House of Commons Hansard #53 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was relationships.

Topics

Point Of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Point Of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Government Response To PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Scarborough—Rouge River Ontario

Liberal

Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to nine petitions.

National Defence ActRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Cardigan P.E.I.

Liberal

Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada

moved for leave to introduce Bill S-10, an act to amend the National Defence Act, the DNA Identification Act and the Criminal Code.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

February 21st, 2000 / 3:05 p.m.

Reform

Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB

Madam Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament presented to the House on December 16, 1999 be concurred in.

This report establishes the mandate of the committee, its quorum and its entitlement to sit during days at the Senate.

I would like to thank Santosh, the clerk of the committee, for the great job she has done.

(Motion agreed to)

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Sarmite Bulte Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions on behalf of my constituents who urge the Government of Canada do everything possible to end child poverty. These two petitions are exactly the same in nature.

Starred QuestionsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Scarborough—Rouge River Ontario

Liberal

Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Questions Nos. 12 and 47. I would ask that they be printed in Hansard as if read. .[Text]

*Question No. 12—

Starred QuestionsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

With respect to AIDA/WFIP and the tree fruit industry: ( a ) what is the percentage differences in gross margin levels among commodities: For example, perennials, tree fruits, versus annuals, grains; ( b ) can the government provide information to show that commodity groups are not treated inequitably based on their relative use of eligible and ineligible expenses; ( c ) can the governement provide data that would indicate the AIDA program would still work should back to back below average returns be experienced in the base period; ( d ) can the government provide information to indicate that the inclusion of negative margins in the reference margins but reducing to zero in the claim year is more beneficial than reducing negative margins to zero for both the base period and the claim year; ( e ) can the government provide information to show if AIDA recognizes the special problems of perennial crops such as the little flexibilty to switch commodities and varieties?

Starred QuestionsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Prince Edward—Hastings Ontario

Liberal

Lyle Vanclief LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

(a) AIDA is a whole farm program so that support is not provided on a commodity basis. Data is not available on gross margins by commodity produced.

(b) AIDA provides a common basis of support for all commodities. There is no evidence to suggest that any commodities groups are being treated inequitably based on eligible versus ineligible expenses. Larger farms whether grain, tree fruits or other commodities would tend to have larger margins in dollar terms than smaller farms producing the same commodities. However, it is not the absolute size of the margin but the variation in the margins between the reference period and the claim year that triggers an AIDA payment.

(c) Depending on the trend in the margins, AIDA can make payments continuously to bring farms up to 70% of the previous three year average. In the sense that AIDA payments can be triggered in periods where margins are declining, the program can work in back to back below average return years. However. the level of payment will reflect the historical margins. In 1999 producers will be able to choose a reference period on which to base their payments, either the previous three years, or three of the previous five years, not counting the high and low income years. This will help to maintain their reference period margins as one of the low margin years can be dropped from the support calculations.

(d) There is no evidence that ignoring negative margins in the reference period would have a significant impact on program payments versus the current design where negative margins are included in the reference period. Raising negative margins to zero in the reference period would be contrary to World Trade Organization, WTO, guidelines governing green programs and leave Canada open to trade action by our trading partners.

On november 4, 1999, the Government of Canada announced that it is making a further $ 170 million available to cover negative margins under AIDA across the country. A good portion of farmers' negative margins will now be covered for both years of the program, 1998 and 1999. Along with allowing producers to choose a reference period another change will ensure that family and non-family labour are treated the same in calculating eligibility for 1999. These changes mean that a potential $1.07 billion in federal funding will be available to help farmers through two years of low international commodity prices and adverse weather. The changes are consistent with the advice received from the national safety nets advisory committee.

(e) AIDA is not intended to provide support for producers until their plants mature and produce a reasonable yield. A producer must be able to finance the period when plants are not producing. AIDA will only cover the portion of the farm that is in production, but as with all other commodities it will provide payments when income falls dramatically. While perennial crops limit flexibility, this is also true of those who have little flexibility in the mix of their annual crops and it is true for those with large investments in specialized livestock facilities.

*Question No. 47—

Starred QuestionsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Guy St-Julien Liberal Abitibi, QC

Can the government produce a list of all applications made by individuals and/or groups in the federal riding of Abitibi—Baie James—Nunavik to programs of the Department of Justice for the following periods: ( a ) April 1, 1997, to March 31, 1998; ( b ) April 1, 1998, to March 31, 1999; and ( c ) April 1, 1999, to October 31, 1999?

Starred QuestionsRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Erie—Lincoln Ontario

Liberal

John Maloney LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

An application to fund a project was made by the Grand Council of the Crees of Quebec under the Department of Justice's aboriginal justice strategy. Funding in the amount of $77,000 was allocated to the grand council for the 1999-2000 fiscal year.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Scarborough—Rouge River Ontario

Liberal

Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

I ask, Madam Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Is that agreed?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, an act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Diane St-Jacques Progressive Conservative Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the debate on Bill C-23.

The purpose of this bill is to make adjustments to reflect our changing society, and to acknowledge advantages and obligations for same sex couples on the same basis as those conferred upon common law couples of the opposite sex.

Before going any further in this debate, I must make it clear that I am speaking for myself, since the Progressive Conservative Party has chosen to allow its members to vote freely on this matter.

It is a sign of the times that this is at least the second occasion in two years on which the members of this House have had the opportunity to debate this matter. We can therefore say that this is definitely the reflection of a new reality.

In my opinion, this demonstrates how the thinking of Canadians has evolved, as they are now prepared to accept a certain degree of recognition of same sex partners. That is what the government's bill proposes, nothing more.

In fact, Bill C-23 proposes an updating of some 68 federal statutes in order to reflect numerous decisions by the courts of this country, the most recent of these being the May 1999 Supreme Court of Canada decision in M. v H., to which several of my colleagues have already referred. At the very most, this is a technical bill aimed at correcting a discriminatory definition of the expression common-law spouses, which has until now been limited to heterosexual couples.

Must this bill be considered a threat to the institution of marriage? Or are we to consider it legitimate recognition of a social situation in Canada and the simple adjustment of federal laws in effect? Members will have understood that I am in the latter camp, since marriage is a whole other matter for debate.

I beg the House's indulgence to make an aside in order to add my voice to the arguments by my colleagues who are criticizing the limited time afforded this House to study the scope of this bill. Clearly, as we have realized with the bill on clarity, the government is pushing us for time. The government's propensity to push things lends credence to the disillusionment of a number of our fellow citizens at the role elected representatives play in the legislative process.

Furthermore, the courts in this country have reached many decisions that would indicate the legislator is being dragged along by the judges' decisions. It is the job of elected officials and not of the judges to consider and vote on the laws in this country.

In the matter before us, there are innumerable decisions decrying in one way or another discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The polls indicate clearly that most Canadians consider it appropriate to give some sort of legal recognition to same sex partnerships. Even if parliament were to reject the present bill, it would face this issue once again in a relatively short time. I would be surprised if the courts were to change their minds and public opinion were to change completely.

Elected officials will therefore be, as we are today, pressed to change the laws to put an end to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. By rejecting the bill, we could send Canadians the message that we are not in tune with their concerns. Rather, we must show Canadians that the government is aware that things change and it is keeping an open mind. A number of provinces have passed or are about to pass legislation to correct the situation.

The federal government too must adjust its legislation before it becomes totally obsolete. We, as elected representatives, must not merely react to social pressure, but anticipate it and act accordingly. The public expects the government to be proactive, because that is its role. If passed, Bill C-23 will put Canada alongside the most progressive countries regarding this issue.

I agree with my colleagues and fellow citizens who feel that the bill before us today relates closely to fairness and human rights. Canada is constantly cited as an example of a tolerant country that respects human rights.

Not so long ago, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, said that several countries were constantly calling on his expertise in interpreting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to develop their own laws. I personally care a great deal about the principles of fairness and tolerance, which are the foundations of Canadian society. However, I wonder why discriminatory provisions can still be found in our legislation.

Why is the Canadian parliament hesitating to take a step that many companies in the private sector have already taken? The private sector is hardly known for its social convictions. I am concerned that the prejudices associated with sexual orientation are winning out over respect for human rights as understood in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if not in the letter, then at least in the spirit.

If there had not been legislation to abolish discrimination based on sex, race, language or religion, Canada would not be the model of tolerance it is today.

Bill C-23 has the advantage of clarifying various pieces of legislation in a manner consistent with the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and without prejudice to the institution of marriage, which a majority of us, myself included, wish to protect.

The government has deliberately chosen to maintain a clear distinction between partner or spouse, which refers to legally married couples, and common law partner, which refers to couples living in a common law relationship, a conjugal relationship different from marriage. The spirit of this important distinction is the same as that in similar legislation passed in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. It is only logical that the definition of common law partners include same sex partners.

We would be sticking our heads in the sand to think that there are no moral implications to this bill. However, I think that this kind of definition corresponds to the evolution in what is acceptable to Canadians. That is what our society is prepared to accept. I do not believe that the majority of the population wants a debate on the definition of marriage. The government has the right angle on this matter and I congratulate it on that.

Some of my colleagues would like to see a debate on marriage or on the institution of the family as it has been understood for generations. I am not rejecting such a debate, but I do feel it is inopportune within the context of the bill being debated today.

As I did in the debate on Bill C-309, introduced by the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve in 1998, I support Bill C-23, and for the same reasons.

This parliament must recognize, once and for all, that the definition of common law spouse contained in federal legislation is discriminatory. This flaw must be corrected promptly, in a country claiming tolerance and fairness.

Like the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, I would call upon the members of this House to set aside personal or partisan considerations in order to reach a neutral and rational judgment on this matter.

Canada has always played a lead role in issues relating to the recognition of human rights, and must continue to do so.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Erie—Lincoln Ontario

Liberal

John Maloney LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Madam Speaker, we are debating the modernization of benefits and obligations act, an act that was sponsored jointly by the Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

The bill is part of an ongoing commitment by the Government of Canada to ensure that its policies and programs continue to reflect the values of Canadians, values that are enshrined in the charter of rights and freedoms.

As many members are aware, the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear that governments must treat unmarried opposite sex and same sex couples equally. When the bill is passed it will amend legislation to recognize the principle of equal treatment for all common law relationships. Same sex partners will be included in the new definition of common law partners and they will be granted the same benefits and obligations as opposite sex common law partners.

I also point out that the legislation changes will preserve the fundamental importance of marriage in Canadian society. The definition of marriage will not change. It is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

The bill will amend 68 federal statutes affecting 20 federal departments and agencies. The proposed changes are about fairness. Same sex couples in committed relationships should be entitled to the same benefits and obligations as their unmarried opposite sex counterparts.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in its May 1999 ruling in M. v H., has made it clear that governments cannot limit benefits or obligations to opposite sex common law relationships. The proposed changes will ensure that federal laws again reflect the values of Canadians which are enshrined in the charter.

The proposed legislation does not affect the definition of marriage. In fact, a few European countries have limited the recognition of same sex relationships but a clear distinction is maintained in law between marriage and same sex relationships.

Several provinces have already begun to amend their legislation. Since 1997 British Columbia has amended numerous statutes to include same sex partners. In June 1999 Quebec amended 28 statutes and 11 regulations to grant to same sex partners the same benefits and obligations that are available to opposite sex common law partners.

In October 1999, again to comply with the supreme court ruling in M. v H., Ontario passed omnibus legislation to bring 67 statutes into compliance with the ruling.

At present more than 200 private sector companies give benefits to their employees' same sex partners, as do many municipalities, hospitals, libraries and community and social service institutions across the country.

The bill does not preclude discussion, which has already started, on whether or how to acknowledge the nature and reality of many different types of dependent relationships. Dependency is a very complex issue with far-reaching consequences for individuals and society as a whole. A number of adult Canadians currently reside with elderly parents, siblings or other relatives. Although many federal statutes currently extend limited benefits and obligations to family relationships, further study is needed to determine if would be appropriate to treat family relationships as similar to married and common law couples in all or at least in some circumstances. While benefits which reflect dependency would likely be welcomed, it is unclear whether the accompanying legal obligations should be imposed on individuals for those relatives with whom they reside.

For example, eligibility for a guaranteed income supplement under the old age security is determined on the basis of combining the income of both persons, which might result in reducing benefits for some elderly persons who live with relatives. As another example, if an adult lives with an elderly parent for many years and then leaves, should that adult remain legally responsible to pay support for that parent because they were once in a dependent relationship?

Other issues that would need to be resolved include how dependency relationships would be defined and what relationships would be allowed. Would individuals be allowed to self-declare their relationships, or would the government require proof of some kind? Would relationships of dependency apply to any two people who live together or to unlimited numbers as long as they are under the same roof? Would the government exclude any relatives, as France has done, or exclude only opposite sex common law couples, as Hawaii has chosen to do? There are many issues yet to be resolved.

Our objective in considering changes to the system should be to encourage rather than discourage people to take care of each other. We must be careful to ensure that any legal changes would not impose obligations that act as barriers to people supporting each other.

The possibility of creating a domestic partner registry is also of interest to some. However, there are several concerns with a registry which would require further study.

There are privacy considerations since a registry would be open to the public, as are registries for births and deaths, which might result in people being forced to have their relationship publicly known. As well, there are no guarantees that such a scheme would protect the most vulnerable in a relationship, for example, where one partner might refuse to register in order to avoid legal obligations on the breakdown of that relationship.

Most important, if such a system were created at the federal level it would have limited utility as it would only apply to areas of federal jurisdiction. In Canada, where the many pieces of legislation that grant benefits and impose obligations are divided between or shared among the federal, provincial and territorial governments, a registry would require the unanimous agreement of all levels of government on the relationships to be recognized. This would be necessary to help assure Canadians that a registry would work effectively, efficiently and fairly.

These changes are balanced. Obligations as well as benefits will be conferred on same sex couples. As a result, the fiscal impact of these amendments will be minimal, if any. Clearly, this is not a cost issue.

Many here today have expressed concern that the Government of Canada is deferring to the courts on this issue and that the supreme court is overstepping its proper role. It is important to remember that the court is performing the role given to it by elected representatives of all Canadians through the introduction of the charter. There is no question that the role of the courts in interpreting the charter has given them both a higher profile and a direct influence on the daily lives of Canadians. However, at the same time, the charter also maintains the equally important role of parliament in determining important questions of social policy. I assure the House that this role is taken very seriously by the government.

The bill is about fairness. It is a balanced and responsible approach to the issue.

I wish to emphasize, because it is very important to my constituents in Erie—Lincoln, that there is nothing in the bill that alters the definition of marriage. The House will remember that we passed a motion to that effect last June, the definition being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. The bill maintains a distinction between married and unmarried couples and no changes are made to the legal definition of marriage.

The term spouse in the federal legislation will refer only to married persons and the term common law partner will refer to those in same sex and opposite sex common law relationships. As pointed out, the bill extends both benefits and obligations to common law same sex couples.

Given the potential impact on individuals, as well as on government programming costs of creating a system of benefits based on broader principles of dependency, the issue again will require further study and consultation.

However, our objective is clear: We wish to encourage rather than discourage people to take care of each other. We must be careful to ensure that any legal changes will not impose obligations or barriers to people supporting each other.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, it has been impossible to reach agreement under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the deliberations at report stage and third reading of Bill C-2, an act respecting the election of members to the House of Commons, repealing other acts relating to elections and making consequential amendments to other acts.

Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will introduce a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House to allocate a specified number of days or hours to deliberations at these stages and to the decisions required to dispose of these stages.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Shame, shame.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, an act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Madam Speaker, in light of the announcement that was just made by the government House leader, we know that closure is being invoked again. I believe it is the 60th time in this government's reign of power, surpassing previous administrations.

However, I do have a question in terms of the government's priorities. Once again we are faced with a very contentious issue at this time in the House, as we have seen also with the clarity bill. I am wondering why we are not talking about significant issues, in particular with the run-up to the budget? Why are we not talking about health care? Why are we not talking about education and tax reduction?

Why has the government decided to foist on Canadians this contentious, destructive debate at this time instead of bringing in legislation like this at a time earlier in the session?

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

John Maloney Liberal Erie—Lincoln, ON

Madam Speaker, I take issue with the comment that the bill is contentious and divisive. This is something that was brought forward by the hon. member's friends in Ontario. They did not have a problem with it. In fact they introduced it one day and passed it the next. It did not go to committee as this bill will go to committee.

I take issue with what the hon. member is saying. We are dealing with all things that are coming before us. This is an important issue, vis-à-vis the charter, and we have to respond to it. We just cannot ignore what is coming forward.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Werner Schmidt Reform Kelowna, BC

Madam Speaker, the hon. member made a big point about the June 1999 definition of marriage that was accepted by the House as being one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. He also indicated that the bill that is currently before the House, Bill C-23, is a bill that is fair, creates equity and all those kinds of things.

Does the hon. member believe that fairness and equity have to do with creating privileges and benefits on the basis of conjugal relationships other than marriage but that where there are other economic dependency relationships those would be excluded from the bill? Could the hon. member define for us what equality actually means?

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

John Maloney Liberal Erie—Lincoln, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for bringing forward the issue of dependency. It is very complex. I mentioned in my speech the many ramifications it could possibly have.

We are working on the issue of dependency and will move forward on it. Quite frankly I would be very surprised if some time in the near future the extension of benefits and obligations to people in dependency roles would come forward.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Reform

Grant McNally Reform Dewdney—Alouette, BC

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member concerning a comment made last week by his colleague from Scarborough East about Bill C-23. I quote from page 3560 of Hansard where he said:

The bill is fairly simple. It really could be written in one line: common law heterosexual relationships are the legal equivalent to common law homosexual relationships. Therein lies the entire issue.

He went on to say:

The bill turns common law homosexual relationships in the legal equivalent of common law heterosexual relationships, which for many purposes is equivalent to marriage.

The member's colleague from Scarborough East made that statement. Does he agree with it? Yes or no.