Home Debates 2000 February 21st

Debates of Feb. 21st, 2000

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 sex.

Topics

Page 17 of 18

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act
Government Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis Winnipeg North Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity, albeit at the very last moment given the motion of closure on the part of the government, to participate in the discussion on Bill C-23.

It is interesting that in the time I have been listening to the debate there has been a lot of discussion about sex and marriage. It seems to me that is not really the main essence of the bill we have before us today. I am probably speaking on behalf of most colleagues in the House here today when I say that we are probably the last people in Canada who should be talking with any kind of authority about sex and marriage.

Goodness knows, we are in Ottawa all week and our partners are back in the riding. We get home after a crazy week and are pursued by a 101 constituents. Some of us have kids who want to see us. Who has time for sex?

The point of my introduction is to simply draw us back to the purpose of the bill. It is not about sex and marriage. The bill deals with a very fundamental question: the pursuit of full equality for all people in our society today regardless of sexual orientation.

Let us not be detracted by some of the comments made by the Reform Party and some of the misgivings of the Liberal backbenchers about what is at hand here.

I am pleased to join my colleagues in the New Democratic Party in supporting Bill C-23. I add my congratulations to the Liberal government for finally bringing in legislation that was long overdue and will meet our obligations as a country.

I pay a special tribute to the member for Burnaby—Douglas who has probably done more than anyone in the history of the country to pursue the goal of full equality for gay and lesbian people and to ensure that the values of Canadians around full equality, justice and fairness were fully enshrined in the laws of this land. There are many people to whom I could pay tribute, but I wanted to single out the unswerving and dedicated work of the member for Burnaby—Douglas.

The bill is about equality, justice and fairness. It is about meeting our obligations. It is a long overdue measure to make operational the principle of equality for all people regardless of sexual orientation as articulated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, in numerous provincial statutes, in various court decisions and particularly by the Supreme Court of Canada in the spring of 1999, the highest court in the land, which ruled on this very issue.

As we said earlier today, this is a housekeeping bill. It brings us up to date with the laws of the land. It puts into practice the values of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The legislation represents a basic democratic right of Canadians. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It takes us a step closer to the goal of full equality for all gay and lesbian people.

In reference to some of the comments I heard today from Reform members, the bill captures the true meaning of family, not as some artificial construct based on some idyllic view of the past that never was, based on some norms of a previous society, based on various interpretations in the Bible or based on cultural conditioning that has permeated every aspect of our society today, but a definition of family that keeps pace with society, that captures the very fundamental issues that we are dealing with: loving relationships, safe and nurturing environments and a commitment to ensure the well-being of all members of the family unit.

I was taken aback by the comments of the Reform Party today. Many times when we have had these debates the Reform members have shown their feelings on this issue in a rather veiled attempt, focusing on the intricacies of a bill rather than exposing their feelings on sexual orientation. What we have heard today from the Reform Party and some Liberal backbenchers is just how far we must go as a society in recognizing equality of all people regardless of sexual orientation.

I could not help but go back to some of the writings of the Vanier Institute of the Family. It has written so many articles and has spoken so well about the family. I want to put on record a quotation from an article by Suanne Kelman from the winter 1999 edition of Transition . She said, “I think what we can learn from the past is that we should ignore the hysteria many critics bring to the discussion of family life today. We are not going to find perfect answers for every family but that fact should not stop us from grappling with the realities facing us. If we can recognize the impossibility of returning to a past we never had, we can get going, cheerfully, intelligently and compassionately on improving the future”.

That is what we are doing today. We are clearly moving forward intelligently and compassionately on a notion of family that is rooted in the fundamentals of companionship and friendship, love and nurturing, caring and concern. That is the essence of this bill. That is why it is important we move forward and recognize the need to ensure that those values are enshrined in every law of the land.

Today it is clear to me more than ever that there are those who fundamentally oppose the notion of recognizing people who are homosexual. I appreciate there are differences that we still have to address. I hope that the Reform Party does not try to take us back to an age when people are not recognized for their individual talents and contributions which they can make to our society today.

The debate we are having today in many ways reminds me of the debate we had in the spring of 1998. The Reform Party brought in its motion pertaining to the Rosenberg decision in the Ontario court and presented us with what we all considered to be a most regrettable situation. It was clearly seen to be a thinly veiled attempt to promote and endorse discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That is being repeated today and I am very worried about it.

I would hope that on entering this millennium we would be looking at some very fundamental values that have to be upheld and supported in every law over which we have authority and every practice and program that we are responsible for. I hope we can move forward with a clear understanding of what this bill is all about and why it is so important for the fabric of Canadian society.

I will conclude my remarks by quoting from an article written by Helen Fallding which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on February 16. In her article, “A Valentine for the Minister”, Helen congratulated the government for bringing forward this legislation and recognizing the reality in terms of this legislation.

I will not quote the article directly because that would mean mentioning the minister's name. Helen said that if the Minister of Justice “manages to sneak the new bill passed Liberal backbenchers and Reform Party opponents, Lisa”—her partner—“and I will receive the same treatment from federal government departments as common law couples”. She went on to say, “Each year when I make my RRSP contribution, I pray that the federal government will stop its discriminatory practices before one of us dies. If I died tomorrow, Lisa would have to pay taxes on my RRSP savings, instead of having them roll over into her account as they do for heterosexual widows”. She concluded by saying that this “is not really about money for me. It is about finally getting to feel like a Canadian citizen. It is about having my country acknowledge the mutual support and commitment partners like Lisa and I offer each other. Ultimately it is about love”.

I hope we will all support this bill and get on with the important work ahead of us.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act
Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mac Harb Ottawa Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House to support the government initiative. It is the right initiative and has been introduced at the right time. We should not have had to wait until the supreme court told us to do what we have done but the mere fact that we have done it is to be commended. This showed leadership on the part of the government and on the part of the minister in moving forward with this issue.

Some of my colleagues wonder about the pros and cons of this bill. The bottom line is that we are not the first ones to come out of the gate. A number of provinces have already introduced legislation to extend benefits to same sex partners or opposite sex partners who live in common law relationships. In excess of 200 private sector companies already have measures, laws or directives on their books that extend benefits to those who live in common law relationships or same sex relationships.

I have received a number of letters from those who are for and those who are opposed. Concerning those who are opposed, there is much misinformation coming out. One of the key concerns those opposed seem to have is that this legislation will destroy the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. In fairness, this bill does not do that at all. The institution remains as it stands now, which is a relationship or a contract between a man and a woman.

This legislation merely moves forward what has been a fact for a long time in our society. It also sets the beginning of a long process for the government and for society to address many of the issues that have been on people's minds for a very long time.

I like the commitment the government has shown in addressing the whole notion of what a dependant is. This is to be commended because the issue deserves further study. For example, should a woman or a man identify his or her mother or father as a dependant if the two live in the same environment? For a father and a son, or a father and a daughter who live under the same roof, should the law recognize and provide benefits the same as this legislation does? On the surface, I would say of course. A single person who supports a family member whether it is a brother, sister, mother or child, should be allowed to designate that person as a dependant and therefore benefits should be given to that person.

When we talk about extending benefits, extending rights, we also have to talk about extending obligations. In legislation every time we extend or advance one issue, there are all of the good things that go with it in terms of benefits, but other things go along with it as well which are the obligations. That is exactly what this bill does. It provides people who live in common law relationships or in same sex relationships similar benefits and obligations as those provided to others who live in the same sort of circumstances.

It is unequivocally clear that Canadians wanted the government to act on this issue. A 1998 poll by Angus Reid showed that the majority of Canadians, more than two to one, in every region of Canada favoured legislation that introduced benefits to those who live in common law or same sex relationships.

The court itself has told us as a society and as a government that it is time to put in law what has been a fact of life for many years. It already has been implemented by many people in the private sector, as well as some provincial governments.

Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario have changed their legislation or they are in the process of reviewing their laws to extend those benefits. We are not alone. We are moving collectively with other governments to ensure that we put into law what should have been put in place quite some time ago.

There are those who are concerned about adoption by people in same sex relationships and also the whole issue of immigration and so on. The legislation does not change anything. Canadian law will remain the same on those issues.

Government must take a leadership role. Sometimes it has to take leadership on tough issues. In this situation not only is the government doing what is right, but it is doing what the people want it to do and what the courts have told the government to do.

This should be a non-partisan issue. Members on both sides of the House should be applauding. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides every citizen with equal rights and a chance to access justice.

We recommend that our colleagues on the other side of the House applaud the government and move on with the legislation. At the same time our government has already made a commitment to study further the issue of extending benefits to people who have dependants who rely on them, whether it is a mother, a brother, a sister, a father and so on.

I have a personal interest in the bill and I would like to see it pass quickly. I have a daughter and I am not married. My daughter is dependent on me. I am very interested in the Government of Canada studying this situation further. Possibly it will be feasible and acceptable at some point in time to address the whole notion of allowing an individual to declare another individual as a dependant should that be the case. To say that I have to block any movement by the government until such a time as this whole issue is addressed would be foolish and not responsible.

We have to take what we already have as a consensus in society, implement it and entrench it in law. The next phase would be to study the other issues of dependency. People like myself, many of my colleagues and others in society would have a chance to make their case before the government, a committee of the House of Commons or their members of parliament. Surely if the economic situation in Canada continues to improve further, we would come to a point where we would not even need to discuss those issues. It would be irrelevant because we would be able to afford to do what everyone wanted us to do.

To that extent, I support the bill. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the House will support it.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act
Government Orders

6 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

David Price Compton—Stanstead, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23, the modernization of benefits and obligations act. I support this piece of legislation and I am happy that as a member of parliament I have the opportunity to outline my reasons, although it is just under the wire with closure.

The bill is not attempting to change anyone's beliefs. It is not trying to impose a moral structure on society. This piece of legislation is striving to address a financial inequality in Canada. Federal benefits and obligations for same sex couples will be on equal footing with those of heterosexual common law couples. As the courts have ruled, they should be.

The courts have said that it is unconstitutional for same sex couples to be treated differently than heterosexual ones when it comes to benefits and obligations. Since 1995 sexual orientation has fallen under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bill has that very much in mind and will ensure justice and fairness for same sex couples.

Marriage will not change after the bill is given royal assent. Marriage has traditionally been the union of one man and one woman. That remains unchanged in the bill. Further, the bill is non-religious and does not attempt to change or alter anyone's beliefs.

I do not have a problem with the bill per se, but I do have reservations, several for that matter. My reservations have to do with the timing of the legislation. The fact that it was tabled on February 11 was no accident. The timing is part of an orchestrated plan of the Liberals. Allow me to explain.

The Prime Minister and other members of cabinet stand in the House on a regular basis and vent about how strong the economy is. The unemployment rate is at its lowest rate in years, they say. The deficit is eliminated, so we are told. Interest rates are low. Inflation is a thing of the past. Parts of the economy are thriving, not because of Liberal policies but due to policies of the previous government.

In any case, not all is well in our glorious land. Health care is sorely underfunded. Our refugee and immigration systems are broken and in need of repair. We hear daily about the problems at HRDC. Any government would want the public to forget about a billion dollar boondoggle.

The Prime Minister was first elected to the House in 1963. He was present in the House when gay rights were debated and he knows full well the ire, emotion and controversy that such a discussion entails among Canadians. He was present in the House, for example, in 1969 when homosexual acts between consenting adults were decriminalized.

The legislation is introduced at this time not because of a genuine desire for fairness and equality by the Liberals, not because of a desire to uphold a supreme court ruling, but rather to deflect public scrutiny from other governmental issues. What better way to do that than to introduce legislation guaranteeing rights for gays and lesbians?

We live in a liberal democracy where the rights of everyone are respected and upheld. That is the purpose of the bill, but it is shameful that the government is introducing it now when there are other pressing issues like HRDC, health care, education, immigration and national defence. It is sad that the government uses such an important issue as equality to deflect attention from government controversies. It is also sad that the government again uses time allocation to stifle debate.

Many hon. members have talked about marriage and spouse. The bill has no reference to marriage or spouse. It is a technical bill dealing with economic and legal rights. I agree with other hon. members that the bill should have been clearer about the definitions of marriage and spouse, the union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

Another issue that is not dealt with is economic dependency. We are missing the boat. We all know family members or friends who have to live together to survive. Why were these items not dealt with? What was the rush?

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act
Government Orders

February 21st, 2000 / 6:05 p.m.

Reform

Gary Lunn Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-23. I agree with my hon. Tory colleague who just spoke when he asked what was the rush. We have missed an opportunity to do a couple of things the government neglected to do.

First and foremost, on June 8, 1999, parliament passed a motion that we should affirm the definition of marriage in legislation. There is not a more perfect opportunity to do that than right now. Whether in this bill or in another, this is when it should have been done.

I have heard members of the NDP, including the member for Winnipeg North Centre, mention the Reform Party. It was almost every 10th word in her speech. I state on the record right now that my colleagues and I are not opposed to making sure that people are treated equally and fairly, including people of co-dependence, heterosexual and homosexual. That is what we want to try to do. They should be getting benefits but the bill does not do that.

The bill is based on sexuality. All the way through it, it says that relationships must be conjugal. How is that defined? What does it mean? One of the two biggest issues with the bill is the definition of marriage. Parliament sent a very clear signal, as did Canadians, that marriage needs to be defined in legislation. The federal government has been remiss. That has been completely overlooked. The bill is being rammed through for a whole host of reasons. People try to paint us as being against equality, that we do not support it. That is absolute nonsense.

The member for Edmonton Southwest put forward a very good solution in registered domestic partnerships. It may need fine-tuning but I applaud him for it. Not everyone in my caucus would completely agree with him but he had a lot of support. He put forward a solution wherein we could define marriage and benefits could have been paid out but not on the basis of sex as the bill does. Let us not make any mistake or have any illusions about what it is.

The member for Miramichi said on June 2, the the days leading up to the definition of marriage, that anything based upon sex was the poorest way to define a relationship whether it be the same sex or the other sex. I could not agree more. That is my frustration. Some people are trying to suggest that we do not want to see equality. That is not true at all.

There are many things the government should have done but it did not. It missed the most fundamental task that parliament directed it to do. That is what frustrates me. I absolutely believe in no uncertain terms that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is not between two men as some people would like to suggest and have argued for. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and that is all it can be. A very clear signal could have been sent by defining that in legislation, but the government did not do it.

I am not so sure I have confidence in the government when it obviously leaves something out that was so easy to include. What is its underlining motive? I ask that after being a member of parliament since 1997 and watching what goes on in the House.

There are many more important issues that need to be dealt with right now. We have seen what is going on in HRDC, which is absolutely scandalous and is throughout many other departments. What does that have to do with this legislation? It is very important. It deals with the money of all taxpayers. I have not seen one word of legislation to deal with the problem that arose last fall.

There are problems in justice and in immigration. We saw the problem with migrants. We are hurting genuine immigrants who are applying to come here through proper channels and refugees who have a legitimate claim to come to here like people from Kosovo, East Timor and such places who are absolutely blocked. Have we seen any legislation to deal with those problems? We are on the eve of another season of migrants coming in and there is not one word in legislation. The Minister of Justice tabled Bill C-23 when there are many other pressing issues for Canadians.

We have backlogs in the courts. Things could be done to speed up the process and ensure that people are getting justice. We could ensure that victims are getting due process in relation to criminal charges and that they are protected.

There is the area of sexual predators abusing young children. Once they are released into society it is paramount that we make sure that our children are safe. Have we seen legislation brought forward? I think there has been a little in that area, but have we seen it passed? No. So much could have been done, but government for whatever reason has introduced a bill that was not done very well at all. That is why I will vote against it. We have missed an opportunity. The bill will be open to challenges because it was not done well.

Other solutions could have been put forward, but the government has missed an opportunity to define marriage although it was directed to do so by the Parliament of Canada. I appreciate that it was an opposition supply day motion but it was passed by parliament. Does it take parliament seriously or not? Or, is it just shuffled under the rug? That is why I have to question its sincerity about the bill and its underlying motive. Why did it do that? Why would we trust anything it wants us to do? Government members stand and say it is about equality, but many other relationships are not included.

My concern is the record of the government. I would be the first to stand and vote in favour of a bill that gives benefits to all Canadians without discrimination. There are other relationships that may not be conjugal, that may not involve sex. Why should they not be entitled to the same benefits?

A member talked about RRSP contributions and about what happens if one dies. I know two friends who are not in a sexual relationship. Should they not be able to have these same benefits? Of course they should. Why should they not? I personally know people who have been in relationships for 20 or 30 years where there is absolutely no conjugal or sexual relationship but they are very much dependent on it.

I know of another example of a priest in Chilliwack who resides with another person. They share a car. They are very dependent on each other and have been for years and years, but they are not in any conjugal relationship. They would not qualify under the bill. That is discriminating against them.

In summary, the government has missed a real opportunity to define marriage as instructed by parliament. It has failed in that regard. That is where I have to question what are its real motives. I believe in equality for all Canadians. I would be the first to stand here and say it. Again I commend the member for Edmonton Southwest for putting forward a positive solution which government ignored. That solution would have been far better than Bill C-23. I will have to vote against the bill.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act
Government Orders

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

It being 6.15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 688
Government Orders

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

Sophia Leung Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as being in favour of Bill C-23.

Division No. 688
Government Orders

6:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Was the hon. member present when the vote was taken? She has made her point. We will leave it at that.

I therefore declare the motion adopted. Consequently, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from February 17 consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Supply
Government Orders

6:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Pursuant to order adopted February 17, 2000, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment pertaining to business of supply.

The question is on the amendment.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)