Transcript from June 2, 1994 Then MPP George Mammoliti speaking in the Ontario legislature against same-sex marriage.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Let me start by apologizing to many who have read the paper recently and have perhaps misconstrued or not understood that which I've been trying to say. That's one of the reasons I'm standing up today and debating this issue. I think people know where I stand on the issue. I think it's important for me to get it on the record and, at the same time, apologize if I offended anybody or if I offend anybody during my speech, because it's not going to be as pleasant as many would like it to be. I hope people can appreciate the fact that there are individuals on this side and on the other side of the Legislature who fundamentally don't agree with this bill and don't agree with what's happening in terms of the debate out in the province, and in my neck of the woods as well, that being Yorkview. I'm going to talk a little today about why I object and talk about the fact that the traditional family as I see it might change and has a good chance of changing to a degree that I'm not comfortable with. I'm not looking 10 years down the road, I'm looking more along the line of 50 and 100 years down the road. Quite frankly, I wouldn't be comfortable with what I see as a vision, what I see happening in society if this bill passes as it is. Changing the definition of "spouse" I will speak about as well, how I'm opposed to the bill for that particular reason and how that as well reflects on the traditional family as we know it and see it. There's been some debate as well in this place in terms of catering to special-interest groups, and I want to say a little bit about that. I'll finish up by talking about how I fundamentally disagree with what's happening and why. My colleague spoke about the definition of "traditional family" yesterday. The minister clearly said she's unsure of what people mean when they say "traditional family." I wish to respond to that, because it's important for me to give you what I think a traditional family is in society. That in no way reflects on the fact that I haven't lost sight, I must say very clearly, of the human rights aspect of this that some people are talking about. Where I have a problem is where we're changing definitions and where I believe it will change society later on. In answering the question of the minister who spoke yesterday before we broke, my colleague from Beaches-Woodbine, I believe very fundamentally that traditional families are blood relatives, marriage, of course, traditional marriage as we see it today, and adoption. I believe this bill takes away from what I think a traditional family is. Unless

we as a group figure out a way of achieving what people want in terms of benefits without disturbing that fundamental belief that many of us have, this bill will be defeated. I've said before that I plan on standing up and voting opposed to this unless we can come up with something that many of us can be happy with. When we talk about extension of benefits, I can understand some of the arguments that have been posed, both in this place and outside this place, but I want to ask this question: If we're going to do this as a body, is this the time to do it, coming out of a recession? Does business agree with us in this place, and will this cost business any more money? Interjections: No. Mr Mammoliti: I hear from my colleagues very loudly that the answer is no. Well, in speaking to some of the businesses in my community over the last two weeks, that's not the case. As I see it, it will cost an extra buck to an employer who will have to extend health benefits, an extension part of the benefits, to their employees. If any of you really believe it's not going to cost them anything, I would ask you to go and speak to any of the insurance companies that might be around and ask them what in essence it would cost to have "family" extend. The fact that this is a moral issue for me certainly stands in the way. My belief in family and what family is, is my belief, and morally I can't agree with changing the definition of "family." Some might argue that I'm not as progressive as others in my caucus and in this House. I will argue that I have got a gut feeling that we'll hurt society as we know it if this passes. I may not be able to prove every argument I stand up and make in this place, I may not be able to convince anybody to change their mind in terms of what they plan on doing, but what I've got is a gut feeling that we'll hurt society and family as we know it. Interjections. Mr Mammoliti: Madam Speaker, I'm not hearing what some of the heckles are. They're even coming from my side, and I think that's a shame. I'd like them to be a little louder, at least, so I can respond to heckles and not just murmurs. I'm not as religious as I should be, and recently I sent around a letter from the Pope to every office. It was a letter addressed to families from the Pope. I don't plan on changing anybody's mind in terms of religion; I'm not the best Catholic in the world and I don't preach to be. But I tell you, there is one message that will hit your desk from that little booklet that's going to arrive shortly, and that is the message of traditional family as we know it. I would ask you to look at that message, as well as some of the other messages that I certainly would want you to read, for instance, the whole area of conception, where we all came from, for that matter, and how relevant that is with what we're talking about now.

In history you could read about what conception means, where children come from, and where the traditional family and this whole area of conception would of course meet. It has been a natural way of life. Without it, none of us would be here. For that reason, I don't agree with what we're talking about -- my own personal view. 1650 Another view comes from a senior minister from the United Church who wrote to me and who talks about God in the letter. It says God "...including homosexuals, without necessarily condoning all behaviour. I do not, in fact, accept homosexual behaviour as legitimate or necessary. Physically, homosexual behaviour is unnatural." You have to excuse me, it's a little blurry. "The body parts involved aren't complementary. They don't fit together. They can't reproduce." Reproduction is important to some of us in this place. Reproduction is important to society as we know it, and reproduction is that gut feeling I was talking about earlier as well in terms of what can happen 100 years from now or 150 years from now. Earlier, I said I'd talk a little bit about the change in the definition of "spouse." This bill will alter, if I'm not mistaken, 55 statutes. It will change the definition of "spouse." It will allow gay and lesbian couples the right to adopt children, and of course will extend benefits to their partners. The definition of "spouse" for me and for the government is husband and wife, male and female; common-law, male and female. We plan to change that through this particular bill, and I can't agree with that. I can't agree with it because, as I've said earlier, it will change society as we know it and it will set a precedent, a precedent I don't think any of us would want to see. Let me pose a question to the Legislature, and I want all of you to think about this because I think we need to talk about this. If the legislation goes through as planned and if we then open the doors to others to come in and say, "My religion," or my faith or my belief, "says I have to have three wives," or four wives or five wives, should we not then extend benefits to the five wives or the six wives or the seven wives? Is it not our obligation later on to fulfil that request from others who will come knocking on the door after we set this precedent? If I vote in favour of this, I would have to vote in favour of others when they come knocking on the door as well. How much will that cost, and is everybody in this place prepared to take a look at that when it happens? I see a number of individuals in this House laughing. They don't believe it might happen. I'm trying to read some of the body language in this place. I can assure you that with the,

as I think the statistics are, 111 or 112 different cultures that exist in the province of Ontario at this point, those cultures that believe they could and should have the right to be married five or six times and have five or six wives will come knocking on our door and ask us to extend benefits to them as well. I'm not prepared to look at that. I'm not prepared to set the precedent at this point. While we could all have our little chuckle over the issue at this point, I think you should go back to your offices and think about the repercussions if it does happen. Some will argue that the government is catering to small interest groups. While we and the media have made this into a gay and lesbian rights issue, if this legislation were to go through, is it not our responsibility as members to stand up and represent the others who might claim that their human rights are at risk? Should not two sisters or two brothers or a daughter and a granddaughter share benefits? Should an aunt and a niece share benefits? Nowhere in this piece of legislation does it suggest or recommend that this happen. I know for a fact that there are individuals who are asking that question. Recently, I received a letter from Waterloo -Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I would ask if it's in order to heckle one's own member. The Acting Speaker: Out of order. The member for Yorkview, please continue. Mr Mammoliti: If that's the case, if you can heckle your own member, let me know, Madam Speaker. Let me know quickly. There was a letter sent to my office from Waterloo, Ontario, from an individual who says -- well, let me read it to you. Halfway through the letter, it starts by saying, "For example, my mother was raised by an aunt and uncle who, due to their distant blood relations, were not considered eligible to be family." That's of course after somebody had died and after they had made some inquiries in terms of benefits. This person is saying, why just the gay and lesbian community? Why not the others? I will say to you very clearly today, Madam Speaker, that there's a point to be made here. When people say we're catering to a particular group, maybe we are. Maybe we should be looking at it. If our intent is the human rights aspect to this, maybe we should introduce another piece of legislation that would satisfy this individual, that would satisfy Barbara. I don't think that we're committed to do that. I think that we should be looking at those arguments when individuals do come forward and say that we're catering to a particular group. For that reason, I can't agree with the bill either. This is going to be very controversial, Madam Speaker, and again I apologize for saying

this, but it is my view. It's a view that I hold and if anybody takes offence to the statements, well, maybe we could have a chat later on and I can explain why I feel this way. Some people believe that the lifestyle in the gay and lesbian community is unacceptable. While I don't know the lifestyle per se, I hear some of the arguments that come forward and I ask myself, does this occur, does it happen? If it happens, should we reflect on the bill when -- and I'll get to the point in a minute, Madam Speaker -- it talks about adoption? I've had literally hundreds and hundreds of letters written to me on this issue and many of the letters would reflect what I have in front of me in terms of what I call turning sex into a game, a toy. I don't accept it and neither does my community. Some of the language that is in this leaflet will certainly shock many of you in the Legislature, and I'm not going to read it all to you but I can tell you that when we talk about electric torture, whipping, water sports and scat, fisting, cleaning your toys, what does that say to the community, that wide and open community in Ontario that believes that lovemaking has turned into a toy? What does that say? My question to the people who sent me this from the community that we're trying to extend human rights to through this bill is, does this go on? And if it goes on, do you believe that it's fundamentally acceptable to include the adoption of children? What will that do to society as we know it in 100 years? 1700 Many will say: "Well, it's behind closed doors. What happens in my bedroom my children won't even see." I don't believe that argument for one minute. I believe that children pick up from their parents, and if we extend the definition of "spouse" and open up traditional families, those children will be influenced in a way that we'll never, ever forget. That's my argument for opposing this particular part of the legislation. Some will say: "Well, it doesn't happen, George. It just doesn't happen." Well, how do you explain the lobby that has sent this to me and that have advocated -Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Those are the other guys, though. Mr Mammoliti: No, no, not at all. My colleague made a comment here that it's somebody else. It isn't anybody else. It is a question that I pose to the community. If it does happen, it's unacceptable to me and I would never, ever agree to the extension of this bill as it is in front of us. Many arguments as well, and again this may be controversial for a lot of people -- but there are statistics from the Ministry of Health that I've looked at -- talk about behaviour and are very relevant to this if this is the case. When I was speaking to people from the

ministry, they made it quite clear that this and the statistics I'm about to read to you are pretty relevant. As a matter of fact, in the leaflet it talks about the prevention of HIV and AIDS. I want to ask you this question and I want to ask all of you very clearly. In the Ministry of Health statistics from 1981 to the end of 1993, the total reported cases of AIDS were 3,712: 272 were heterosexuals, 107 were blood transfusions, 114 persons contacted it through drug use and 3,190 were homosexuals. Those statistics are frightening to me. Some will argue that they may not be true. Phone the Ministry of Health and find out whether or not they are. I'm pretty frightened by those statistics. That leads me to believe that it is pretty prevalent in the homosexual community. Another question: whether or not some of you now find it acceptable behaviour. I don't. Madam Speaker -- or Mr Speaker, I'm sorry. I didn't see you come in the room -Interjections. Mr Mammoliti: It's not relevant, Mr Speaker. I only have five minutes left and I'm not sure that I'll take up all the time, but I would argue that the majority of the people in Ontario would agree with some of the arguments that I've brought forward today and that they would ask this House to look at what the majority of the people in Ontario would want. I got another letter recently from an individual who supports the bill, and this person -her name is Jennifer -- says to me very clearly: "You have used your power and authority in a totally disgusting way. Many people who may look to you for leadership will now feel justified in their destructive views about gays and lesbians. They can give vent to their hatred and fear in many ways, from teasing to vicious beatings." Over the last two weeks I have knocked on a lot of doors in my community and since the debate has started have certainly tried to get some feedback in terms of what my community wants, and I am thoroughly convinced that this individual is right. I should use my leadership, and I should vote with my conscience. I should do what my community wants, and my community very clearly has said to me they don't like what's in the bill. They want to see some changes. They don't like it the way it is. That's leadership. I got elected in 1990 to do that. That's leadership, in my opinion. I'm trying to show that. I'm trying to do what I think is proper and what I think is right in this House, and quite frankly this Jennifer from Toronto, who doesn't live in my riding, certainly doesn't know what my riding wants. Another person wrote to me, from my riding this time, and is quite clearly saying that they don't want government to legitimize

this type of behaviour. Lastly, some will argue that some MPPs in this place are utilizing this place for political reasons and using this forum, especially this issue, to grandstand. I assure you that's not what my intent is. My intent from the start and my opinion from the start has been one and has been for years that when I see letters coming from the leader of the Liberals, who talk about one thing one day because it suits their needs for a by-election in St George-St David, and then after the election's over and they have their MPP elected, they have decided to abandon that MPP and say: "Forget about it. We went with you, we walked door to door with you, we talked with you. We promised" -- I have a letter here that says that if the Liberals were elected, "I'm calling on you to heed this direction and take action now to recognize the rights of same-sex couples." Not a few months later does the Liberal leader do an about-face because of political reasons, because she probably knows the majority of Ontarians disagree with what the bill is talking about, as I do. She has completely done a flip-flop. I pose the question to the Liberals: What happened to Humpty-Dumpty when Humpty-Dumpty sat on the wall? Mr Bisson: Is this going to be like the Three Little Pigs story? Mr Mammoliti: Well, it's almost like the Three Little Pigs story, but I think it's quite relevant. Humpty-Dumpty fell off and cracked his shell. Then how many king's horses and how many king's men did it take to put Humpty back together again? Flip-flopping on an issue like this, sitting on a fence on an issue like this, will not gain any respect from anybody out there. You take a stand and you stick with it and you deal with the repercussions. 1710 The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member for Yorkview for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments. Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): First of all, in the very brief time that I have, let me say, without any confusion whatsoever, I'm in total disagreement with the statements made by the previous speaker. I don't know how some people think that removing discrimination against some people in our society diminishes the status of others. Frankly, I hear the argument over and over that if I give rights to this group, it takes away the rights and the status of the traditional family. I don't believe that for a second. I believe that you can give rights to people in our society and not diminish the status of others. But while we're on the subject of the traditional family, I'd like to ask the previous

speaker to explain to me how he deals with the facts, and the facts are simply this: Gay and lesbian individuals in our society are someone's children. They are someone's brothers. They're someone's sisters. They're someone's parents. How does this traditional family view deal with that fact? The other issue that I think is extremely important is that this is not a Metro Toronto issue. There are gay and lesbian people in every riding of this province. There are gay and lesbian people in my riding of Sarnia, and there are a lot fewer because my community, like many others, discriminates. It does subtle things. It makes people uncomfortable in their own communities, and I know of gay and lesbian people in my community who are past residents who are now living here in Toronto because they could not live at home. If people in my constituency expect me as an elected member to gay-bash, to drive people out of my communities, to continue to discriminate against people in our society, they'd better find someone else to do that. Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): First of all, I'd like to congratulate the member for Yorkview for not being his usual belligerent self. Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Is John here? Mr Sola: That's right; it's a miracle. At the same time I'd like to congratulate the NDP caucus for allowing him to speak what is essentially heresy for the party. Perhaps democracy is returning to this House when a party, and a governing party at that, allows dissenting views to be voiced. So congratulations there. I would think that his remarks were quite thoughtful up to a point, but they were very courageous because the member for Yorkview opened himself up to ridicule, abuse and labelling. That is something that is not very welcome for any member of society, but particularly one in a high-profile position in a community such as an elected official. It takes a lot of courage to voice opinions that may not be acceptable but that the person believes to be true. I would like to point out some other things. He mentioned other cultures living in Ontario who believe in polygamy, but there are cultures that are of North American origin that have a Christian sect or denomination which also allow polygamy. So that question is not as wild as it seems. I understand how overwhelmed his constituency staff and his office staff are by the overwhelming response to this question, because I can tell you, yesterday it got so bad that I could not get through to my constituency office. I had to get an emergency service

to get some information from my constituency office. The response has been just overwhelming and it has been about 100 to one against this legislation. Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I too would like to comment on some of the remarks made by the member for Yorkview, specifically on the premise that we should be permitted to deny benefits to couples who cannot produce offspring, cannot produce children. I would like to point out that, if we follow that logic, it means that couples who are unable to have children or couples who choose not to have children or senior citizens who are past their child-bearing years who choose to seek the comfort and the companionship of marriage, all of these couples should then be denied pension benefits, medical rights and their human rights. I'm afraid I don't understand that logic. It's also important to say that human sexuality is a precious gift of love between two human beings. To ascribe the abuse of that to one group fails to acknowledge that there is pornographic material that portrays heterosexual acts. If we are concerned about pornography, then we must be concerned about all pornography. I think many people in here will recall growing up with erotica. It's readily available: Playboy, Penthouse, Playgirl. It depicts heterosexuality. I think to comment on one group and not another is leaving a serious omission that we need to address. Lastly, I would urge all members of this House to indeed heed the words of the member for Yorkview and not give way to hatred and fear. Mr Malkowski: I wish to congratulate my brother for expressing his viewpoint. I respect the way he's done it, but I'm also honoured to be able to share my own view. I'm a very, very proud Catholic father of five children myself. I wish to inform people that I come from a traditional family but I believe in the importance of my children knowing I'm also a very strong supporter of the example of leadership to end discrimination against all people in our society. I want my children to learn those values, and that's why I support the extension of same-sex benefits. I believe that human rights are a basic foundation in our society and I want my children to value those things. I want my own children to know that their dad did his best on same-sex. One day maybe one of my own children could become lesbian or gay. Who knows? Who's to say? I want to prepare a society that may be ready for them. I think it's important to send out a positive message for people so they can develop a positive selfimage of themselves. I don't understand how anyone could vote against simple legislation which would end discrimination. If you have children, how could you possibly want them to grow up in a world where they might be discriminated against? I think it's important that as parents we lead the way to end discrimination. The extension of same-sex benefits is one of those ways.

I believe that gay people are good parents, just as straight parents are good parents. I'm a proud Catholic father, I come from a traditional family, and that's why I'm supporting this legislation. I have children and I'm very, very proud of that fact and I'm very happy and proud to share that message with my fellow Catholics and my fellow constituents. The Speaker: The honourable member for Yorkview has up to two minutes for his reply. Mr Mammoliti: In response, I want to thank the member for Sarnia, the member for Mississauga East, the member for Middlesex and the member for York East for their responses. The member for Sarnia talked about traditional families. I'm not sure whether he referred to me as a gay-basher or not. I hope he didn't; I didn't quite hear it. But if he did, I take great offence. I am not a gay-basher. I said earlier that I understand the human rights component of this, but I can't agree to the extension which we're looking for, and that's what I talked about today in the Legislature. I want to thank the member for Mississauga East for his comments, and the Premier for allowing us a free vote on the issue, it being so controversial. I too have great respect for the Premier for doing that. But I would also ask the member across to talk to his particular leader and talk to her about swaying on the issue and dealing with this as perhaps a feeling in your heart or a gut feeling as opposed to politics. This is not an issue of politics. To the member for Middlesex, I'm sorry if she got my message wrong. I did talk about adoption and I did talk about how I felt that adoption is included in the traditional family. Perhaps Hansard might be able to clear that for her if she has misunderstood me. As to pornography, I thought the discussion today was in terms of the gay and lesbian community, and I spoke very clearly about some concerns I had from literature that was sent from that community to my office. I want to thank the member for York East for giving me his opinions. I take his opinions to heart. I wish I had more time to respond, Gary, but the time's gone. 1720 The Speaker: Is there further debate? Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): When the issue of same-sex family benefits first arose in this House more than a year ago, I voted against it. A fortiori will I be voting against the government's sweeping attempt to redefine the meaning of "spouse" in all provincial statutes. My reasons, briefly stated, are as follows.

Family benefits are just what it says: benefits, not rights. Benefits are special rewards that society bestows from time to time on a select group for various and changing reasons. They are clearly not legal entitlements to which everyone can lay claim. Some couch the current debate in the noble language of human rights. In my view, this is a deliberate but misguided attempt to reshape reality as it is perceived by most people. It is using the power of words to build a strange new world in which age-old concepts of human relationships are radically altered. I do not know when, precisely, governments decided to recognize through family benefits the special burden of child-rearing and the sacrifice that many women traditionally have made in this regard by giving up employed-related benefits. Whether these reasons still hold today is open for debate. One might well ask under what conditions family benefits should be awarded today and whether it still makes sense to grant them in the first place. Clearly, however, this position is fundamentally different from the approach that calls for family benefits because homosexual relationships should be seen in the same light as heterosexual ones. As I see it -- a view that, by the way, is shared by most of the constituents who have contacted me on this matter -- the mutual attraction between a man and a woman is the most basic paradigm of human otherness. I'm using the expression "human otherness" in this context as an inadequate but unavoidable translation of the powerful French term "altrit." The male-female relationship is the archetype of what it means to be different from one another, of what it means to joyfully accept this difference and of what it means to work creatively through this differentiation towards the eternal new beginnings of child-rearing. The state has a fundamental interest in recognizing, protecting and even encouraging this elementary bipolar relationship, this most fundamental openness towards what is different from our own selves. To claim that a man-man or a woman-woman sexual relationship should be equated with heterosexual relationships is to deny the primordial value of sexual differentiation, and I'm not prepared to support such efforts. Some people may accuse me of homophobia. If this questionable word has any meaning, it means fear of sameness, "homos" being the Greek equivalent of our English adjective "same." In this sense, I am indeed fearful of sameness, for I believe strongly in the endless enrichment that comes through the ongoing challenge of male-female relationships. For the love of the Homo sapiens, the mensch, the human being who finds its fullest expression not in woman alone, not in man alone, but only in their mutual complementarity and in its perennial offspring, the child, I have voted in the past against the ideas expressed in Bill 167 and I will do so again in the future.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Nepean for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments. Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I can't help but think back, when I listen to some of the debate and statements made in the House, or imagine some years ago, actually not all that long ago, when all male parliamentarians were debating and discussing whether women should be allowed to vote and whether women indeed could be looked at as persons. Not that long ago, that was the big debate of the day and I can't help but think that a lot of the language, phrasing and rationalizations were used in that debate as well. When I think back to that and think of where we are now and how over time it became accepted -- but it was a raging debate. There were those who thought that women didn't have souls and couldn't participate in these kinds of debates. Now there are women here in this House. There are women taking part in all aspects of our lives, not only bearing children. Obviously, people here in this House know where I stand on this issue. I guess I see it as my duty, because I feel so strongly about it, to try to be as rational as I can -- not too emotional, although it's hard, but as rational as I can -- to remind people that this is a human rights issue. It's not couched in those terms; it really is. The courts are telling us that. It's been said time and time again that the courts are making these decisions for us anyway. It's happening very quickly. We can be dragged kicking and screaming into it, spending millions of taxpayers' money, or we can do the right thing and get on with this now. Mr Bisson: I'd just like to respond to two points the member made in his speech; the first one being that benefits are just that, they're benefits, and benefits are sometimes things that are granted from time to time to society when society chooses. I would tend to disagree with that. I would ask the member to reflect back on a number of issues that our society in North America and here in Canada have had to deal with over the years, everything from the civil rights movement on. If we were to take that attitude, and if our Constitution and our charter were to take that view, it would be very much a bad day in Canada and I think a bad day in North America, because I think a lot of the rights that people have attained over the years would have never happened. How we began to change society and how we got society to see the issue for what it really was, is that people -- thank God there was a Constitution there and a charter -- were able to challenge those decisions over the years. The other thing he talks about is that this is couched as a human rights issue and we're just couching it that way because we're somehow trying to do something subversive. This

is not couched. The human rights -- when you take a look at what's happening regarding the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court of Appeal of Ontario, and you take a look at the Human Rights Commission, they have all very clearly come back and said, "According to the Constitution of our country, according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other statutes, clearly a society cannot deny people rights that they have attained under that Constitution." I beg to argue with the member; he is dead wrong on this. This is a question of rights. What has happened over the years is that many people have brought their governments and their employers to court over a number of the issues that we're debating within this bill. It's because of our charter and because of the laws of the land that the courts have ruled in the way that they have. I would ask the member to think about that when he's responding. 1730 Mr Callahan: The issue that's raised in trying to put this on a level of human rights I think is wrong. If we're talking about human rights, we should start talking about the human rights of children. The courts have been the protector of children since day one. That's with heterosexual couples. I've had many cases of custody where I've had to tell my client, "It's not your wishes, it's what's in the best interests of the child." I have a grave fear that with the bill that's been put forward by the Attorney General the courts would lose that paramount and down-through-history role of being the parens patriae in looking after children. I suggest to you that when a government brings in a bill the way this government brought this bill in and tries to amend the number of acts it has done without one iota of looking into what impact that will have in terms of that traditional role of the courts being able to be enforced for the rights of the children -- and I think we're forgetting this in this debate. This debate is not talking about those rights of the children. I have to say that it troubles me greatly, because we see the Conservative Party obviously using this in a political way. This will become a crucifixion of human beings who perhaps are homosexual -- gay or lesbian -- who are going to be dragged through the mire in the next provincial election. That troubles me. That is something that legislators should not do. This is not a political issue. This is an issue dealing with the rights of children, the traditional rights of children, the role of the courts in dealing with children. I suggest to you that you had better take a hard look at these acts, because I don't think anybody, including the Attorney General, has absolutely any idea what the impact of this amendment, this gross amendment, to all of those acts will have on the children of this country.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): We know in this House that the most difficult debates we have to face are those involving the moral and ethical issues of our times. I believe that this bill in fact is clearly one of those issues and one of those debates and it reflects the ethical values that are held by and reflected by the members of this House. I believe the member for Nepean has expressed in his place and has put into a theological and moral context his views and the views of many adherents of his position. He's expressed them well. They have been based on a fundamental theological moral basis, and that is what he has put before the House. In my own view, the member has given through his remarks an indication of something that I believe, that fundamental ethical change through political vehicles such as this Parliament must take place incrementally as changes in society occur and as those ethical changes are taken into account. My constituents tell me we're not there yet, as the member for Nepean tells this House his constituents tell us we're not there yet. I appreciate the tone of the debate that the member for Nepean introduced into this discussion. I think the more thoughtful ethical views that are put on to the floor of the House, the better. The Speaker: I acknowledge that the honourable member for Fort York was surprised that he did not catch the Speaker's eye. Indeed the normal custom is to go in rotation, and that was broken inadvertently by the Chair, for which I apologize, but we have had four people and it would take unanimous consent to allow a fifth one. Agreed? I recognize the honourable member for Fort York. Mr Marchese: I just want to respond to the member for Nepean on the whole issue of benefits. He advances the same argument as Ms Fawcett from Northumberland. Both of the members have stated that benefits are not rights, and Mr Daigeler said that they're not legal entitlements nor should they be confused with legal entitlements. The fact of the matter is that we as heterosexuals have rights and entitlements accorded by law and gays and lesbians do not. By the same laws that discriminate against them, there are laws that give me entitlements. It is true that laws entitle people. What we're saying through this bill is that they should have the same entitlements as the rest of us. The courts are moving in that direction and there are a number of cases that they're probably aware of, that we're aware of, that begin to give justice to people who are lesbians and gays. There is the Leshner case, where a lawyer challenged the Ontario government's pension plan as discriminatory under the Ontario Human Rights Code for not providing survivor benefits to his same-sex spouse. The board, in hearing that case, ordered that the code be interpreted to ensure that same-sex couples are given the same benefits as opposite-sex couples and that the government must provide survivor pension benefits to same-sex

spouses within three years of the order. The fact of the matter is that human rights commissions are increasingly ruling on this and are giving entitlements to gays and lesbians and I suspect the courts in time, as the statutes are challenged, will do the same. What we as politicians are saying is, let us lead and not wait for the courts to continue to provide those entitlements that they should have by right. The Speaker: The honourable member for Nepean has up to two minutes for his reply. Mr Daigeler: Indeed, I think the crucial question here is, are we talking about a human rights issue or not? I gladly accept the fact that the notion of human rights, what constitutes a human right, has been a developing one. There has been a significant evolution of what are considered human rights or not. It may well be, although I personally doubt it very, very much, that in years down the road the majority in our democracies will look at this issue as a human right, because that's how, in a modern society, we make these kinds of decisions and live with these kinds of decisions. We decide through the democratic process, not through the courts but through Parliament, through the elected members of the people, what are considered the fundamental values of our society. Therefore, I feel that we have to lead on this issue and we have to decide on behalf of the people whom we represent what are the most fundamental values of our society, and it's up to the courts to interpret that will. The will of the people is expressed in this Legislature and not through the courts. If the people feel that I or all of us are not expressing the will of the people, then they will vote us out of office. These are the principles of our modern democracy and of our modern political system that we're operating under and that we have all acknowledged and accepted. In this regard, I put forward the very strong view that this bill is not a human rights issue, it's a benefits question, and therefore I will be voting against it. The Speaker: Is there further debate? Mr Malkowski: I'm very, very proud today to stand in my place and join in this debate on second reading of Bill 167 on the extension of same-sex spousal benefits. I believe this is a very important foundation, that being human rights in our society, and to be very clear that yes, it's still a moral issue. I want to share with you a little bit about how I feel and why I think this is so important, not only to me but also to the people of York East. I wish to show that and give my feedback to the people of my constituency and to the people across the province. The message we would give here is that our New Democratic Party government has been

accountable in principle, in our commitment and our belief in inclusionary society, to end and to stop discrimination. That is a very key fundamental value. This is a part of our human rights agenda. It's also cost-effective inasmuch as it saves on legal expenses and costs that would be incurred in court in order to fight this. 1740 Thirdly, the economic and emotional benefits to people from a human rights perspective are great. Traditionally in history, the Ontario society has seen many, many, many different kinds of changes. There are children who come from gay and lesbian parents, children who are gay and lesbian themselves and from many different kinds of groups. People have different experiences, not only within that community but many other minorities as well who have faced discrimination in this province. This is very important, that the extension of same-sex benefits address the discrimination that gays and lesbians have felt and that the lives of those people be reflected in society: that it becomes an inclusionary society, that we include all the groups in society. This is what's important. I am very passionate about this. I want to make sure that we have all members of society to take their place in the sun and to stand equally among each other, no one over anyone else. It's an equality rights issue. It's very important when it comes to accountability that we show leadership in this place. We have seen the best of traditions in Ontario developed and we have seen the foundations of human rights issues emerge in this province and within Canada. We should be proud of that. If we look back at the history of the development of human rights, we can talk a little bit about the issue. I will go on to explain that the Canadian Constitution, when we implemented the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, was passed by the federal Liberal government in 1982. Prime Minister Trudeau was the Prime Minister at the time. This established for us legal protection for people. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and equality issues were addressed in there for the choices. The Ontario government, at the time a Liberal government, in 1986 adopted the private member's bill from the member for Ottawa Centre, Evelyn Gigantes, who introduced a private member's bill, an amendment to the Ontario Human Rights Code to include sexual orientation within the Human Rights Code. This was passed, and the Liberal government of the day saw fit to pass it. These are remarkable steps in the history of the human rights evolution of this province, both passed by Liberal governments. This is not a partisan issue. We should be able to face this as legislators and to show the emergence of guarantees of human rights in this province. We have a progressive agenda. We have a history behind us. We should be able to build on that. Today we are asking again to build on that and to continue to build on

that. One of the hardest things for me and one of the things that takes me back is some of the opposition coming from that Liberal Party. They seem to be backtracking very quickly. I thought we had helped to grow within human rights in this province, and they had a role as a political party in this province. I wanted to see the end of discrimination -- this is an important point -- and I would ask them to join in that. Whether you are a Conservative, a Liberal or a New Democrat, I thought we were all here to work together for the betterment of people and to stop discrimination. Is that not a point and a purpose of the things we do here? Is that not a purpose, to help educate those who may misunderstand so that we can see the end of discrimination in Ontario? I want to talk a little bit about the cost-effectiveness. As you all know, and as we see within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, respect of individuals and their sexual orientation is included in the Human Rights Code. It's very, very clear where we need to go from here, and society knows where we need to go from here. There are many, many private businesses and companies which have already taken the lead on this. They are aware. They know how important this is in terms of human rights and the extension of these legal rights to people. I am happy to name some of those corporations and companies that have shown some leadership. I can give you some examples of those who are not afraid to move ahead: the Hudson's Bay Co, Levi Strauss of Canada, Dow Chemical, IBM, the North American Life Assurance Co, the United Church of Canada, the Metropolitan Toronto Police, the Globe and Mail newspaper publishing company, the Toronto Sun, the Canadian Auto Workers and many others. There are many names of many companies I could go on to list. The point is that these people provide coverage and same-sex benefits to their employees. They are showing leadership. They know that we as a Legislature do not want to get into spending money fighting things in courts. They've shown leadership that way. They have made a wise decision, and we can follow that lead as legislators. This is an important thing, to include same-sex benefits. I would say to you, it does make sense to pass this. Our government has accepted its responsibility. We are accountable to the people. We have asked in these tough economic times to save money. Why would we continue to spend money fighting something that is going to be? The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is there. It is a goal for us to build on. It is something for us to respect, that we may respect each other. This is an important value that we can pass on to each other and to our future generations. I'm very proud of the history of our government in showing leadership. We can show the way to other jurisdictions across Canada, that we should be the first in Canada to do this.

We should be proud of this, that we can lead the way in human rights reform. I also want to talk a little about the economic and social benefits, and how, by respecting what I believe are the key important messages when you end discrimination, you have a better society, where people are better able to freely mix and to participate. That has economic benefits if all people are participating equally in society. This is another basic belief I hold. I want to see equality rights extended so that we have a stable society, so that people can support each other in business and in play, and that we have solidarity in the business of respecting each other and tolerance. Those are things we can foster, and Ontario should be a place for those things. The saving of finances from this comes also from those partners in those households where maybe gays and lesbians -- if someone were to die, for example, they need the death benefits. There are property rights that need to be addressed, there are pensions that need to be addressed for people as homes are broken by a death. Why would we want to see someone left without any kind of income, having to go to welfare, when spousal benefits will go a way to protect the income of those people after they've lived in a relationship? They pay taxes. We need to make sure that for society's interests, people are protected and they have a means of supporting themselves. These are some of the costeffective ways this legislation will go to help preserve a stable society. I think that goes a long way. I find it very hard to believe there are groups within the Conservative Party whose philosophy is -- of course, we know where they come from. They are very concerned with big business and fiscal conservatism. We know that. So it makes sense to you to follow the lead of what business is already doing. Look at what those companies have done. I would suggest to you that you reconsider your position on same-sex benefits. Why would a party that represents the interests of big business, when business is already doing this and you look at the business practices across the world, not take a hint from them and look at this? I don't understand why you would be opposed to this, but we'll let it stand for itself. If you wish to see more spending happening in court costs and legal challenges, I guess that's your position, but I would challenge you. I would just throw that question out to you. I don't think the Ontario public would want to see us spending money in the courts on something when we can pass this in the House and save money for court challenges. Court challenges will come. It will cost money. We're trying our best to preserve money in these tough times and to spend money wisely. I'd ask you to rethink, sirs. Another very important question for all members of this House to think about is the question: Are gay and lesbian people, in your view, responsible enough and willing to accept the responsibilities and obligations in society? Do you not think so? It's a question I would pose to you. It's something I ask, and I would ask the opposition members to reconsider. I believe they are. I would ask you to respond to that in your comments to me.

1750 This is an important foundation in terms of human rights for our society, because yes, gays and lesbians and the community are ready. They have always been ready to take on the responsibilities and obligations, just as we are. They are willing, they are keen to get on with their lives and to join in society as equal members. It's very clear. It makes sense to see people, all of our citizens who pay taxes, no matter who they are, have their place in society and their rights guaranteed. It can't be any other way. This is something we wish to encourage and this is a question I would suggest to all of you, that you reconsider the place of people in society. I would like to talk a little about a letter sent from the Leader of the Opposition, the Honourable Lyn McLeod. It was a letter sent to the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario. The letter was dated March 1993, and in her letter she says, "Let me be perfectly clear that we must end discrimination against lesbians and gays." She goes on to say in her letter, "It is my strong belief that human rights are not up for debate and that the Ontario Legislature should be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom... should be amended." It's very clear in her letter that the Leader of the Opposition once supported it, and now I'm finding it very difficult to understand how the Liberal Party, in such a short time, given its history, which was very prominent in human rights traditions in terms of Prime Minister Trudeau and what he did in 1982 in instituting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- you have so much to be proud of. Amendments to the Ontario Human Rights Code for sexual orientation were included by the private member's bill of Evelyn Gigantes, the member for Ottawa Centre. Liberal governments have progressively always been there. You had a by-election and you campaigned on this in the riding of St George-St David. You went forward and you told the people of that riding that you supported these things, same-sex benefits. You've been very clear, and now today we find a different story, a big change, a complete reversal of where you've been. You're sending a confusing message to people. I'm not so sure if that's the kind of leadership one might look for, that you'd look to take advantage of people in an opportunistic way. I suggest to you that you have a very proud history and that you should go back to that. Don't backpedal on this, please. I am here to encourage all of you to rethink. I'm very proud of the New Democratic Party and our tradition and our beliefs. We've rolled up our sleeves, and we've taken some heat for this, but we will continue to fight against discrimination wherever it may be. I would encourage all of you, and I respect the opinions of all the people here in this place, but I would ask you again to think of the model we would send to people if we were to reform human rights, to show some leadership, because the results of doing that would be profound.

Same-sex benefits in the amendments and the legislation send a positive message to all people, most of all to our future generations and to those children who will look and see what we did in this place, that yes, they can be proud to stand in a jurisdiction that ended discrimination, all forms of discrimination. You should be proud to have a role in that, that we can give a legacy of hope to our younger people coming along and to our future generations, not only our children but our grandchildren and their children. We want a society where everyone feels safe and has an opportunity to be treated equally. I believe we have an excellent opportunity here to do that. We have an opportunity here to leave a legacy of positive self-esteem among all people, that we have a society that accepts people no matter who they are. That's a positive message to send to people. That's a positive message for communities to have. As we look at our history, we have a very proud record in this province. Maybe in 50 years they will say: "Look what they did. Isn't this wonderful? We won't forget the good things this province continues to do in showing leadership in the country and for all people and for all provinces." I would hope we could encourage further development and further leadership in human rights and in the movement thereof, because it can only have a positive impact on communities in both social and economic benefits. We want to see an equal society where all are included, no matter who the group is. To be an inclusive society, that includes gays and lesbians. Of course it does. I want to also mention and ask you to think a little bit about something from my own experience I'd like to share with you, if you don't mind. When I went to a school system here in Ontario, there were so many comments. People would write articles and people would talk about, "Gay and lesbian people are sick." It's amazing how you get that information, but you have an opportunity with friends, by meeting other gay and lesbian people -- I happen to have friends who are gay and lesbian -- and you know what? They just have a different way of being in some ways. It's just another expression of life. That's all that is. They pay taxes. We share the same food. We share the same society with you, so hate is for what? Hate's the fault; it comes from misunderstanding and fear and possibly ignorance, but I would suggest fear. Sometimes we come to things with all kinds of pre-conceived ideas; that's the kind of thing we need to stop. We need to stop the fear, we need to stop the confusion. We need to show some leadership in this place to end that kind of misguided misinformation that may come about. Having legislation like this can go a long way to educate people. Gay and lesbian people are just like anyone else. There are differences in communities, and that's okay. It's okay to be different.

As we extend benefit rights to people, yes, once again we are showing a difference and a respect for those differences. We need to be keen on this because again, through our lived experiences, we know. Speaking for myself and knowing the disabled community, there are gays and lesbians who live in that community. Where would they be if we take away rights? Same-sex partners: What do they do? They provide a foundation of love and support, not only financial. Without that, how can many other people proceed with their lives, without a financial support? Gay and lesbian people who may be disabled being denied that just creates further hardship and further oppression. People are tired of living on the sidelines. Let's pull people off the sidelines, including gay and lesbian disabled people. People want to live in society and be included. Again, I ask you to help us do that, to pull people together and to have a message to everyone and to parents who have children, whether they're disabled or not, that it's okay to have someone who's different. It doesn't matter if you have a different life or if you look different or you happen to be shaped differently or have a different colour. All members of this are all members of a community and we come together and we are Ontario. This is something we need, and we should be proud to promote in this place and in the country and that we can be that model for the world stage to look at. Yes, Ontario has a reputation of being progressive and open. I believe passionately in these things. I wish to wrap up. One of the most important foundations is, of course, human rights, and gay and lesbian people are responsible. They are ready. They are waiting to take their place in the sun. That's a fundamental question I would throw to all of you to reconsider, those of you who are opposed to this legislation, to think about extension of rights. Don't misunderstand and don't let fear guide you. There are many parallels with again, as others have mentioned, the debate on women's rights. People will say, for adoption rights, they are afraid this is somehow going to be a threat to things. I would suggest to you people that the recognition of same-sex benefits and adoption of a child is not a threat to the family. The United Nations in its Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes that it's important that children need -- what? Most of all, a good, emotional, stable, loving foundation. That includes financial considerations as well as social and emotional needs. No matter who those parents are, if someone can provide a loving, caring home for someone, who are you to deny that to someone? Based on those experiences, it would be a wonderful opportunity if we could talk to other children who are raised by gay and lesbian people, hear their stories. There are statistics that show those raised by gay and lesbian people don't turn out any differently than your sons or daughters. I would suggest to you, as any other child, they are just as happy and socially and emotionally adjusted as anyone. So I would challenge members, do we then and can we give love to children? Of course we do -- my own children, my own

daughters and sons. If someone, let's say, has an uncle, can an uncle then give love to a son or a brother? That's same-sex in a sense. That's a loving relationship. Just because one happens to be gay, why would you then suppose that they can't offer love to someone else or be supporting or give a hug? What is the harm in that? What is the difference between someone, just because they happen to be gay or lesbian or straight, being supportive and loving to someone in an emotional way? Don't let fear misguide you. That is my point. It's very, very important that we support people in these relationships. This is my strong belief. Yes, there are those who say that men and women are the foundation, but I want to say to you that men and men and women and women also have a beautiful, loving relationship and that there are many examples that we can give and many community members. I mean, you go out on to the street, you look at the variety of people on the street. All loving relationships are beautiful, I would suggest to you. We can only achieve further understanding and further love by respecting each other and respecting the rights of people. That's a picture, a holistic, global picture, that we can show to the world. We don't want any gaps. We don't want more suffering by communities. We don't want to see discrimination continued. We want to change that picture. We want to see a picture of positive growth, positive benefits, of good information, of supporting, loving relationships. It's a message of hope and a message of human rights that we send to everyone by doing this, by making those changes, building on our history of positive, progressive change. This is a foundation and it's a question I throw to you, those of you who are opposed, to accept that responsibility and to look for equal treatment for all the citizens of this province, no matter who they are, whether they're gay or lesbian. They have basic rights and responsibilities and obligations and it's up to us to help them achieve a loving, stable relationship. I see, it being 6 of the clock, I'm out of time. There are other comments I would wish to make, but I would suggest we adjourn debate for the day. The Speaker: When this bill is next called before the House, the honourable member for York East has up to six minutes and 37 seconds to continue his speech. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Pursuant to standing order 55, I wish to indicate the business of the House for the week of June 6. On Monday, June 6, we will continue second reading consideration of Bill 167, the Equality Rights Amendment Act.

On Tuesday, June 7, we will consider an opposition day motion standing in the name of Mr Harris. On Wednesday, June 8, we will continue second reading consideration of Bill 167, the Equality Rights Amendment Act. On the morning of Thursday, June 9, during private members' public business, we will consider ballot item number 61, a resolution standing in the name of Mrs Carter, and ballot item number 62, a resolution standing in the name of Mr Beer. On Thursday afternoon, we will continue second reading debate on Bill 91, An Act respecting Labour Relations in the Agricultural Industry. The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock Monday next. The House adjourned at 1803.