask if you wanted to comment on the importance of naming those who must be protected by human rights legislation. Again, this may have been asked. That’s the argument made by Mr. McClelland and some others. They say we don’t have to have names or categories; let’s just say we don’t want any discrimination. They say that’s the way to approach this.

Given those who have historically been victims of discrimination - I remind you that those three categories of people all ended up at Auschwitz - and given that some are more victims of discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of race, why is it important to name these groups?

Mr. Vernon: Mr. Robinson, I alluded to that in my testimony-in-chief, but I’d be happy just to quickly summarize the point I made. We hear people wonder about why there are not people with blue eyes on the list or people who are in this category or that category.

I said earlier that, first of all, it’s important to have a list to make sure that frivolous and capricious categories are not included. I think it’s important to focus on the groups that have historically faced all kinds of discrimination, particularly focusing in on the kinds of discrimination that the CHRA deals with.

I endorse that position. I think it’s important for us to have a list that enumerates these categories. That’s why we’re so concerned about having sexual orientation included on that list.

Mr. Robinson: One other brief question.

Mr. Friedman: I just wanted to add one thing. The other thing is that the categories are not actually specific groups. The categories are dimensions, not groups. Sexual orientation does not mean gays and lesbians; it means sexual orientation. Religion does not mean Jews; it means religion.

In other words, these categories we’re talking about are extremely broad. Even the categories themselves cover just about everybody. As for gender, everybody has one. We’re not talking about women versus men, or men versus women, or gays versus others. The law is framed very broadly.

If in reality - we firmly believe this - some groups are the specific targets, and if that’s the way the world shakes out - it appears to - then that’s simply a fact of what is actually happening in the world. It’s not the categories themselves.

Mr. Robinson: Just one other question. I believe that at a recent national conference, rabbis of reform Judaism in the United States agreed to acknowledge and celebrate the relationships of gay and lesbian partners. I’m just wondering what the current situation is in Canada.

Mr. Vernon: This gets us into the territory that was first raised by Ms Augustine. It’s a very complex situation. We’re not really the best authorities to respond to that. I’d be happy to provide you with some information later on. I think it would be best if we -

Mr. Robinson: Just as a factual matter, does that decision have any impact on Canada?

.1545

Mr. Friedman: Rabbinic schools are pronouncements that individuals have to apply on their own. Even in the United States a pronouncement by an association is not binding on any individual. It’s a guideline, a statement of principle. So I couldn’t answer you. We’d have to do a poll of reform rabbis in Canada to know.

Mr. Robinson: Are some reform rabbis in Canada, to the best of your knowledge -

Mr. Friedman: I couldn’t answer that, sorry. I don’t know.

The Chair: I thank you both and both your organizations. You’ve given leadership over many years and we look forward to wise counsel in the future.