The Canadian Human Rights Act
Seven years later, we're still waiting



   When EGALE was founded in 1985, our primary objective was to
push for an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to add
sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
   We're still waiting.
   The three main parties have officially supported such an
amendment since 1985 when the amendment was recommended by the
Parliamentary Committee on Equality Rights.
   In 1986 then justice minister John Crosbie promised the
government would introduce the amendment.
   After years of waiting for the government to deliver on the
promise, gay activists Graham Haig and Joshua Birch took the
government to court. In August 1992, an Ontario Court of Appeal
ruling (Haig versus Canada) said that the Act must prohibit
discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in order to
comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights. The ruling effectively
amended the Act, and the Canadian Human Rights Act has subsequently
accepted sexual orientation complaints.
   In December 1992, then justice minister Kim Campbell introduced
Bill C-108, An Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. As
required by the Haig ruling, the bill includes an amendment to
prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
However, in an attempt to appease right-wing Conservative
backbenchers, Campbell's bill also restricts the rights of same-sex
couples by defining "marital status" as limited to partners "of the
opposite sex." In this sense, the bill is clearly a backwards step
from the Haig ruling. 
   Contrary to the impression sometimes given in the media, the
marital status definition has nothing to do with the right to
marry, which is regulated by federal marriage law. The definition
would, however, continue to allow discrimination against lesbian
and gay couples.
   This restrictive definition of marital status has previously
been found unconstitutional in September 1992 by an Ontario human
rights tribunal, in the Leshner case. This raises the distinct
possibility that the Bill C-108 amendment, if passed, would also be
found unconstitutional in a court challenge.
  A number of other equality-seeking groups have also objected to
provisions of Bill C-108 that would adversely affect groups such as
women and persons with disabilities.
   In any case, Bill C-108 never progressed beyond first reading in
the House of Commons, and it will die on the order paper at the end
of this Parliament.
   More than seven years after the government's promise to act,
lesbians, bisexuals and gay men are still waiting for this crucial
human rights amendment to be passed by Parliament.






The EGALE questionnaire asked

Do you support adding sexual orientation to the list of prohibited
grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act?

Conservatives:  Yes
Liberals:       Yes
New Democrats:  Yes


Do you agree that the proposed definition of marital status in Bill
C-108 unfairly discriminates against same-sex couples?


Conservatives: No.

"The definition of marital status in Bill C-108 is consistent with
previous court decisions."


Kim Campbell: "It was necessary to make some compromises to achieve
what we did with Bill C-108."


Liberals: ?

"The Liberal caucus is studying the legislation."


New Democrats: Yes.

"The NDP is opposing Bill C-108 and the definition of marital
status that excludes same-sex couples."


"The Government will take whatever measures are necessary to ensure
that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination in
relation to all areas of federal jurisdiction."

John Crosbie
Minister of Justice
March 1986

"Governments usually amend human rights laws to inch rights
forward, not to cut them back. But that's what [Bill C-108] does."

Shelagh Day
Vice-President
National Action Committee on the Status of Women
February 1993
588 words