Ms. Sally Naumko, Private Citizen

Ms. Kate Tate, Private Citizen

Mr. Asher Webb, Private Citizen

Ms. Anne Gregory, Private Citizen

Ms. Margaret McKenty, Private Citizen

Mr. John Krowina, Private Citizen

Mr. David Schesnuk, Private Citizen

Ms. Marianne Crittenden, Private Citizen

Ms. Lorraine Waldner, Private Citizen

Ms. Karen Delaney, Private Citizen

Mr. Mark Golden, Private Citizen

Mr. Rory Grewar, Private Citizen

Mr. Henry Makow, Private Citizen

Ms. Adele Perry, Private Citizen

Mr. David Joycey, Private Citizen

Ms. Joann Gorham, Private Citizen

Ms. Elsy Gagné, Private Citizen

Mr. Donald Teel, Private Citizen

Mr. John McKenzie, Private Citizen

Ms. Sarah Inness, Private Citizen

Mr. Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Committee on Law Amendments please come to order. This evening the committee will be resuming consideration of the following bills: Bill 8, The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act; Bill 10, The Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods and Consequential Amendments Act; and Bill 41, An Act to Comply with the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in M. v. H.

At the meeting of this committee held on Monday, June 18, the following had been agreed to. One, length of presentations, 15 minutes with a five-minute question-and-answer period. Two, those presenters called at the Monday night meeting would be dropped to the bottom of the list. Those not in attendance at the June 18 meeting would be called to present at a subsequent meeting; three, it was agreed to hear from out-of-town presenters first, persons with young children, and those requiring French translation. Please advise the Clerk of this committee if you fall into one of these categories.

As a courtesy to persons waiting to give a presentation, did the committee wish to indicate how late it is wishing to sit this evening?

Hon. MaryAnn Mihychuk (Minister of Industry, Trade and Mines): I would suggest that we leave that open and allow all presenters to be heard.

Mr. Chairperson: Is that agreed? [Agreed]

We do have presenters listed to speak to Bill 41. I will read the names of those persons registered to speak this evening: Herb Neufeld, Kate Tate, Asher Webb, Michael Law, Elizabeth Carlyle, Penny Piper, Anne Gregory, Sacha Paul, Sarah Inness, Manny Calisto, Margaret McKenty, Sara Malabar, Grant Fleming, John Krowina, David Schesnuk, Henry Makow, Joann Gorham, Lorraine Waldner, Fae Simon and Rosaline Dearing, Karen Delaney, Mark Golden, Rory Grewar, Kelly Jenkins, Marianne Crittenden, Sally Naumko, Adele Perry and David Joycey.

Everyone's name will be called in the order that I read. If they are not here their name will be called a second time. We will go through the list of names twice tonight. Numbers one to eighteen have already been called once the previous night. They will be called a second time tonight, and that will be their last chance to present. Numbers nineteen to the end will be called twice tonight.

Those are the persons and organizations that have registered so far. If there is anybody else in the audience that would like to register or has not yet registered and would like to make a presentation, would you please register at the back of the room.

Just a reminder that 20 copies of your presentation are required. If you require assistance with photocopying, please see the Clerk of this committee.

Sally Naumko, No. 25 on the list of presenters, had at the Monday, June 18, meeting submitted her brief, and it had been agreed to have it accepted as a written submission. Is there leave of the committee to allow Sally Naumko to make an oral presentation this evening? [Agreed]

Ms. Naumko has also requested that she be moved earlier in the speaking order due to health-related issues. Is there leave of the committee to allow Ms. Naumko to present following those persons who have advised of special circumstances? [Agreed]

Also, is there leave to allow Krishna Lalbiharie to present on behalf of Elizabeth Carlyle, listed as No. 5 on the presenters list. [Agreed]

A request has also been received from Joann Gorham, No. 17 on the list of presenters, to be moved to the bottom of the list of presenters. [Agreed]

Is there leave of the committee to switch the places of Henry Makow to No. 24, and Marianne Crittenden to No. 16? [Agreed]

* (18:40)

I would also like to inform the committee that written submissions have been received from Donald Teel, private citizen, and John Mckenzie, private citizen. Copies of these briefs have been made for the committee members and were distributed at the start of the meeting. Does the committee grant its consent to have these written submissions appear in the committee transcript for this meeting? [Agreed]

Prior to commencement of the presentations, is there anyone in the audience who will be speaking in French this evening? Could you please indicate if you wish to speak en français? Seeing none, does the committee agree that the translator be allowed to leave? [Agreed]

We will now continue with the public presentations. No one has advised us of special circumstances.

Bill 41–An Act to Comply with the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in M. v. H.

Mr. Chairperson: The first presenter will be Sally Naumko. Please come to the microphone. Please proceed.

Ms. Sally Naumko (Private Citizen): Before I read my presentation, I would like to address council and all those present on the matter of respect for opposing viewpoints. Last Monday, I sat through 22 presentations, 20 of which were on the pro side of the amendments. During these 20 presentations, those of us who are in opposition listened quietly, giving them the respect they deserve. However, when it came time to present our side of the issue, we were met with mockery and laughter. It also appeared to me that council showed a lack of interest in what we had to say, some members leaving, others talking amongst themselves. We are all human beings who deserve dignity. We just have a different point of view. Tonight I ask that those of us with opposing viewpoints be given this same respect.

I would like to open by saying that my being here is not motivated by hatred, nor even dislike of the gay community. In fact, my faith in God gives me a deep love of all people. What adults choose to do in their bedrooms is their own business. However, when these same people use these sexual preferences as an agenda to change laws, it becomes a concern to all of us. It is out of my duty to serve God and as a citizen of Winnipeg that I am here to speak.

In reference to any amendments to Bill 41, it is my personal belief and the belief of many that this will undermine the values of the traditional family. Yes, homosexuals do have the right to the same legal protection as all other citizens. However, it is something else entirely to grant them the same legal privileges as heterosexual couples. To base these amendments upon sexual behaviour and/or preference is unconstitutional.

In the case of common-law relationships consisting of male and female partners, there is the consideration of children born of the union. This is not possible within the homosexual combination. Passing of these amendments will give credence to the homosexual union and open the door to same-sex adoption of children. Children have the inalienable right to be raised the way God intended. If you are not a believer, you still have to acknowledge the fact that the very nature of procreation requires male and female, as does child nurturing. To raise a child in an environment of emotional confusion is tantamount to child abuse.

I am well aware of the fact that many children are raised by single parents, some having no contact at all with one or the other of the parents. However, in such circumstances these children are not forced to accept abhorrent sexual behaviour as normal. If we as a society are forced to accept homosexuality as the norm, then soon enough we will be railroaded into doing the same for other fringe groups such as pedophiles. This may sound absurd until one takes into account the court ruling allowing pedophiles to possess child pornography.

Already our children are having the gay agenda forced upon them in the school where they should be learning about reading, writing and arithmetic. I remind you of the horrendous incident of 14-year-old girls being shown pornographic lesbian material at our university right here in Winnipeg, without parental knowledge, much less permission, and under the unassuming label of "Women in Art." Children should be allowed to maintain their innocence as long as possible. Instead, under the guise of teaching tolerance, their innocence is torn away from them and they are left with confusion.

If same-sex couples are given the same rights as male-female couples, we are sending the message to the children of tomorrow that there is no moral code, that anything goes. When morals get tossed out the window, chaos ensues in the hearts and the minds of our children and in society as a whole. We should all be greatly concerned for the future of our children, because our children are the future. This is not about tolerance. This is about a small group of people attempting to use the law to force their version of morality upon everyone else.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any questions? Thank you for your presentation.

The next presenter is Herb Neufeld. Is Mr. Neufeld in the room? I should point out that after these names have been called a second time, they are dropped from the list. Is the next presenter present? Kate Tate.

Ms. Kate Tate (Private Citizen): Hello.

Mr. Chairperson: Go ahead.

Ms. Tate: I just came to talk a bit about my personal experience, and why I think it is important that adoptive rights for same-sex couples be included in Bill 41. A lot of it to just address a bit of what the previous speaker was talking about: emotional confusion for children. I think if families are accepted for the way they are being formed, I mean, children are being brought up by same-sex couples whether the law sanctions it or not, and if these families are brought under the umbrella of the law with the same protection and the same rights as other families, I think that would save a lot of emotional confusion in a lot of cases.

I will just tell you about my case. I was with another woman in a relationship, and we decided we wanted to have a baby. My partner is the one that gave birth to the baby. We were going to bring the child up as a family, and when the baby was about 18 months old or so, we went to a lawyer because we wanted to make myself a legal co-guardian of the baby so that we would both be able to make medical decisions and that kind of thing, if it became necessary; if the biological mother was unavailable, I would be the one. The lawyer said, well, you know, that has never been done in Manitoba. There is no law for it. It would be a big court challenge. Your names would be in the newspaper and so basically we were scared off, my partner being pretty homophobic, and so it was never done, so I ended up with no legal rights.

Then when the child was two and a half years old the relationship broke down, as some relationships do, whether they are heterosexual or not, and so we split, and for the next year and a half we maintained visitation and realized it was in the child's best right for both parents to maintain contact with the child, and, you know, it was without any law involved. Visitation was ongoing but then my ex-partner got involved with a Christian group that was very against homosexuality, and became ashamed of the fact she had ever had a relationship with me and decided to stop letting me see the child anymore. I was left with no rights at all, having raised this child as my own, fully as much as the other parent, as any other parent is, but with no recognition of that under the law.

I ended up actually going to court and winning visitation rights so at least the Manitoba court system was reasonable, and realized it was in the child's best interest to maintain a relationship. But I still lost all my parental rights in terms of being able to, you know, anything from going to parent-teacher meetings and just even being denied the right to call myself a parent. I think this all could have been avoided if the law had been just reasonable about accepting families the way they are, and a lot of emotional distress would have been avoided in that situation. Any questions?

* (18:50)

Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Thanks for your presentation. I just had a question. Feel free not to answer this. I do not want to interfere with your privacy interests. Is there an arrangement for support payments from you, or is the child seeking–

Ms. Tate: I offered to pay support payments when we originally split and signed an agreement of separation. I offered support payments and I offered them again when we went to court for visitation, but my ex-partner did not want to accept support payments, because she basically wants to pretend that I never existed and that she never had a relationship with me, even though we obviously did.

Mr. Mackintosh: So the issue of support payments is not a live one because the other parent is not pursuing that. Have you ever received legal advice that you would be liable for support payments?

Ms. Tate: Yes, I did receive that advice and I was advised to set up a trust fund in the child's name and put payments into it. That is what I am doing and that is what I have done.

Mr. Mackintosh: When you went to court on the issue of access to the child, or visitation rights, I guess would be more accurate–I guess it is the same thing, is it not?–was it a barrier for you, because you did not have adoption rights, not to be recognized as an adoptive parent?

Ms. Tate: I was told by my lawyer, basically, that it just totally depended on which judge I got and what their views were on same-sex couples, because there is no law that says that, yes, I should be given the right of visitation and recognized for the parent that I was. It was totally up to the judge's discretion, because there was no law for them to follow that covered us.

So that was way more distressing than it would have been if I went in there knowing I have this legally protected right, that I am just going into court to get it recognized. It would have been much less stressful than going in there knowing that I do not have a legally protected right and it is totally up to the judge's whim and their personal beliefs, or whatever.

Mr. Mackintosh: I look forward to this panel we set up, their advice on these kinds of issues, in terms of what differences will follow from changes. It is all very interesting. I was wondering if you have also, as a result, had to make arrangements, and, again, protect your privacy interests as you see fit, in the event of your death, for property to go to the child? How does that work in your circumstance?

Ms. Tate: Right now, that trust fund would go to her in the event of my death, and I have a son myself now, a biological son that would probably inherit from me instead of her now.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

Ms. Tate: Okay, thanks.

Mr. Chairperson: The next presenter is Asher Webb. You may proceed.

Mr. Asher Webb (Private Citizen): Good evening, honourable minister, committee members, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity to appear this evening to address Bill 41. My name is Asher Webb.

Not unlike thousands of Manitobans, I have had the opportunity to work with many government and non-governmental agencies and committees, committee groups and social service agencies around the issues of human rights, public health, business development, community development and social issues, in both personal and professional capacities. In working with all these groups, I have done my best to participate fully in the process of working toward change that is in the best interests of our society as a whole. Recognizing that the process to create positive change often involves courage, vision and, most importantly, the ability to look at the big picture in understanding that creation of change must address the rights of all, but not to the detriment of any of society's participants.

Gay, lesbian and bisexual Manitobans make significant contributions to society as your peers, bosses, parents, siblings, children and friends. Whether as a business professional, athlete, politician, parent, student, employer or employee, I would hope that these accomplishments would not be diminished because of a contributor's sexual orientation. I would ask that the members of this committee stop for a moment and reflect on the fact that, at different points in our history, almost all of you or your ancestors could easily be in the situation I find myself in today, appearing before a legislative committee advocating equality of rights for a community to which they belong: women, Aboriginal Canadians, immigrants and people with disabilities, to name but a few. While recognizing that this process is important to the creation and evolution of legislation, I would not hesitate to bet that, in hindsight, most if not all of you would agree that the changes to legislation to create equality for all such communities were both necessary and just.

With regard to adoption rights for children of same-sex couples, I, like many of the presenters you have heard from, see this as both a rights issue for the couples, family and especially for the children involved. With regard to the children, by not recognizing both adults as parents, this Government is, in fact, denying them total access to medical, financial and social support. Perhaps on some levels even more detrimental to Manitoba children's emotional development, self-esteem and well-being, the denial of recognition of both parents and therefore the complete family unit, only works to reinforce the Orwellian Animal Farm notion that some families have more value and are more appropriate than others.

The creation of a committee to review legislation, as it pertains to the inclusion or exclusion of citizens, is important, and I applaud Minister Mackintosh in importing Ms. Cooper and Mr. Hamilton to take on this task. I hope that this is an educational process not only for the committee and the Government, but also for all Manitobans. It is important to recognize that affording gay, lesbian, bisexual Manitobans all the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts is not a gift, nor is it special. It is, in fact, the right thing to do.

I truly hope that the report of this committee will help this Government find the vision and courage to take the steps necessary to create a society here that is equitable to all Manitobans, and thereby ensuring the possibility of optimum participation of all of its citizenry. Respectfully submitted, Asher Webb.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any questions?

Mr. Mackintosh: Thanks very much, Asher. It is a pleasure working with you, like graffiti for example, which we are working on. Well, thank you for recognizing the potential of the panel and your recognition that the educational process is also very important. I just wanted to shadow that with this, maybe trite observation, that the bigger picture is reducing prejudice as a challenge, and it is my firm belief, for one, that changing laws can help, and sometimes help in a big way. But it is also at least equally important that changing attitudes by way of education is also absolutely critical to deal with prejudice; which, of course, can mean both behaviour and attitude challenges. So thank you very much for your observations in that regard.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. The next presenter is Michael Law. Please proceed.

* (19:00)

Mr. Michael Law (The Gay and Lesbian Issues Sub-Section of the Manitoba Bar Association): Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Minister, members of the committee.

Before I launch into my own submission, with leave of the committee, Ms. Tate, the previous presenter by two, has asked me to respond to one of the legal questions the honourable Minister has raised. Mr. Minister, you had asked the question about how Ms. Tate was able to apply for access under the old regime, and I can advise that I was her lawyer, and the Child and Family Services Act before it was conglomerated with The Adoption Act had provisions in it whereby if a person did not have the right under some other statute like The Divorce Act or The Family Maintenance Act to apply for access to a child, they could do so if they fall into one of three categories. One was if they were a mother or father; two was if they were another blood relative, and it listed a number of relatives such as grandparents, aunts, uncles and a person in loco parentis; and the third category was in extraordinary circum-stances, some other individual could apply. The motion was brought under alternatively part B or part C, the extraordinary provisions or, as in loco parentis, and the court found in that case that Ms. Tate qualified under the extraordinary circumstances provision and did not have to make a finding on stepparent.

I am making a submission on behalf of the Manitoba Bar Association. My position within the Bar Association is as a voting council member. I am the immediate past chair of the Gay and Lesbian Issues Sub-Section, and I am the vice-chair of the national Canadian Bar Association branch of SOGIC, which is Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Conference. For those of you who do not know, I am sure you all do, but the Manitoba Bar Association is a branch of the Canadian Bar Association. It represents

over 36 000 lawyers, judges, law teachers and law students across Canada and it is dedicated to enhancing the administration of justice.

The resolution is the written part of my submission. To read it into the record, it simply says: The Manitoba Bar Association urges the Government to amend Bill 41 with the goal of making it as comprehensive as possible in eliminating distinctions between same-sex couples and opposite-sex common-law couples.

I can advise this committee it was a virtually unanimous resolution. There was one abstention, and the Bar Association feels very strongly about this. Generally speaking, the belief of the bar is that this act that has been brought forward to comply with M. v. H. does not, in fact, do that. The Bar Association, of course, did not have an opportunity in the limited time period to go through each and every statute and assess which statutes should be and should not be included, but the general consensus is that it goes far less than it ought to go, if it is actually going to be complying with what M. v. H. says.

The Adoption Act is something that this committee has heard brought up over and over again. I will raise that specifically, because it was one of the acts that was specifically raised when this resolution was debated. It was the opinion of the bar that The Adoption Act should have been included now in Bill 41, and not some time later.

Just so you can understand why I am saying that the act does not comply with M. v. H., M. v. H., as I am sure everyone knows, was not made in a vacuum. It is a culmination of many other section 15 Charter cases that have gone through the courts, including some Supreme Court of Canada cases.

Just to read a very few quotes from a couple of the cases that emphasize what I am talking about, the first one that hit the Supreme Court of Canada of major importance was Egan v. Canada, and that is where an application by a same-sex partner to have old age security benefits, a spousal allowance, was applied for. Ultimately, the court did deny the application, but Justice Cory and his reasons–I will just read one line: These studies serve to confirm overwhelmingly that homosexuals, whether as individuals or couples, form an identifiable minority who have suffered and continue to suffer serious social, political and economic disadvantage.

This was the case, of course, that added sexual orientation to the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights. We have had Vriend v. Alberta where the court was being told that the Alberta Human Rights Act equivalent was unconstitutional and violated the equality provisions of the Charter because it deliberately did not have sexual orientation in it. These cases are referred to in M. v. H. You have heard the quote, I think, before from other people who have submitted it to this committee from Justice Iacobucci, and the point of this quote is that when the Supreme Court of Canada made the decision on the narrow question of The Family Relations Act of Ontario, it made it clear that it was not just talking about that act, and it was not just talking about support acts, it was talking about all acts which have discriminatory definitions of spouse.

I will read it again. Section 29, this is Justice Iacobucci saying: I note that declaring section 29 of The Family Law Act to be of no force or effect may well affect numerous other statutes that rely on a similar definition of the term "spouse." The Legislature may wish to address the validity of these statutes in light of the unconstitutionality of section 29 of The Family Law Act. On this point, I agree with the majority of the courts. These issues could only be resolved on a case-by-case basis at great cost to private litigants in order to address these issues in a more comprehensive fashion.

Now, I query the Government, why is it that when Ontario–this is a Government who is, do not forget, openly hostile to giving any rights to gay and lesbian couples and fought the whole thing all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada–why, when they interpreted what M. v. H. meant and what they had to do in response to it, they amended at least 40 statutes? I do not have the exact number in front of me, but it was many times more than Manitoba has chosen to amend, including The Adoption Act. Québec amended 39 laws. Well, this Government has only seen fit to change 10 laws. That is in large part why the Bar Association feels that Bill 41 does not go anywhere near far enough as it should in addressing M. v. H., Mr. Chairperson.

Turning briefly back to the issue of adoption, there is a little known case that came out of Alberta in 1999 that was a situation where a partner in a same-sex partnership, a non-biological partner, applied to adopt their partner's child as a step-parent adoption. This was a case where equality rights were argued. M. v. H. was argued. A section 15 violation was argued. Before the court's decision, however, the Alberta government conceded, in part, and amended the act to permit stepparents adoption for same-sex couples. I do not know if this committee has heard that in fact in Alberta–this is Alberta we are talking about–the government has allowed stepparent adoptions to occur in same-sex relationships. That case is not well-known because it is not important on Charter issues, but it is important to know that that situation exists.

Again, the point that I am making is that with M. v. H., you cannot look at it in the narrowest of senses, which is what I am suggesting respectfully is what this Government has done. You must take into account all the other equality cases which have come before the courts. The Bar Association feels that the fact that there are only 10 statutes that are being changed is a gross misinterpretation of what the Charter tells us and what the Supreme Court of Canada is telling us.

I noted, Mr. Minister, in particular that in the proposed legislation to amend to comply with the M. v. H. decision, section 4(24) amends section 36(3) of The Family Maintenance Act. Section 36(3), if it is amended as it is proposed to be amended, will obligate the same-sex partner to support the child of his or her partner. But without including things such as The Adoption Act in it, you are giving the obligation to pay support, but you are not giving the parental rights that should flow with having to pay support. It is wrong, in my respectful submission, to do only a half measure. You should do them all together at once so we do not have a series of rights and obligations coming into effect at different points and times.

In conclusion, Bill 41 is a start, and we commend the Government. You are ahead of at least four other provinces which have done absolutely nothing to address the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling. We submit that it falls far short of what the Government ought to be doing. This Government, this Province should be leading. We should not be following. We should not grudgingly do what is the minimum possible. This Province and this Government should make a bold statement for equality rights. I commend the minister for establishing this committee. I can certainly say that Ms. Cooper and Mr. Justice Hamilton are excellent choices. Ms. Cooper has already begun reaching out to the Bar by inviting comments and submissions. But what the Government, I think, will have to explain to Manitobans, including those who are in gay and lesbian relationships, is in the past year that they have been studying all these laws that should be changing and addressing M. v. H., why have they not studied all these laws that will now be addressed at some later point, maybe a year later, in this committee?

* (19:10)

The Bar Association advocates on behalf of the administration of justice, or takes positions on behalf of the administration of justice, and we believe that failure to respond now to the laws in a comprehensive manner is bad. It is bad because it will force litigation which is bad for the public–the stress and the cost of litigation–and bad for taxpayers, who will have to pay the Government to fight what will be losing battles.

Subject to any questions from the committee, those are my comments.

Mr. Mackintosh: First, the laws that have been studied by the department, that study will be important in terms of what goes before the Legislature next year. That is important work that will remain very critical in proceeding in a fully comprehensive way. The panel is looking at particular issues with regard to adoptions, conflict of interest statutes and property interests. So the 40-some statutes that the department has looked at is work well done and will be valuable. But, as well, we now have to look, I think, at the list that was compiled by the Manitoba Association of Women and the Law and look to reconcile the different lists and so on. So I just wanted to assure you of that, that this is not a study of something that has already been studied.

Second of all, just to remind you, at no time have we said that represents the Government's sole response to the issues or the challenges that have to be addressed with regard to same-sex, common-law partners. There is other legislation that has gone in the last session, and more provisions that are being amended this session.

Just to respond on another couple of issues. There may well be a legal analysis from certain quarters, or, indeed, some consensus that M. v. H. means something more than financial obligations. That is the case I heard from you; that our view was that in the eyes of an ordinary Manitoban, of a lay observer, of the ordinary person, M. v. H. was essentially about financial obligations. That is really what the section 1 analysis, I think, was about. I think to say the section 1 analysis in M. v. H. could be transferred to an analysis of adoption, child-rearing or parenting would be a stretch to the ordinary Manitoban. But I do recognize there can be different views on that one.

But finally, I just have a question for you, Michael, and I have heard this from other people as well, comparing Ontario's response to Manitoba's response. Is it your view that the Ontario response is compliant with M. v. H.?

Mr. Law: The criticism about Ontario's legislation is not in regards to the scope of the legislation. I believe that the scope of the legislation is fairly broad and is satisfactory in the eyes of most. The criticism comes from the fact that Ontario creates this third class of citizens, rather than equating with same-sex, common-law couples. It establishes a third tier, which many in the gay and lesbian community feel a sort of legal ghettoization, and that is what I understand the major criticism of Ontario's legislation to be.

Mr. Mackintosh: I know that EGALE, for example, in Ontario, said that the Ontario government's response to M. v. H. was not in compliance with M. v. H. and, indeed, with regard to The Adoption Act itself, there could be additional difficulties, I am told by some observers, and I have not formed my own view on that one and I will wait for the panel's advice on it. In conclusion, is it the view of the subsection that the acts that are included in Bill 41 comply with M. v. H.?

Mr. Law: We have addressed the issue of the scope of the act itself. So are you asking me whether or not the manner in which that you have addressed the 10 statutes are in compliance? To be frank, we have not looked at that issue carefully. I do not personally see anything that does not comply with it. There have been concerns expressed by members of the Family Law Branch that there has been a not-asked-for expansion or change to the rights of common-law, opposite-sex spouses that sort of are snuck into this, but from the perspective of the gay and lesbian issue section in dealing with that narrow issue. To that question you are asking, I do not have any concerns on that point.

Mr. Chairperson: The Attorney General, there is time for one quick question and one quick reply.

Mr. Mackintosh: The panel will be looking at heterosexual common-law relationships, particularly insofar as property interest is concerned, because of course as you recognize you cannot divorce that from. That is probably not the right word. You cannot separate that from the issue of same-sex common-law relationships and many of these issues. So I suspect we will hear more about that. So thank you very much, Michael, and I want to commend the association for coming and presenting and taking part in this.

Mr. Law: Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. We are out of time for questions.

An Honourable Member: May I ask leave of the committee for one quick question?

Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave for a question? [Agreed]

Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the committee. Thank you for your presentation. I just wonder, for my own notes, could you give me the case in Alberta?

Mr. Law: I can give you the citation but I have to pull it out of my file. It is called "re C." Just the initial "C." It is a decision from November 26 of 1999, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, and I do not have the citation written in my notes but I can get it for you later, if you like.

Mr. Loewen: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: The next presenter is Krishna Lalbiharie, representing the Canadian Federation of Students. Do you have a written copy of your presentation?

Mr. Krishna Lalbiharie (Canadian Federation of Students): Yes.

Mr. Chairperson: Please proceed.

Mr. Lalbiharie: My name is Krishna Lalbiharie. I am the national executive representative of the Canadian Federation of Students for the Manitoba component.

The Canadian Federation of Students welcomes the opportunity to make its findings known to you concerning the contents of Bill 41, An Act to Comply with the Supreme Court of Canada's Decision in M. v. H. La Fédération canadienne des étudiants et étudiantes. Canada's national grass-roots student activist and lobbying organization represents over 400 000 post-secondary education students at over 60 universities, colleges and technical institutions across Canada. In Manitoba alone, the Canadian Federation of Students represents constituents at the University of Winnipeg, Brandon University, Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface and graduate students at the University of Manitoba.

The federation was established in 1981 to advocate on behalf of its members in support of eliminating systemic barriers to post-secondary education of which provincial and federal funding cuts, rising tuition fees and burgeoning levels of student indebtedness are symptomatic. Notwithstanding its focus on issues directly related to post-secondary education, the federation recognizes and advocates on behalf of its constituents beyond these concerns and may act on any given issue that impacts upon its membership and that is reflected in its constitution. As such, the federation addresses issues from advocating for rights for marginalized, under-represented groups, through defending the right to free association, to the interests of students to be unencumbered from systemic discrimination.

Among its declaration of student rights: lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, two-spirited and transgendered students, the federation declares that all lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, two-spirited and transgendered students have the right to: "Recognition, including but not limited to legal recognition of same-sex relationships including marriage and its associated benefits in the eyes of the law and society, including custody or adoption of children on an equal basis with heterosexual people."

In light of this, the Canadian Federation of Students regards Bill 41 as a significant piece of legislation. On the whole, it represents a commitment on the part of this Government to human rights legislation by extending the claims and interests of same-sex couples. The federation is pleased that Bill 41 brings into being a new category of relationships defined as common-law partner, which includes both opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

* (19:20)

Clearly, the Manitoba government has taken an integral, initial step toward full equality for gay and lesbian Manitobans by amending 10 legislative acts. However, the current legislation's failure to include adoption rights for same-sex partners of gays and lesbians with children is indeed troubling.

Specifically, the federation submits that Bill 41's omission of these rights will have particular, detrimental repercussions for post-secondary education students. For example, biological gay and lesbian parents who are registered students are eligible for larger disbursements of student loans, bursaries and scholarships if they are, indeed, recognized as single parents. However, if the student partners of these parents should become the sole income-earners in their respective relationships, they may face a number of potential problems if they are not recognized as adoptive parents of any dependants. They will not be eligible for additional student loan amounts for dependants. They will not be eligible for bursaries or scholarships for single parents, and they may not be eligible to maintain a child care spot at a campus day care or similar facility.

In another scenario, if a partner, who is not the biological mother or father of a child, decides to pursue a post-secondary education and avails herself or himself of the student loans program to help finance his and her education, then such a parent would not be eligible to claim a child as a dependant in order to receive additional student loan funds. Without the right to adoption, the biological parent will be in the position of bearing primary financial responsibility for child-rearing costs, even if both parents wish to share the responsibility.

The efforts of this Government in re of post-secondary education have been prodigious, including the first tuition fee reduction in Canada in over 30 years, a subsequent tuition fee freeze, the proposed Student Aid Act, the introduction of additional needs-based student aid, as well as initiatives in the area of college and university expansion. However, the exclusion of The Adoption Act in your series of amendments appears retrograde, relative to your previous efforts in the area of post-secondary education. Verily, gay and lesbian student parents will continue to shoulder a greater burden of expense in the financing of their education should Bill 41 remain in its current form.

Now as our first presenter indicated this evening, I believe her name was Sally Naumko, "we are all human beings who deserve dignity." In closing, the federation urges this Government to do what is right, indeed, what is dignified, to recognize that homophobia and heterosexism in all their forms, whether personal, cultural, institutional or legislative creates an environment on university and college campuses which presents a barrier to access. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any questions? Thank you for your presentation. The next presenter is Penny Piper, representing the Manitoba Association of Women and the Law. Please proceed.

Ms. Penny Piper (Manitoba Association of Women and the Law): Good evening. Dear committee members, on behalf of Manitoba Association of Women and the Law, as a law student going into my third year, I am going to make a presentation.

Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me. Could you speak right into your mike? We are having trouble hearing. Just get closer to the mike, please. Thanks.

Ms. Piper: Is that a little bit better? Okay.

During the summer of 2000, the Manitoba Association of Women and the Law commenced an audit of Manitoba legislation to identify the specific areas where Manitoba statutes were not in compliance with the 1999 Supreme Court of Canada decision of M. v. H. The audit's goal was to examine each statute individually and ascertain how substantive rather than formal equality could be achieved.

In order to ascertain how substantive equality could be achieved, one must consider whether changes to the existing legislation will ultimately result in increased access to equality to those in same-sex relationships. The decision to amend current legislation must be balanced with the potential risk that gays and lesbians will be subject to further discrimination if, or when, they publicly represent themselves in order to take advantage of the proposed benefits. Although careful consideration must be undertaken to determine the context and the ultimate consequence of any proposed change to legislation, amendments must be implemented without further delay, as continual delay and further debate is an affront to human dignity. We should not be considering whether or not gay and lesbians should be afforded these basic human rights. We should be asking: Why has it taken this Government so long to implement these changes, and why so few?

The audit identified 73 acts as having a potential impact on those in the gay and lesbian community; 62 acts detrimentally excluded same-sex relationships. The findings of the audit confirm that Manitoba legislation requires extensive amendments to ensure compliance with the decision of M. v. H.

The acts were divided into five categories which are listed under Appendix A to D of the audit which each of you, I believe, has a copy of. Appendix A identified 17 acts which specifically exclude same-sex couples from the rights, benefits and responsibilities that are available to cohabiting opposite-sex couples. Only 9 of these 17 listed in the audit are included in Bill 41, An Act to Comply with the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in M. v. H. Eight of the 17 acts listed in this category remain unchanged and must be examined, as non-compliance does not lend itself to the true spirit and intent of the decision in M. v. H.

Appendix B listed 16 acts, which specifically exclude cohabiting same-sex and opposite-sex couples from rights, benefits and responsibilities that are available to married persons. At first blush, this may seem logical. However, substantive equality cannot truly exist until same-sex relationships are legally recognized. Legal recognition could be achieved by inclusion of same-sex couples in The Marriage Act, or the introduction of a civil union system, which is an alternative to marriage. Civil union could also be an alternative for those in opposite-sex relationships as well.

The audit identified 15 acts in Appendix C, which do not define the term spouse. Therefore, an extension of the definition of spouse is strongly recommended. In addition, Appendix D states that 13 acts do not require amendments, except, perhaps, to specify that same-sex couples are included in the legislation. Amendments to acts listed under these two categories require careful consideration to ensure that inclusion will not create a new category and possibly lead to a different form of discrimination for same-sex couples.

Furthermore, the 12 acts listed in Appendix E do not include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Therefore, amendments should also include sexual orientation as a listed prohibited form of discrimination.

Although the Manitoba Association of Women and the Law is pleased to see that the Manitoba government has taken positive steps to comply with the Supreme Court of Canada decision, we are disappointed to see that our Government has not complied with the true spirit and intent of M. v. H. By amending only 10 Manitoba statutes, this Government has failed to take into consideration the financial, emotional and political costs that will ensue by not including all Manitoba legislation that affect those in same-sex relationships.

The decision held in M. v. H. represents the culmination of incremental steps the Supreme Court of Canada has taken to expand the legal rights, benefits and protections that have been historically afforded only to married persons. The shift began in 1995 with the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in Miron v. Trudel, which held that "marital status" was an analogous ground of discrimination for the purposes of section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and cohabiting couples should not be excluded from the rights and benefits afforded to married persons.

This was further expanded in Egan v. Canada to include "sexual orientation" as an analogous ground of discrimination. M. v. H. and subsequent decisions affirm that unconstitutionality of exclusion of same-sex couples have ensured that change is inevitable. Whether this change takes place voluntarily through legislative amendments or through successive court challenges is a decision that all levels of government in Canada must make. Pre-emptive changes through legislative reform are the most prudent and compassionate course of action.

Beyond these practical considerations for changing the law, the Government of Manitoba also has an ethical duty to uphold the Charter. As previously discussed, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that laws excluding same-sex couples offend the Charter. Therefore, the Government of Manitoba is bound by the Charter and has an obligation to eliminate discrimination from its laws. It is unacceptable to force individuals to proceed to court on a case-by-case basis in order to secure rights they already possess. The only way to ensure equality for same-sex couples before and under the law while providing equal benefit and protection of the law is to make all necessary amendments to the law as quickly as possible. Anything less will not fulfil the guarantee of equality found in section 15 of the Charter.

These are the list of recommendations of the Manitoba Association of Women and the Law:

* (19:30)

1) The Manitoba Association of Women and the Law advocates that amendments to include same-sex couples should be implemented on an act-by-act basis and not in the form of blanket legislation similar to Ontario, which created a separate category for same-sex couples. This does not mean that amendments could not be addressed in the form of omnibus legislation similar to Bill 41. In our opinion Bill 41 is drafted in a manner consistent to our recommendations, as each amended act is listed and only the offending portions of the acts are repealed and amended. However, without further delay, we strongly suggest that this Government implement omnibus legislation which is sufficient to address all the inadequacies of Manitoba legislation. Anything less does not comply with the spirit and intent of the decision held in M. v. H. and is an affront to human dignity.

2) Where a particular act confers a benefit or right upon a spouse, it should be amended to include married, cohabiting and same-sex spouses. Therefore, this committee should recommend that Bill 41 be extended to include additional acts which would provide legal recognition to those in same-sex relationships and their families such as The Marriage Act or The Adoption Act. Legal recognition could be achieved by inclusion of same-sex couples in The Marriage Act, or, as previously mentioned, the introduction of a civil union system.

As I have listed in the report, the brief that you have, what I am basically suggesting is that although it is beneficial for people to be included in The Family Maintenance Act under spousal support, what happens is that same-sex couples have the burden of bearing the financial cost. However, they are not gaining any benefits. They are having to bear the cost of being a family unit such as The Income Tax Act or child support or spousal support, but they are not getting any of the benefits such as being recognized as a family unit, which could have been easily included in Bill 41.

Proposed changes in The Family Maintenance Act recognize that a dependent relationship may evolve where one party is more financially dependent on the other. In addition, the law recognizes that one party may stand in the role of loco parentis of a child and as such has an obligation to support that child. But minor changes as proposed in Bill 41 fail to recognize individuals within same-sex relationships create a family unit. A family unit may be only two persons of the same sex or maybe two persons of the same sex and an adopted child of one or the biological child or children of another partner.

Denial of the right and benefit to be legally recognized in Canadian society is an affront to human dignity. This places burdens upon those in same-sex relationships without providing the benefits afforded to those who can legally represent themselves as a family unit or marry as a symbol of their love and respect for one another.

3) Where an act confers a responsibility that may be privately or confidentially met, married, cohabiting and same-sex couples should be included.

4) Where an act confers a responsibility that must be publicly and openly fulfilled, same-sex couples should be included. In the alternative, acts which have public disclosure requirements should be amended in such a way that only same-sex couples who publicly represent themselves as couples should be included.

Although this appears to be creating a different category for same-sex couples, we must be mindful that we are still living in a homophobic society. Until gay men and lesbians can live in a world free of discrimination an exception may be necessary. One could compare this exception to Aboriginal sentencing practices which take historical, cultural and economic factors into consideration when sentencing Aboriginal offenders.

In regard to issues arising out of conflict of interest for public officials, individuals in such a position could refrain from decisions where there may be a conflict, but in order to maintain their right to privacy they should have the option of non-disclosure without negative consequences.

These recommendations reflect the need to recognize that gays and lesbians are a marginalized group in society. The reluctance of the Government to amend all the laws which discriminate against same-sex couples means that same-sex couples continue to live legally invisible. This invisibility can lead to the impoverishment and destruction of families.

In closing, the Manitoba Association of Women and the Law urges the Legislature to adopt these recommendations so that the Province of Manitoba can continue its tradition of inclusiveness, respect for human dignity and equality.

Subject to any questions, that is it.

Mr. Mackintosh: Thank you, Penny, and good luck in your studies. I got the report of MAWL in the last week or 10 days, so there could not have been a better time to have received it, obviously. What it did do was certainly raise a lot of issues that I had not really thought of before.

We talked earlier about how we have to look at the different lists of statutes that our department has prepared, and as well that MAWL has prepared, but I just want to get to the key issue in my mind that comes from your report. That was the recommendation that where there is a municipal councillor or school trustee, for example, who is gay or lesbian and they face a conflict of interest, that that person not be required to disclose the conflict created by the partner, right.

I just go to the bottom of page 4 and recommendation 4. It says here: "Where an act confers a responsibility that must be publicly and openly fulfilled, same-sex couples should be included."

Is that the right wording?

Ms. Piper: Yes.

Mr. Mackintosh: This is an important issue for the panel to consider. It goes beyond a legal issue. It becomes a public policy issue, I think, to a certain extent. I see what you are saying here, that until society has the legal protections and certainly has rid society of discriminatory statutes, why should persons be outed by law? We heard the other night the other view that if public interest was overwhelming or that if a gay or lesbian person was in public office, their public duties would be paramount to their privacy interests. I suppose that is another way of characterizing that particular view.

I am just wondering if MAWL had done any consultations on this, No. 1; and No. 2, given that Ontario has included the conflict of interest statutes, I believe, in their legislation, whether you might be aware of what the Ontario experience has been with the conflict of interest statutes and the legislated outing.

Ms. Piper: In reference to your first question regarding the consultation, the report was done by another student last year. She was unable to present this evening because she is actually employed by the Government of Manitoba. So we did not actually consult with anybody in public office. However, the person, I think, that you are referring to that you asked the question on Monday, I spoke to him earlier today and we discussed the matter. He really did not have a response at the time but we did discuss it further, and he did agree with my suggestion that, although it seems like you are creating a different category, until we are living in a homophobic-free society we may have to have that exception. Although they may be public officials, I think it is something, I am sorry, this may be a little bit critical of the committee or the drafters of this legislation, but M. v. H. was released in 1999 and the Government has had a substantial amount of time to look at all the acts. The fact that the Manitoba Association of Women and the Law did it last summer, and one student did it, I question why this Government has not done it sooner and why they have only included 10 acts.

Second, to your reference to Ontario legislation, actually, the report, the audit that MAWL did, actually does make a response to Ontario legislation saying that it was not necessarily positive because it was a blanket legislation and situations such as the conflict of interest were not addressed. I hope that answers your questions.

Mr. Chairperson: Time for one more question.

* (19:40)

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I have to respond, of course, to your critique. The departmental analysis was completed actually last spring, and this is the first session since that report was received. We have been in office now for 19 months, and the report was completed in June, which provided a basis for us to analyze where we go with legislation this year. But I might point out, as well, that in the MAWL report, for example, there was criticism about The Income Tax Act having discriminatory provisions. In the last session, we fixed all that and The Income Tax Act was redone so that all common-law partners were treated the same, and, as well, The Victims' Bill of Rights which will replace The Victims' Rights Act referred to in the MAWL report, has been amended. So things keep continuing to be addressed, and we have changes to The Highway Traffic Act before the Legislature this year as well, with regard to three areas that were of concern. Just to respond, and I will leave you with the last word.

Ms. Piper: Just in response to reference of The Income Tax Act, actually the inclusion of The Income Tax Act is not necessarily beneficial to those in same-sex relationships.

Mr. Mackintosh: It works both ways.

Ms. Piper: But at the current time, it is more burdensome for those individuals in same-sex relationships. When they have to indicate that they are cohabiting after one year of living together, and they could have GST rebates that are reduced, they could have child tax benefits that are reduced as a cause of that. Yet they are not going to be legally recognized as a family unit, and the schools do not recognize that and they have no rights as far as when they take a child to the doctor. So I think, at the current time, the burdens outweigh any benefits that same-sex couples are receiving.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. The next presenter is Anne Gregory.

Ms. Anne Gregory (Private Citizen): Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. As you have just heard, my name is Anne Gregory and I am appearing this evening as a private citizen. I will just be making an oral presentation this evening.

First of all, on the record, my thanks to Minister Barrett for her motion on Monday evening, which has made it possible for me to appear this evening. I had an early start Tuesday morning, and I was not able to stick around, and I left some time after nine and there were about 30 speakers ahead of me. But I did know when I left that I would have the opportunity to address you at some time in the future. And I did not have to stay until 5 a.m. to make sure I got to speak my piece as I have had to do in the past.

Like the majority of the speakers, at least the ones that I have heard, I am before you speaking in favour of the bill as far as it goes, but against the fact that in my view it does not go far enough. You might be wondering why I am here given the announcement earlier this week of the appointment of Mr. Justice Hamilton and Ms. Cooper to your panel, and I thought about that. I thought about that yesterday. I thought about that today. I thought about it when I got back to my office late in the afternoon, and what I have done is I have set aside my original brief which I had prepared and killed some trees, because that involved an analysis of several individual, existing statutes with language, in my view, needed to be amended but had not been pulled under the omnibus legislation.

But I am here because I have decided that I still have some comments that I hope will assist this committee, and by putting them on the record, will go forward to the panel. With the greatest of respect, Mr. Minister, and I am speaking to the Attorney General, I do not read M. v. H. the way you do. I do not believe that the case only stands for the narrow proposition on the support issue and at this point I accept that we are going to have to agree to disagree on that. But I want to illustrate my thinking for you. You were talking earlier this evening about the reasoning behind your approach and being able to communicate effectively to laypeople and so that they understand. So I want to illustrate my thinking here tonight.

In M. v. H., the question that the courts in Ontario, and ultimately the Supreme Court, had to wrestle with was, yes, a support issue. That was the question and, as courts do, whether you like it or not, they answer the questions that you put in front of them. But when a court, the Supreme Court or, in some cases, a lower court, issues their decision with reasons, that decision has two sections. One is the actual decision. Here is the answer to the question that the parties put before us, and here are the reasons how the court got to the decision that it made. That is where we get jurisprudence, our common law, our body of common laws as opposed to what is known, in some circles, as our black letter law which is the legislation that you as legislators bring forward out of the House.

So my view, and, of course, you are free to disagree with me, but my view which I want to share with you this evening is that, when one reads a court decision, one is entitled to take the reasons that are articulated in the decision of the court on how the court got to where it got at the end of the day and apply them in the broader context, subject to, of course, should that court be binding on the jurisdiction where the question has to be answered, et cetera.

So, in M. v. H. or a case of a similar nature, if equity principles are discussed and that is the basis on which the court, in this case the Supreme Court, establishes the support obligation–that is what they were dealing with in M. v. H.–the same equity principles, the same reasoning out of that decision has application across the board on gay and lesbian issues. At this point, I would just say for the record that I am a rank and file member of the MBA and I would adopt the comments made by Mr. Law earlier in terms of what he read into the record from M. v. H. and the policy statements that were made by the court at that time rather than repeat them here.

To illustrate my point, let us take a step back from M. v. H. I will give you, the committee, and anyone who is listening an example of the sort of thing I am talking about. Let us step away from the issue of the day, gay and lesbian rights. I will use another set of facts. There is a case out of Manitoba which ultimately went to the Supreme Court, some of you will be familiar with it I am sure, known as Brooks.

If you are looking for a little extra reading, anyone around the table, I will give you the site. It is Brooks and Canada Safeway, 1989, volume 1, Supreme Court report 1219 as cc. The Chief Justice at the time, Chief Justice Dixon from Manitoba–we are all very proud–and the facts were that some women who worked for Canada Safeway, they were cashiers, wanted to collect sick leave. They had missed some work. They were sick and they could not get sick leave because they were pregnant.

The sick leave plan that Safeway had in those days–it was struck down–said that if you were pregnant, there was a 17-week blackout period where you, as a pregnant person, could not access the sick leave benefits. It did not matter whether you were sick because you were pregnant or you were sick for some other reason. This 17-week blackout period began 10 weeks before, what is ever so delicately referred to in those as, the date of confinement.

So for 10 weeks before what we would now refer to as the due date, if you got the flu and you were off work for three days, if you were pregnant, no sick leave. The women went to their union. The rest, as they say, is history. It went to the Supreme Court. Now the specific question that the court had before it was: Do these women get sick leave? Is the plan okay?

To do this, they had to decide, or they were asked to look at, is this discriminatory? Was it discrimination on the basis of pregnancy? Well, that was fairly easy. That did not take them very long. Maybe, a page or two. Was it discriminatory on the basis of pregnancy? If yes, was the discrimination on the basis of pregnancy discrimination on the basis of sex?

So do you see what I am saying? You have a question, but in order to answer the question, you have to reason out a whole series of other thoughts. Ultimately, the Supreme Court answered the question about the sick leave in the Brooks case. Ten years later, the Supreme Court ultimately decided the support question in M. v. H. In both cases the court said, yes; yes to support, yes to the sick leave.

* (19:50)

Since Brooks was decided, it has become a landmark case. It is a case that stands for equity, principles for women, pregnant women. The reasoning in the case about the role that women play in society, the importance of the family, the exclusive role, so far, of women bearing the children in our society, was articulated. Then the court said, and since only women can get pregnant, if you treat them in a discriminatory fashion because they are pregnant, that is discrimination on the basis of sex, discrimination against women.

So that has become a cornerstone in our equity law. It is with that understanding, that is just one example, but that is the way I view Supreme Court jurisprudence. I accept, Mr. Attorney General, that we do not agree on this point, but that is why I feel that the reasoning in M. v. H. supports a broad view of the sort of legislation amendments that are required to bring Manitoba's statutes in line with M. v. H. It goes beyond the matters that are currently addressed in Bill 41, as it is drafted.

So I have brought my thoughts to you here this evening, and I ask you to pass them on to your panel because I feel really strongly. As I said at the outset, it is fine as far as it goes, but it needs to go farther because things need to be changed. I was here, as I said, for part of the proceedings on Monday night, and I listened to some incredibly powerful presentations from Keith Louise Fulton and Lloyd Fisher and others. But Keith Louise Fulton's and Lloyd Fisher's resonated for me especially. They deserve the protection of a legal framework.

I do not like to say it behind her back. I see that she has left, but the comments that you heard, and she has every right to make them, just as I have the right to make my comments now, but the nature of the comments you heard from our first speaker this evening is the reason that people need expressed legal rights to protect them from discrimination in this province. That is why we have the human rights code, and why, under section 9, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has been a prohibited ground in this province for over a decade.

I do not have to go far from my own village. People were telling some very compelling personal stories on Monday, and Kate Tate told one yet this evening. I do not have to go far in my circle of friends to see where the scenarios that they have talked about, in real terms or hypothetically, could happen. There is one story from my original brief that I want to share with you tonight, if I have time. Because it illustrates the point of why statutes have to be clear from ambiguity. You will see it is on yellow paper because it is from my original brief.

With the permission of the person who is most involved, I share this story with you. I have a 30-year-old friend. She was seven months pregnant at Easter time. She had something akin to a stroke. She is 30 years old. She was carrying her second child. She had an emergency C-section. For over 24 hours she was in critical condition. She had lost her vision. They did not know if she had brain damage. I was on standby to go to the hospital to possibly say goodbye, and, understandably, during this time she was unable to communicate and she had to have a health care proxy.

Her mother, God bless her, stepped up to the plate. She did not have anything but the best of intentions. She was going to advocate for her daughter because in her mind she was the only one who could advocate for her baby, her first-born, who, notwithstanding the fact that she was a mother of two, was still her mother's baby.

My friend needed a proxy, no question, and my friend was married, and her husband, if her mother had had her way, would have been completely shut out of the process, not because they were estranged, not because she does not love her son-in-law, not because they do not have a good relationship, but, because, in my friend's mother's mind, she was the only one who knew what was best for her daughter.

When the hospital staff started to go through their protocols, they said, okay, is there a husband? They went to the husband, and he was permitted to carry out his proper role. He was the primary proxy, and when he could not be at the hospital because he was tending to their five-year-old, then her mother, in consultation and co-operation with her husband, served as a secondary proxy.

Now, when she regained consciousness, my friend was very glad that her husband had been the primary proxy, because that was what her wishes were, although she had not been able to communicate them at the crucial time, but because the framework existed, that is the way it played out.

Before he was her husband, there was a period of time when they were persons of the opposite sex who lived in a conjugal relationship. Again, under the protocols, he would have been the first proxy. But if they had been a same-sex couple, my friend's mother would have occupied the field, and she would have been able to shut out the partner completely. When my friend regained consciousness, she would not have been in a position of knowing the person she wanted to be her primary proxy had been able to do so.

For those of you on the committee who have partners of your own, I ask you to put yourself in the position of my friend's husband, who is also my friend, but she comes first. How would you feel if your partner was in the situation my friend was? She had lost her sight, she might have brain damage. She had had a stroke, for all intents and purposes.

Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me, Ms. Gregory. You have about one minute to finish. Thank you.

Ms. Gregory: Thank you very much. So how you would feel if your in-laws occupied the field would be my point.

I feel the panel process is somewhat reversed, that you should not be looking at whether the laws discriminate and fix them. I think they should just be fixed. I do not think you run the risk of offending the Charter, which is something you have to be alive to by changing them. I think the choice of Mr. Justice Hamilton is a good one, given his experience. I am one of the Manitobans who has actually read the AJI. I am sure Ms. Cooper will bring her experience.

I leave with you my question that is in my mind, which is should not someone from the legal community, or even from the lay community, who is gay or lesbian be on that committee to bring their perspective? I ask you to think about that. I know the panel is struck, but they have not started their substantive work, and they might be able to help.

I just think it is the right thing to go farther. It makes our laws consistent with our Human Rights Code, as I have already said. It would bring us in line with the Charter.

Usually I am really smug about living in Manitoba–and, Mr. Chairman, I am on my last points. One of the reasons I choose to live here, one of the reasons I came back, is because it is a progressive place to live, and we are not as flat as Saskatchewan. I have lived in Ontario. I have lived in Nova Scotia. I like to lord over my friends that I come from a more progressive province. I am sincerely and truly troubled by the way this issue has unfolded here. So I have come tonight to kindly, gently, but firmly, tell you that this is not what I was looking for from my Government when they took this issue forward. I came to tell you that on this issue I was hoping you would lead the parade. With respect, those are my submissions.

Mr. Chairperson: Questions? Thank you for your presentation.

The next presenter is Sacha Paul. Is Sacha Paul here? Paul will be dropped from the list. The next presenter is Sarah Inness. Sarah Inness? Her name is dropped from the list. The next presenter is Manny Calisto. That name is dropped from the list. The next name is Margaret McKenty.

Ms. Margaret McKenty (Private Citizen): Good evening, Mr. Chairman, honourable minister and committee members, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee on this issue this evening. I am addressing the committee as a private citizen and I will be making an oral submission only.

* (20:00)

As I say, I am addressing the committee as a private citizen and I situate myself as a lesbian feminist before this committee, and I wish to situate our discourse, somewhat. I have no fear of professional censure for speaking to you tonight from my governing body, the Law Society of Manitoba. I have no fear of loss of job or housing; however, in choosing to appear before you tonight, I have chosen not to disclose my home address or my partner's identification because of possible harassment, which is unlawful, but no less real and unwanted for that.

I think it is important to remember in this province and in my lifetime, that to have disclosed the very little that I have told you so far about myself, was to risk one's livelihood, to risk one's housing, to risk police surveillance, to risk arrest and social ostracism, to risk incarceration and to risk, even, forced psychiatric treatment. There are far too many jurisdictions, even today in the world, where disclosing a lesbian identity or a lesbian relationship without some sort of diplomatic immunity means risking severe civil and penal consequences and possibly even death. Outside the civilized confines of this room, this chamber, where we can discuss as equals, it is, in fact, not a level playing field.

So the deliberations that you are engaging in are about a long and honourable struggle to ensure and affirm equality and to bring that promise and constitutional guarantee into being, fully. The substance of what I would like to say to the committee tonight is quite simple. Like previous presenters, I applaud the introduction of Bill 41, as far as it goes, but I wish to express my concern over the inadequacy of the bill as it is currently drafted, and request that it be amended to be truly omnibus legislation.

Particularly in light of what the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in M. v. H., I believe that this is what the law demands and what members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities of Manitoba are entitled to expect. I am aware that Bill 41 represents a considered response to M. v. H., but I believe some of the considerations that entered into the drafting of that bill are unworthy and inappropriate. The Government had an opportunity as well as an obligation, to introduce omnibus legislation to remove all vestiges of legal discrimination against same-sex couples in Manitoba. The Government has rejected this opportunity and, therefore, failed in its obligation to do so.

With all due respect, I submit that this legislation, if passed in its present state, is not omnibus legislation. It is back of the bus legislation. Ending 10 of 63 discriminatory or impermissibly vague statutes does not address the fundamental issue, which is posed by the evolution of our understanding of equality rights in Canada. I remind the committee, as if it needed reminding, that the highest court in the land has said, and I quote: Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is abhorrent and corrosive to the values of Canadian society. That is from the decision in Vriend. The same court has said: That under inclusive ameliorative legislation that excludes from its scope the members of an historically disadvantaged group will rarely escape the charge of discrimination. That again is from Vriend, that is cited in the M. v. H. decision. And lastly, the same court has also said that exclusion from the statutory scheme has moral and societal implications beyond economic ones, in the same decision.

Therefore, I submit to this committee that the issue is not how to make it easier for gays and lesbians to avoid going on social assistance; the issue for many years has been, when do we get to be equal citizens? When we will we know that it is finally safe to bring our love into the law and have our relationships, as we define them, recognized, respected and supported? There are benefits and burdens to having our relationships recognized in law, both when those relationships are viable and when those relationships break down. But for those benefits and burdens to be shared equally and fairly requires omnibus legislation, and I respectfully submit that Bill 41 does not do the job. Given the direction that has been provided by the Supreme Court of Canada in recent years, I ask the committee can this Government truly believe at this point in time that there is any rational objection to including amendments to deal with, for example, intestate succession or to deal with the witnessing requirements for wills or powers of attorney or health care directives or to clarify once and for all the rights of victims who are claimants under The Victims' Rights Act, to name but a few of the statutes that have been left out?

I ask: Could this Government in good faith maintain and defend the constitutionality of every one of the 53 statutes it has left out of this bill? Does anyone doubt what the eventual outcome would be of subjecting any of those statutes to a fullfledged Charter challenge? Then I ask: Why the delay? Why subject lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender citizens to undergo the expense, the waste of time and the spirit of needless litigation to prove painfully, point by point, the principle that has already been made clearer by the highest court in our land? I ask sincerely: Who is going to lose by being inclusive at this time?

Considering the opportunity that presented itself to this Government, I must express my disappointment that the Government has chosen once again to cast the burden upon the shoulders of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender members of the community and their allies to analyze, to organize, to publicize, to strategize and to agitate once again for human rights. These hearings, civilized as they are, are an expenditure of scarce time and human resources, as are the hearings of the panel that has recently been struck. They would not have been necessary if the Government had shown sufficient leadership and done the job that it was mandated to do.

With all due respect, I submit that Bill 41 is a specimen of a rather distasteful form of political calculus. Really it answers: How little can we do and not call attention to ourselves as taking a stand on this issue? Or, what can we do to pacify those who are equality seekers while not rocking the boat for a bigoted minority that is still convinced that lesbian and gay persons are and should remain second class citizens? I submit to the committee that legislative reform in the area of human rights should be a matter of principle, not a matter of political expediency. I, with all due respect, cannot say that I believe Bill 41 represents a principled approach to reforming the law where same-sex couples are concerned.

The members of the committee are familiar with this report, Rights Denied, which the representative of the Manitoba Association of Women and the Law recently referred to, and which was circulated to all the members of the Legislative Assembly. Like the previous representative, I find it hard to believe that a solitary law student from the Manitoba Association of Women and the Law with an internet access and a computer could, in less time and with less money at her disposal than the Department of Justice, have done a more thorough job of identifying legislation that needed reform than the Government's own internal legislative audit could have done.

I remind this committee that audit was promised in my hearing by the minister just about one year ago. In other words, I believe this Government and this minister knew at the time that this bill was tabled exactly how much had been left out of Bill 41, because the audit was complete. They knew that this bill was a piecemeal and incomplete reform, and I think they should have known better. I urge the committee to use the results of its own legislative audit to do the job completely and to do it now.

Again, as with the previous representative who spoke before you, the action of striking a committee to study further inclusion of amendments is not a wrong step, but I questioned why no qualified member of the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender community knowledgeable in those issues was appointed to the committee, or indeed a member of the academic community who might also be equally qualified.

Subject to any committee members' questions, that concludes my submission.

Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. McKenty. Are there any questions? Thank you for your presentation.

Ms. McKenty: Thank you.

Madam Vice-Chairperson: Our next presenter is Sara Malabar. Sara Malabar? The name will be taken from the list. The next presenter is Grant Fleming. Is Grant Fleming here? The name will be struck from the list. The next presenter is John Krowina. Please proceed.

* (20:10)

Mr. John Krowina (Private Citizen): Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Like many other speakers who have appeared before you not only tonight, but Monday night, I was going to urge upon the committee a fairly major, fundamental widening of the scope of the bill. Specifically because, in my opinion, Bill C-41 laudably addresses the issue of support and widens the availability of support to same-sex, common-law couples. It does not go far enough in terms of addressing other issues, many of which have already been flagged numerous times, such as adoption. I was specifically prepared, prior to the announcement of the panel being appointed, to address some of the property issues.

Support is a fundamental issue that arises upon the breakdown of any permanent long-term relationship. Property is another issue, which is at the core of what needs to be dealt with when a relationship breaks down. I had planned to address property issues specifically in the context of The Homesteads Act, The Law of Property Act and The Marital Property Act, none of which, I can add, of course, are referred to in the bill.

The common thread, and I will simply flag these issues for the committee to keep in mind in future, when future legislation does come forward–behind each of these pieces of legislation is that they are restricted to married persons only. Married persons, of course, in provincial legislation means married men and women only. Married couples have the benefit of legal protection to keep a marital home from being sold out from under one spouse by the other spouse. They also have the benefit of a marital home not being encumbered, mortgaged, or, in some other way, encumbered with a caveat being registered on it, for example, without notice or the consent of the spouse.

Married couples also have the benefit of legal protection to ensure an equitable division of property upon dissolution of the relationship. They have the advantage of having an entire legislative machinery in place to allow this to be enforced. This, of course, is presently denied to same-sex couples for the simple and very obvious reason that they are prevented from being married, at this point in time.

The amendments, in terms of the widening of the scope of the bill that I was going to propose, were that common-law couples, common-law relationship, be added to those three pieces of legislation. "Common law" would be defined in the same way that it is defined in Bill 41, or on the other hand, to consider a change to allow same-sex marriages. Clearly there are arguments, pro and con, in terms of whether there ought to be any kind of substantive distinction between married couples as opposed to common-law couples. Those issues need to be addressed and resolved. Either approach would do some substantial additional justice to same-sex couples, in my submission.

It is true that the M. v. H. decision does not speak to the issue of property directly. But I agree with Ms. Gregory and several other speakers who have indicated that the reasoning behind the decision, and the fundamental logic of not permitting discrimination based on sexual orientation, would also apply to the issue of property, as it does to support, clearly.

To conclude, I want to say that I am glad that a panel has been appointed to look into precisely this type of issue. I would hope that follow-up companion successor legislation be enacted in the very near future. I also echo the preceding speaker who thought it may be appropriate that somebody from the gay or lesbian community be added to the panel. Those are my submissions.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any questions? Thank you for your presentation. The next presenter is David Schesnuk. Please proceed.

Mr. David Schesnuk (Private Citizen): I thank you for this opportunity to address you.

As a student, professional engineer, husband and father, I make my living using what faculties I have to evaluate, analyze and recommend. My hope is that, in this capacity, in between all these passionate and heartfelt opinions that have been presented before this committee, I hope to humbly serve, not from years of exhaustive legal study, or by the winds of emotion, but by reason and sound judgment from my own experiences, to clarify and expose what is solid and most beneficial to the long-term success and prosperity of the province in which I live and love.

It is here in Manitoba that all my life's opportunities, penalties and experiences have given me a fulfilling and rich life. At times, even when I get paid for my technical opinion, I find that I have very little personal power, even as the professional consultant, to direct happenings the way I understand they need to go for the benefit of all. Others, for their own reasons and agendas, demand and force change to the harm of all. It is because of our forefathers' realizing this that society must have order, and out of such order today's proceedings have been born. This is also true of how as a society we have chosen to live democratically. Each of us has to bow to the will of the majority. This committee is, in itself, empowered by the vote of the majority of the people.

I do not serve here tonight to impress you with statistics nor to state the delicacies of the law backed by years of study, but to simply speak here tonight from my own life's experience, as many others have. I appreciate the passion and dedication in which the previous presenters have expressed themselves. I truly respect their efforts.

But the issues have become clouded and mired in unclear thought. I, too, when I was younger and a rebellious teenager, fell into a period of my life of unclear thought where I did not feel normal. I felt low self-esteem, unappreciated and alienated. I had a very poor image of myself and looked to acceptance anywhere I could find it.

I entered into a homosexual relationship with a neighbour. The hurt feelings only intensified in this relationship. At that time, I knew what I was doing was wrong. The people at the gay socials I attended at a local union hall told me things to make me feel better for the moment, but deep inside, I knew I was broken and wrong. My natural sexuality I had started out with became confused and frustrated. I became treacherous to myself and continued to struggle in that relationship and other relationships of either sex. But just like any other behaviour that endangers my wholeness and my well-being, I did not find peace. The homosexual acts I committed, like other self-damaging acts, caused me pain and penalty just like any other acts of the will that are self-deluding. I simply convinced myself that what I wanted to do was right, even though it was self-damaging.

In not finding any peace, I turned to heterosexual relationships, but since my hurt had not been healed, the same broken relationships happened. Predictably, my first marriage ended in divorce. Today I have happily remarried and continue to restore and make restitution to the best of my ability for the wrongs I have committed.

It is from my personal experience I speak to the instability and turmoil found in the homosexual lifestyle and community. It is in the traditional time-tested values of forgiveness, true respect, tolerance and obedience that I have found the true freedom. Disciplining myself to a solid giving natural love, rather than its opposite of selfish apathy, the degree of personal restraint which I now enjoy brings truthful confidence, control and not the chaos I experienced before.

* (20:20)

As a child, I depended upon the protection of my parents, completely helpless before those who would use me for their own ends. All children need to be raised and nurtured in a giving, loving environment, which encourages self-discipline, control and restraint in a caring and dependable atmosphere.

The best possible example, parenting model, I have found is with a caring man and woman in a monogamous relationship. These qualities, in my experience, were not found in the gay relationships I have had. The relationships I experienced were not the solid foundation in which to provide children with the best possible advantage. Placing a child into a relationship which by its nature is based on alienation and feelings of inadequacy is to possibly place that child at risk. Children, like I was, will simply model what we teach them.

My hope is that you consider all these weighty issues before you. You will see the true nature of love, which at times must bring discipline and correction, not promiscuity. In our great democracy, if someone steals repeatedly causing harm, his or her privilege of freedom is removed. As well, if someone speeds, endangering life and property, his or her privilege to drive is removed. If someone commits a crime against themselves, as in substance abuse, they have already received in themselves the corrective punishment and deserve all the help, compassion and kindness that can be offered to assist them to see their way out, their way of escape. All of us know how bad we could have been and what we have not been punished for in our lives.

Revising these words in Bill 41, as is proposed, without also at the same time encouraging the best traditional values will only rob people of the opportunity I have experienced, finding fullness of freedom and a richness of lasting, satisfying life.

So I am opposed to Bill 41 in its present form because it only seeks to appease those who will never be satisfied and it does not strengthen and protect that which promotes goodness, kindness, peace and patience. The act of governance is not easy, and by the very nature of democracy there will always be a few left out.

I leave you with these closing words: If a person I am near is to harm themselves, knowingly or unknowingly, the true opposite of love for them would be not to warn them of the impending danger but to simply let them alone. I thank you for your time.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

The next presenter is Marianne Crittenden. Please proceed.

Ms. Marianne Crittenden (Private Citizen): Just like you have the right to say what you believe, I have the right to say what I believe. On that point, I would like to say that we are all relevant because we are all human. I have my beliefs and I am here to speak up for them.

I am a mother of two boys. I am a heterosexual female, married to a heterosexual male. I believe that the family unit should remain defined as a husband, father, who is male, and a wife, mother, who is female.

On the issue of adoption, I am the birth parent of a child I placed for adoption 10 years ago. I placed her in an environment that I believed was the very best, with a mother who is a female and a father who is a male. As a single mom, I raised my daughter for two years and came to the realization that she needed a father figure just as much as a mother figure and one or the other was not enough. I feel the right to adopt should only be granted to a stable, heterosexual, married couple who, I believe, would provide the very best environment for any child to grow up in.

I do not want to make any enemies by saying what I am saying. I know many of the people here are representing the homosexual community and, therefore, may feel that I am coming against them as people. I want to make it clear that I am not doing that. I am only stating that I believe differently and I have the right to speak up about it.

In regard to same-sex marriage, I believe that marriage should only be defined as a union between a male and a female.

In regard to changing the wording in Bill 41 to say spouse and/or common-law, I disagree because of the covenant of marriage. I believe that marriage is a sacred thing and should not be changed to suit someone who cannot commit.

I believe that I am here on behalf of the majority of Manitobans who are not here tonight because they have not been informed that this is even happening. With that in mind, I would especially like to say that I am opposed to Bill 41 and the amendments it is recommending. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. The next presenter is Lorraine Waldner.

Ms. Lorraine Waldner (Private Citizen): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to first of all thank you for the opportunity to be here and thank you for the opportunity to speak out on behalf of an issue that is of such great importance to me. I am not a public speaker, so please forgive me if I am nervous and if the words do not come out just quite right.

It has recently come to my attention that my opinion in regard to the amending of Bill 41 is not the most popular one in this room. But that is alright, because I am not here to impress anyone, nor am I here to offend anyone. The only reason that I am here tonight is because I feel very passionately about this issue.

I realize that so far in these proceedings you have heard many stories of hardships that have sincerely touched your hearts. I know this because as a wife and a mother of two young children myself, I certainly could empathize with what many of the speakers have shared here so far. I do, however, still believe that we need to take a step back and realize that this is not about empathizing, sympathizing, or whatever other emotions we may feel.

This issue is about morality and true family values. It is about doing what is in the absolute best interests of the children that it is your duty to protect. It is a fact, ladies and gentlemen, that 70 percent of all inmates in the United States' prisons across America have not, nor have had, a father figure in their lives. This proves to me that when we remove the father figure from the home, the children do suffer as a result.

I know that there is no such thing as the perfect family. I do, however, believe that having both a mother and a father committed to each other in marriage, supporting each other, loving each other, and thereby providing a safe and well-balanced environment for their children, will certainly increase the probability of those children growing up to lead productive and well-balanced lives.

I believe that it is our responsibility as citizens of this great province, to ensure that whether we are creating or amending laws that in any way affect or pertain to the welfare of children, our first and foremost concern needs to be based on what is in the best interests of the children, and not based on the wishes of small minority groups with their own agendas.

I urge you please, ladies and gentlemen, not to base this decision on what 2 percent of the population of Manitoba thinks is best for themselves, but instead take into consideration what is the optimal environment for children, which is, again, not mom and mom, or dad and dad, but dad and mom. They are our responsibility and they are worth it. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. The next presenters are Fae Simon and Rosaline Dearing.

Ms. Fae Simon (Winnipeg Child and Family Services): Good evening. My name is Fae Simon, and my colleague is Rosaline Dearing. We are social workers with the adoption program of Winnipeg Child and Family Services and have a brief statement to read on behalf of Winnipeg Child and Family Services.

We have, for a number of years, received inquiries from same-sex couples about adopting a child. Our practice has been to circumvent current legislation by accepting an application from one member of the couple while the other member is denied the right to apply. If adoption occurs, the couple is forced to choose which of the two will be the legal parent. This effectively denies legal rights to the other parent. We believe this is both unjust and a violation of human rights. It also results in a situation of potential risk for the child, if the legal parent, for any reason, becomes incapacitated.

We would urge the Manitoba government to move with haste to pass legislation allowing same-sex couples the right to adopt. That is our statement.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. The next presenter is Karen Delaney.

* (20:30)

Ms. Karen Delaney (Private Citizen): Ladies and gentlemen of this committee, first, I would like to say how honoured as a Canadian I am to stand up in front of a government that, despite what has happened today, I am very proud of, and that makes me feel safe in this country.

Second of all, I would like to say my name is Karen Delaney. I am a bisexual lesbian. My Irish last name means "black defiance." I stand here today in defiance of oppression and tyranny, which I feel not only affects the gay community and harms the gay community, but, in the end, will harm you as well if you give into it. I do not want to see that happen.

I also wanted to say, before I started reading what I have here, that I was watching a movie called Saving Private Ryan about the day at Normandy when the young soldiers fought as well against Hitler, against oppression and against tyranny. They were young men, my age some, and most of them were 18-, 17-year-old boys screaming out in pain on the beach, far away from home, who would never grow up to be men. They paid that price so we could all be here today to protect you, your children and our children as well. They did not go there saying we will only protect the straight heterosexual right-wing viewpoint. They fought to protect everyone, their own children as well.

I ask you to fight to amend this bill to give gays and lesbians full human rights protection and also stiffer penalties against those who would violate those laws, to help protect not only us now but to protect the grandchildren and great grandchildren and future generations of those young men who fought for you so that you could have the rights you have now.

I am here to talk to you about, as I passed out the little pamphlets, the U.N. Rights of the Child. I hope that will help you. I am here to talk on discrimination, as is in my brief.

Discrimination exists in all societies, dominating the lives of millions of people. While it may take differing forms, it invariably involves those with power, treating those with less power unjustly because of who or what they are. Children, in general, lack power and are, therefore, particularly vulnerable to discrimination.

The CRC highlights the unique discrimination faced by all children. However, it also recognizes that many children face further discrimination as a result of their particular status or circumstances and calls on governments to take steps to prevent this. Article 2 of the CRC, in particular, states that governments must take measures to ensure that all the rights apply, without discrimination, to all children. If this most fundamental of principles cannot be assured, the full vision of the convention simply cannot be realized.

While the international community has devoted considerable attention to the problem of racial discrimination in recent years, the extent to which children around the world are affected by discriminatory practices continues to be overlooked at an international level.

This is from a Web site called "Save the Children Alliance," www.savethechildrenalliance.

com, if you are interested. Children's Rights: Equal Rights? documents the ways in which discrimination in all its forms prevents children from realizing the full range of their rights as enshrined in the convention. It demonstrates that there are four key routes through which discrimination against children is perpetuated.

In many societies, legislation directly discriminates not only against children as a group, but also against particular children. Some discrimination is direct. Disabled children, for example, are frequently excluded from the right to education. Less directly, laws that require children to wear school uniforms and attend at specific times, for example, may discriminate against poorer children.

Governments regularly fail to protect the rights of particular groups. In many cases, equal treatment legislation exists but is not effectively implemented. Many countries have now legislated against female genital mutilation, for example, but cultural traditions outweigh the law. The practice continues unabated, and each year millions of girls are subjected to this brutal assault.

Discrimination often takes place because of prejudices which are institutionalized or even unrecognized throughout society. Unchallenged, these attitudes rob children of their identity and have a devastating impact on their lives. The media can and often does promote discrimination. It can reinforce traditional hostilities towards some groups of children and foster contempt of others. Very often negative reinforcement occurs by rendering certain groups invisible. Disabled children, or those from minority groups like children who have same-sex families, are simply absent from the media, leaving them without role models and depriving the wider population of positive images of these groups.

Most children grow up aware that as children they have inferior status, but it is a status they will leave behind when they become adults. However, for millions of children the discrimination perpetrated against them because they are young is compounded by additional prejudice, which endures throughout their lives. To be born a girl, disabled, into a minority community family or homeless condemns children in all probability to a life of disadvantage. This discrimination has a profound impact, being linked to lower school enrolment, higher drop-out rates, poorer health and greater exposure to violence. Perhaps even more corrosive is the impact on children's self-esteem, which diminishes their capacity to recognize and challenge the abuse they experience.

Any strategy to challenge discrimination must not focus on changing the children who are discriminated against but rather on changing the legal framework, power structures, the attitudes of those who discriminate, the physical environment and the balance of resources which perpetuate injustices.

The next page I have is on addressing strategies that you can use for addressing discrimination. In Children's Rights: Equal Rights? the international Save the Children Alliance recommends that governments, like you, adopt the following measures as a matter of urgency in order to tackle discrimination against children.

Introduce new legislation. Governments should introduce legislation establishing the general principle of nondiscrimination in all areas, including education, employment, housing, social security, social welfare, youth justice systems, play services and access to public places.

Strengthen existing legislation. They should review existing legislation to identify ways in which children are currently discriminated against. It may then be necessary to amend the legislation. Such legal reform will send a formal message that customs or practices contrary to the rights of all children are unacceptable.

Challenge attitudes. Legislation alone is not sufficient. It is only a deterrent if there are effective enforcement mechanisms. Governments must work to change attitudes and all forms of discrimination. As a starting point, they should scrutinize their policies and services to ensure that they do not directly or indirectly discriminate against any group of children. They should further work with community leaders to influence attitudes and establish independent ombudsmen to monitor the effectiveness of their programs.

A commitment to equal rights for all children requires political will on the part of decision makers in order to bring about real change. This will often necessitate additional resources. There is little point in introducing new laws to protect the rights of children if the means to translate them into action are not available.

One of the main difficulties faced by governments in this area is lack of data. Many countries do not systematically collect information on the way in which children are treated. The U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child routinely presses governments to collect better statistical data in order to identify how legislation and policy affect children's lives.

Tackle discrimination through education. Children begin to learn negative attitudes toward other groups of children from a very early age. The school therefore is a vital place to begin introducing better understanding and respect for others.

* (20:40)

For many children, school is a place where they are actively discriminated against and where their human rights are blatantly disregarded. Girls too often experience school as a place where teachers are mostly male, the culture is aggressive and male-dominated, and lessons in textbooks are filled with messages about the superiority of boys. Many children from minority communities are denied the right to learn or even speak in their own language. These experiences encourage children to disregard the rights of their peers.

Schools need to identify ways in which they directly or indirectly discriminate against certain groups of children, for example, by failing to tackle the bullying of girls, by imposing the use of the majority language, or by humiliating less able pupils.

Efforts need to be made to promote multicultural education in which segregation is ended and the cultural identity and sexual orientation of all children in the school is respected and given equal worth.

Human rights education needs to permeate the curriculum, backed by resources for teachers. For example, Geography provides the opportunity to explore the issue of unequal access to resources. Biology can consider issues related to genetic testing and the rights of disabled babies.

Education resources need to be reviewed and amended, both to remove the images that perpetuate negative stereotypes and to promote the concept of equality and respect for difference.

Children themselves need to be involved in the decision-making process of the school. Providing children with opportunities to practise democracy and experience themselves as subjects of rights is an effective means of challenging prejudice and discriminatory practices.

I will jump ahead to the end. In conclusion, I would like to say Children's Rights: Equal Rights? presents a global overview of the far-reaching consequences of discrimination. Discrimination blights the lives of millions of children, denying them fulfilment of their fundamental rights. However, there is some progress in tackling the problem. The near universal ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child has highlighted the sheer scale of discrimination against children, raising awareness of its impact and helping in the development of strategies for tackling it.

But this is yet not enough. Save the Children is aware of many instances where children around the world continue to suffer the effects of discrimination. The challenge we all face in relation to this issue and to children's rights in general is the transition from acceptance of the CRC to its universal observance. To this end, governments, international institutions and wider civil society are once again called upon to accept their collective responsibility. Save the Children challenges each to enforce the principle of nondiscrimination to promote diversity and difference and ensure that all children are afforded equal rights and equal opportunities in life.

In the end, I would like to also say that there have been people coming up who have very strong–although I respect their right to speak because it was also granted to them by those soldiers–very strong views against homosexuality. I would like to say that I ask God to forgive them, for they know not what they do, and to hope the crimes that were enacted on them that caused them to have these feelings will not be allowed to continue, for they are not evil, but they are victims of someone else's hatred that has been perpetuated for far too long.

I ask you not to allow this crime to continue on innocent children who look to you as grownups to protect them, as you once looked to others to protect you. I ask, as I know how hard this probably is, I ask God to be with all of you. I know you believe in Him and He believes strongly that you will make the right decision to help protect His children. He loves you. He loves me. He loves all of us. His son died for all of us. I ask Him to help you, to be with you and I say God bless, and that is it.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. The next presenter is Mark Golden.

Mr. Mark Golden (Private Citizen): I am not gay. I am not even a lawyer. Before tonight I thought M and H was a rap star. I do not know what God wants or believes.

I am an adoptive parent. About 15 years ago, my wife and I had a little baby in Toronto. She had a birth defect and died at six weeks. Over the next two or three years, Monica had four or five miscarriages. Then, at the end of this period, we were very fortunate and we were able to adopt a little boy. You can imagine with what joy I became a parent at that time. It is a joy that I would find very difficult to forbid to any other Manitoban who wanted that responsibility and that pleasure for himself or herself.

Some years after that, my wife and I separated. That was also no picnic. We were both parents. We both sat down, and we worked out a care and custody regime for Max, which, I think, was very satisfactory. Last night, we both went with him to a Roman feast at his school and to a piano recital where he played just like a Roman. I do not know how either of us would be able to bear being deprived of him as our son, nor do I know–excuse me, this is very emotional for me–nor do I know how he would be able to deal with being deprived of either of us as his parents.

One of the things that Max and I like to do is to canvass during election time. Since I made this decision, we canvassed for the NDP. When I am at the door, some of my neighbours ask me what the NDP will do about something. I have yet to answer that they will ask Judge Hamilton to sit down and make a decision on their behalf. It is not because I have any opposition to Judge Hamilton, a very fine judge who was taught by my father, as a matter of fact. I have a good deal of respect for him, but this is an area where I think this Government ought to show more courage and more leadership than it has done and make us all truly proud of being Manitobans. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. The next presenter is Rory Grewar.

Mr. Rory Grewar (Private Citizen): Can I sit? Is that an option?

Mr. Chairperson: Yes.

Mr. Grewar: Oh, okay. It is just that I am not very comfortable standing here. I feel like I am preaching to you, and that was not the intent, at least not my intent.

Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave of the committee for the presenter to use a microphone other than at the podium? [Agreed] Please proceed.

Mr. Grewar: Good evening. Thank you very much for the opportunity to address you this evening. I have actually just recently come from a meeting. It was a citizen's meeting in which I heard some very agitated, anxious, and afraid citizens express concerns on another matter. I was thinking how wonderful it is that we have these opportunities in this country where we can express and be heard and possibly change things to make a difference.

Much has been said by others over the course of the past two evenings of committee session and, I suspect, over the past number of weeks from many of your constituents. I believe probably every MLA in the House has probably heard something about this piece of legislation. The legal, ethical and moral grounds upon which changes to this piece of legislation should be made have been made well known to you all, has been well presented, I believe.

I believe that this committee and the Government are well aware of the discriminatory nature of this legislation and are also now very well-informed as to how it can be changed to make it more just, more fair, more inclusive.

I believe, with all due respect, that the decision to establish a committee to study the matter is an unnecessary delay which shows the Government's willingness to compromise, perhaps, its own principles when, if I might be permitted to say, issues surrounding possible re-election might be at hand.

Four jurisdictions in Canada, three of them considerably larger and with, perhaps, more legally complex statutes than Manitoba, have extended rights and benefits, including full adoption rights, in their responses to the Supreme Court's decision. I daresay the Manitoba government is perfectly capable now of introducing similar, if not improved articles in its legislation, without yet another consultation exercise. I believe that every member of this committee knows that and knows that very little, if anything new, will come out of another round of public consultations and discussions and meetings, no matter how well intended.

* (20:50)

I want to discuss, however, this evening, impressions because, as I have said in my first few lines, I think the committee has the information it needs now. I think the Government has the information it needs now. Rather, I would like to discuss impressions and messages and images. I would ask the committee to consider what sort of message this embarrassingly weak, divisive, stagnant legislation sends to young Manitobans, young Canadians, gay and straight.

Impressions are the basis for most of our decisions. It is rarely that we can claim that we have full information with which to make decisions. Very often, we make profound decisions about where to live and where to work based on impressions of other communities, other provinces, and our own community and our own province.

What sort of message does it send to our young Manitobans when its Government sponsors legislation that is less inclusive and more discriminatory than that introduced in Ontario, B.C., Québec and Saskatchewan? What sort of message does it send about the kind of people that lead and govern our community? What does it say about the people who live in Manitoba? What does it say when Mike Harris is more progressive, more tolerant, more respectful of human rights and equality than Gary Doer? Perhaps that warrants repeating. What does it say that one could suggest Mike Harris to be more progressive, more tolerant and, dare I say, more enlightened, perhaps, than the Government of Gary Doer and the Manitoba NDP?

So how does this act affect the decisions that young gay or lesbian Manitobans make about where they should live and work? At a time when they are young, when the possibilities and options are limitless and opening up before them, young people, both gay and straight, will consider how progressive, how innovative or inclusive a population or a province is when making decisions as to where they will live and work.

What, I ask, would inspire a young gay Manitoban to stay here over, let us say, Ontario or B.C. or Québec or even Saskatchewan? How will a young gay Manitoban, or, in fact, any young Canadian, see Manitoba–conservative, intolerant, discriminatory, homophobic, stagnant, possibly even redneck? Are these the sorts of images that will come to mind when young Manitobans and young Canadians consider where to live and where to work? Will they see Manitoba as progressive and innovative, perhaps cutting-edge, tolerant, inclusive, with a government that demonstrates leadership and upholds the principles of fairness and equity? With this legislation, I suspect not.

The question, of course, is: Can Manitoba afford to lose anyone? Can Manitoba afford to discourage any young Canadian? It does not have to be one who is currently living there, from choosing to live here. Can Manitoba survive on the dated, old-fashioned or ill-informed attitude of an aging population?

Statistics show that younger Canadians are far more likely to demand and accept the extension of rights to minorities, and, in particular, to gays and lesbians. I am not sure whether your polling results show you that or not.

I do not know if any of you were at Pride this year, if you had an opportunity to attend. If you had, I think you might have been struck by the fact, as I was, that the near majority of those in attendance were young, both gay and straight. Young people today are coming to terms with their sexual identities far sooner and with much great comfort and confidence than a generation ago, and certainly with far more confidence and more security, perhaps, than I was able to. They are not willing to accept anything less than full and equal rights. They are not going to wait around while Manitoba grinds through its process of rationing out rights and privileges usually, and unfortunately and sadly, when it is compelled to do so by the courts. Young people will not tolerate your indecisiveness. Manitoba is not in the position, I would suggest, to discourage these young people from choosing this province to be their home.

So what of me? Does it matter to you? In the past six months, two opportunities for me to leave the province have presented themselves, one to B.C. and one to Ontario. I considered them briefly and then remembered no, this is my h