Debates of Feb. 21st, 2000

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not agree with that. There is nothing in the bill that has anything to do with marriage. It is about obligations and benefits.

My colleague from Scarborough can have his input on it. It is a very narrow input that has no credibility and does not hold water whatsoever. It is not affecting marriage whatsoever, whatsoever, whatsoever.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have here a document that says the purpose of this omnibus bill is to extend to same sex couples the same benefits and obligations that apply to opposite sex common law couples.

I would like to give an example. My father, who is 76 years old, is retired. The youngest of my brothers, from a family of 12 children, has decided to take my father in, since he is still single.

Could my 76 year old father, who worked all his life, who raised 12 children and who paid taxes to the federal as well as the Quebec government, not benefit from such legislation since he is living with my brother? This legislation applies only to men or women who are in a sexual relation. Because my brother is not in a sexual relation with my father, he will not be able to benefit from these measures.

If a same sex couple, two men or two women who are in a sexual relation, who share the same bed, who have been living together for more than a year, can benefit from tax breaks, is Bill C-23 not discriminatory against a daughter who takes her mother in or a son who takes his father in?

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is speaking to the dependency model. As indicated in my address it is a complex issue. There is certainly a lot of support for what the member is saying.

We all have family members who are in non-conjugal relationships: brothers and sisters, mothers and daughters, fathers and sons, or fathers and daughters, et cetera. The legislation is not shutting the door on them. It is leaving it open. In fact studies have already begun in this regard. The Law Reform Commission is looking into it.

It is very complex. It is not simple. It is not black and white. More study has to be done. We look forward to the member's input into this study. Let us bring forward good supplementary legislation, but we cannot ignore what the courts have told us we have to do.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on what the member for Charlevoix has said.

From the beginning of his speech, the parliamentary secretary has been saying that this must be broadened to include other cases in the community. Will it be possible, during clause by clause study in committee, to introduce amendments to that effect?

Will it be possible to introduce amendments to this bill so that a father caring for his son, or a son caring for his father, will have the same benefits the bill now provides for persons in a sexual relationship? We know that it is a very long while before a bill is actually passed.

Would it be possible to add new provisions to the bill at committee stage, and would the government agree to such provisions?

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I keep saying, it is a very complex issue. It is not black and white. It is premature. More study has to go into it.

For example, let us look at the eligibility for guaranteed income supplement. Under old age security it is determined on the basis of combining the income of both persons, which might result in reducing the benefits for some elderly people who live with their relatives. I am sure she would not want that to happen. Or, should an adult who lives with a parent and leaves after many years remain legally responsible for paying support to that parent because they were once in a dependency relationship?

These are the type of issues that have to be considered in depth and at length. We certainly will not be able to do that at the committee stage by proposing amendments, because we would not be able to look at it in the detail it warrants.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, I challenge the parliamentary secretary. He makes a big point about saying how complex is this interdependency business and I could not agree more. Why the rush to get this bill through? Sixty-eight pieces of legislation are affected by this one bill. Is it not rational to expect very deep study?

Now we have time allocation on top of it all. A certain illogic, a certain irrationality seems to be prevailing. Could the hon. member persuade his colleagues to do the necessary study so that when it comes forward we can actually look at it seriously and say it covers the waterfront instead of having some kind of a patchwork quilt operation?

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Madam Speaker, I point out to the hon. member that roughly 67% of Canadians favour this type of legislation. It is a majority in all the regions of the country. People are behind it because it is fair and it should be proceeded with, especially in view of what the court has been telling us. We cannot ignore that. We have given them that—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Kelowna. I begin my debate on Bill C-23 today by reflecting on the comments and arguments which were made during the first day of debate last week.

I clearly indicate from the outset that I do not support the legislation. The official opposition is the only party opposing this fatally flawed piece of legislation. I will outline the reasons why I cannot support Bill C-23, and I will begin with an examination of some comments made by the Minister of Justice last week.

As my colleague from Kelowna just mentioned, debate on this important issue has a wide range of implications. It is being shut down today through time allocation, a process that has been used over and over again by the Liberal government. I cannot understand why it would do that on such an important piece of legislation.

Last week on February 15 the Minister of Justice stated that the bill ensured respect for the principle of equal treatment before the law of persons living in recognized stable relationships. Let us be very clear that the minister's bill defines a stable relationship as one that is one year in length. She went on to state that fairness, tolerance, respect and equality were touchstones of our national identity. The minister will get no argument on this point. This has been echoed by members on both sides of the House, both those for and those against the bill.

The minister went on to say that they recognize marriage is a fundamental value and important to Canadians, and that the value and importance are in no way undermined by recognizing in law other forms of committed relationships. I categorically say that assertion is false.

Let me outline the strongest argument I think possible for rejecting Bill C-23, one which I believe cannot be refuted by means of recent argument or logical consistency. The bill defines the new term common law partnership as a stable relationship of at least one year between two committed individuals, whether it be a same sex relationship between two men or two women or an opposite sex relationship between a man and a woman. I do not believe anyone would argue that is what Bill C-23 does and that the bill bestows benefits and requires obligations for those who enter into same sex relationships. For purposes of this illustration let us call this arrangement example C.

We know that in the eyes of the common law a union between a man and a woman in a ceremony before witnesses sanctioned by the state is called a marriage. Let us call this arrangement example A.

We also know that in the eyes of the law a man and a woman who choose to live together for at least one year, even though they have not participated in any ceremony before witnesses, are deemed to be in a common law relationship or marriage. The same benefits are accessible and the same obligations are in effect for those who are living in such an arrangement. Let us call this common law opposite sex relationship example B.

Logically if A equals B and B equals C, then A equals C. If the law sees marriage, and it does, as equivalent to a common law opposite sex relationship and sees a common law opposite sex relationship as equivalent to common law same sex relationships, and it does in this proposed piece of legislation, in effect the law if passed, Bill C-23, will see marriage as equivalent to common law same sex relationships or as stated in the bill in terms of a common law partnership.

For the minister to state that the bill does not affect marriage is completely false and illogical in any form of reasoning. The minister may believe this to be true. She may make assertions to the contrary, but by means of logic we have just demonstrated that it is not true.

The end result of the bill is to enshrine in law that two homosexual partners who live together for just one year will be afforded the same benefits and obligations as a married couple, a couple who have commitments to live together and love each other through sickness and health until death do them part, a commitment which is fundamental to the continuation and well-being of any society, the building block of society where children learn about right and wrong, good and bad, how to treat others, and how to be positive functioning members of society. For the minister to claim otherwise is simply false.

Why should Canadians trust the Liberal government to protect marriage? The justice minister is unwilling to enshrine in federal statute the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman as recognized by the state.

A motion was passed in the House in June 1999 that was brought forward by my colleagues in the Reform Party and agreed upon by the majority of members in the House including Liberals. They in no way can take credit for such action. It is because of the Liberal inaction on this question and their unwillingness to define in statute the definition of marriage that we brought the motion forward.

The minister says she values marriage but she is unwilling to speak with her actions instead of her hollow words. This point was made by the Liberal member for Scarborough East, a member of the government and one of only a handful who was willing to stand and say something contrary to the will of the Liberal Party. I will quote from Hansard what that member of the government said in regard to the bill:

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.

I am quoting the member for Scarborough East, a member of the government, who also said:

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

That was a member of the Liberal Government of Canada who I guess is in direct contradiction to the majority of his group in the governing party.

Let Canadians make no mistake about the net end effect of Bill C-23 and its implications. Anybody with concerns about the issue who is listening today should voice their concerns to their local member of parliament, to the Minister of Justice and to the Prime Minister to tell them what he or she feels is the right way to proceed in this area of public policy.

Basically the Liberal government is signalling that it believes in sexual egalitarianism, the belief that there are no arrangements that are to the benefit of any others in the country in terms of private sexual activity. The government is signalling to Canadians that it no longer values the direction of a social policy which encourages and nurtures family and marriage as the building block of this society.

Let us make no mistake about it. That is what the bill does. It signals to Canadians that the governing group, the Liberal Party of Canada, is setting off in a direction and it has not even consulted Canadians on this very important issue that is the building block of any society. That is patently wrong.

The minister and other colleagues have put forward an argument, which we heard not long ago from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, that the courts made the government do it so it must be right. They say that other jurisdictions are putting this into legislation so we must follow. Again this is a false assertion.

This is the highest court in the land. We as parliamentarians are charged with the responsibility of sending a message to the courts. It is not the other way around. It is here that we must take the stands from our constituents and bring them to this place and argue and debate by logical reasoning which is the best way to go. Here in this place.

Let us clearly point out that the Liberal government is unwilling by its actions to enshrine in law the definition of marriage. It has a perfect opportunity right now with Bill C-23, yet it has not done that. We must take from its actions as it is legislating that this is a path it does not want to pursue. The government does not want to enshrine the definition of marriage in law for whatever reasons it might have. We need to hold and Canadians need to hold this Liberal group accountable for that particular action. The Liberals over and over again have derogated their responsibility to the courts.

I see I am quickly running out of time on this important subject. I will end my speech by encouraging Canadians to look at what this legislation does. The parliamentary secretary, the Minister of Justice and other members of the Liberal Party have stood in this place and said “Don't worry. This bill has no net effect on the definition of marriage”.

As I pointed out earlier in my speech, because they are unwilling to enshrine in law what marriage means, and they are equating marriage to be the same as a common law relationship and now a common law partnership, they are in effect signalling to Canadians that they no longer support the family. They no longer support with their social policy the longstanding tradition of this country and the building block of this society. That is a shame and they need to be held accountable.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a very direct question of the hon. member opposite because certainly what this bill does do is it equates a same sex relationship with a common law heterosexual relationship. I am sure he would agree that the reason why we have common law relationships is because they are specifically not marriage.

I do not follow his reasoning that this is a threat to marriage in some way because we have grouped same sex couples with common law heterosexual couples. However, I do take note of his point. It is regrettable that this bill does not define marriage as a relationship between opposite sex couples.

I would like to ask him if the bill did define marriage in the way we all agree that marriage should be defined and the way marriage is defined in common law, would he then be able to support this legislation?

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague made an assertion which I do not think we can actually agree on, that we all agree on what marriage is. That in itself is another debatable point that will be coming at the end of this debate, I believe.

This bill will enshrine, as the hon. member said, that common law same sex relationships will be equal in the eyes of the law to common law opposite sex relationships. I would also say that in the eyes of the law in terms of splitting property if such a relationship dissolves in terms of the common law opposite sex relationship, the law sees a common law heterosexual relationship in very much the same way as it sees marriage.

By equating a same sex partnership, as my colleague said, to a common law heterosexual relationship in effect is equating it to marriage in the eyes of the law. That is my assertion. That is my reasoning on that. I appreciate my colleague's further probing on that point.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the member for Charlevoix, having been elected in 1993 and re-elected in 1997, I think that my logic is sound and that I represent my constituents well.

In 1973, when I decided to marry my girlfriend, I wanted a family. Unfortunately, it did not happen in the first few months. It took a few years. I even resorted to adoption. I adopted a little aboriginal child, who will be 18 on July 2.

Subsequently, nature began to co-operate. Of course, I was teased. There were even some people who told me “Gérard, now that you've read the operating instructions, you know what you're doing”. After adopting our first child, we had a boy and a girl.

When the bill says that same sex couples should have the same benefits as opposite sex couples, does this mean that even two men who have been living together for a period of time could apply to adopt a child?

We have all been to school. Children pick on each other asking questions like “Who is your mother? Who is your father?” In the case of two men living together who have adopted a boy or a girl, is this any kind of example to set the child?

If the same benefits, up to and including the right to adopt children, are provided, I am absolutely opposed.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on the founding of his family. That is a very exciting point and probably is more exciting than anything else we could talk about here today.

I would say yes, that is a logical outgrowth of what could happen with this legislation. There is similar legislation in British Columbia where individuals who are in a same sex relationship are able by law to adopt children. That is something that could be an outgrowth of this legislation at the federal level.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to enter the debate on Bill C-23. It is a very significant bill, notwithstanding some of the comments that the parliamentary secretary made that somehow he felt this was not as important as certain other bills that the hon. member from the Conservative Party raised earlier.

I want to raise two essential issues this afternoon. First it is my intention to show that the bill is fundamentally and fatally flawed. It was put together in a trivial manner. It trivializes many of the very important things we believe in.

Second, I wish to show that the bill demonstrates that the Minister of Justice is actually acting contrary to the wishes of the House as expressed on June 8, 1999 when the House accepted in an overwhelming majority vote that the definition of marriage ought to be the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

I wish to look at the fundamental flaw that underlies this bill. Not only has it been put together on very short notice and not only does it have tremendously far ranging implications, I am not sure the government has analysed what all those implications are. I suspect it has not. I suspect as well that all of the speeches we will make will probably not analyse all of them either because this cuts right into some of our deepest held beliefs.

Lest we think it is only the opinion of the opposition that this is the case, let me read into the record an editorial which appeared on February 15 on the editorial page of the National Post . It is very significant and I wish to read it in detail.

Proponents of gay rights often argue their cause by analogy with anti-racism. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, they say, makes as little sense as discrimination on the basis of skin colour. But this comparison does not hold water. While there is no justification for denying privileges to a citizen on the basis of race, the issue of sexual orientation is less clear-cut.

Society has a manifest interest in promoting heterosexual marriage, through which it perpetuates itself. Unlike heterosexuals, however, homosexual couples cannot conceive children through conjugal union. Nor can they provide children, however conceived, with adult role models of both sexes. Where all-male marriages are concerned, moreover, gay households would be far more likely than straight households to be destabilized by promiscuity.

Thus, the best way to recognize the intertwined economic interests of cohabitating homosexuals is not to expand the definition of marriage, but to treat gay unions the same way we treat common law partnerships. This is the idea behind the modernization of benefits and obligations act introduced by justice minister Anne McLellan on Friday. The legislation, if enacted, would ensure that same sex couples will have—where federal law is concerned—the same legal rights and obligations as opposite sex common law couples.

My hon. colleague opposite has created a beautiful mathematical, logistical formula.

But if gay couples are to enjoy the same benefits as common law heterosexual couples, what is the justification for denying these benefits to non-intimates, namely people in relationships who pool economic resources but do not involve sexual intercourse?—But this does not mean sexual intimacy should be taken, by itself, as a proxy for economic interdependence. Our society has a special interest in preserving heterosexual marriage as an institution. If we decide to confer economic and legal rights to couples whose relationships lie outside that special interest, then it makes just as much sense to accord rights to cohabitating family members and friends—spinster sisters or old army buddies, for instance—as to homosexual lovers.

In this respect the modernization of benefits and obligations act is poorly conceived. It expands the definition of common law couples only insofar as gay couples are concerned. Non-intimates are excluded. There are, of course, good policy reasons for not expanding the common law definition at all. But, once the justice department expands it to include gay couples, there is no reason why it should not include all cohabitating people.

And while the act does not go far enough in this area, it goes too far in another, elevating common law relationships to the same status as married couples with regard to all but a small handful of federal laws. In this respect, the government is actually going further than the Supreme Court of Canada has required. In the 1999 case of M. v H., the court struck down a provision in the Ontario Family Law Act defining “spouse” as (1) a married person; or (2) a partner in a heterosexual couple that has lived together for more than three years. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional to exclude same sex couples from the second category; but it left the issue of marriage untouched.

In the backgrounder that accompanies her new legislation, the hon. Minister of Justice is eager to reassure Canadians that “the definition of marriage has not changed”.

And on Friday she announced that “the definition of marriage relates to an institution that is of fundamental and longstanding religious and historical significance”.

But if this is true, then why has she introduced legislation that trivializes marriage by reducing it to a status more or less equal to that of cohabitation plus sex? Her new legislation, if passed in its present form, may soon become known as the End of Marriage Act.

Those are very serious statements made by one of the editorial writers of the National Post .

I do not think any of us in the House should ignore the gravity of the issue that is before us in this bill. Not only is it being foisted upon us quickly, without adequate study and debate, it is also ill-conceived in the sense that not nearly all of the implications that arise from this piece of legislation have been analyzed and the conclusions drawn.

What we have before us is an attempt by the government to foist a bill upon us under the auspices of what is deemed to have been a directive from the Supreme Court of Ontario, and it has gone beyond what that particular court decided. Why would this House go beyond what that court said it should do?

Why would the House even dare to suggest that the supreme court has a say in what should happen in this House? It could give all kinds of advice, it could give all kinds of indication as to what could happen here. It is perfectly legitimate for the court to do that. However, nothing could be further from the truth than for the House to take it as a directive. “We must act. This is the legislation we have to enact”. That is an insult, not only to this House, but to every Canadian.

All Canadians who are taxpayers and who elected people to this government should be saying that they are not representing them honestly and fairly and this is not what they want. This House is supreme, not the supreme court.

The hon. minister, with all due respect, has contravened the wishes of the House. She had a golden opportunity to introduce into this legislation a definition of marriage, to enshrine and affirm that we, this House, define marriage as one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Once again she missed a golden opportunity to lay the foundation upon which our society rests.

The family is the basic unit, the most efficient unit to transfer values and beliefs from one generation to another. She missed a golden opportunity, but she could still reconsider, and I hope she does. I hope that she will withdraw this legislation, or introduce an amendment which recognizes the family and the definition of marriage, to enshrine it so there will not be a contradiction and the denial of what has been clearly expressed by the House as being the desired definition of marriage.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite has gone on at great length about what the courts have and have not done. The definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others goes back to the court case of Hyde and Hyde in 1866.

I point out a recent case in Ontario. In the Ontario court, general division, there was the case of Layland and Beaulne, which dealt with the definition of marriage. In that decision a majority of the court stated as follows:

—unions of persons of the same sex were not “marriages” because of the definition of marriage. The applicants were, in effect, seeking to use section 15 of the Charter to bring about a change in the definition of marriage. The court did not think the Charter has that effect.

Unions of persons of the same sex were not marriages.

In light of that statement, in that unanimous decision by the court, what is the problem? Why are they so concerned about it? It is there. The courts are saying exactly what they want them to say. Can the member reconcile the statement made by the court with what he has said today?

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am quite saddened by the hon. member's comments. It seems to me that he has completely missed the very point I was trying to make.

This House is supreme, not the courts. A judge will interpret whatever he wants. He can say whatever he wishes in terms of definition. However, the judge needs to know what the House believes. How does the House define marriage? That is what it is about. That is why it should be in law. It should not be left to the courts to determine what is or what is not marriage. The House of Commons determines that. The hon. member has it backward. I am saddened that he would come up with that kind of question.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments by the Reform member who just spoke, and I believe he is right. If we were to follow the logic of the people across the way, why elect a parliament, why elect 301 members to this House? It would be a lot less expensive, a lot less costly to elect the nine supreme court justices and to ask them, as they have the monopoly of truth, to legislate as they see fit, which might not always be how the people really want it.

I think it runs contrary to reality to claim, as the member across the way—for whom I have the greatest respect by the way—is doing, that the House must listen to the dictates of the courts, be they high courts, medium courts or low courts. I believe we must give back to parliament its full authority, including defining a couple.

If we define a legal marriage through legal means, in the near future—I guess this is my question to the member for Kelowna—are we not going to create legal children? Or are we going to come up with legal creations which are not anchored in reality? This is the danger. We know people who are living together, who are not in a sexual relationship, but who are economically dependent on each other.

In my riding, there is a brother, of very sound mind, who will have to support his younger brother who is mentally deficient. I had breakfast with him on Saturday and he told me “Why would it not apply to me when I die? I am single, I will never marry, I will never have children, I have only my brother to support. Why could I not see to it that he is looked after, just as they are going to do for same sex couples?” This is why I have great difficulty with this bill.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his very articulate analysis of the problem. I really appreciate it. I think that when it comes to supreme court judges, he would want them to be elected. One of the problems, however, is that at the present time supreme court judges are not elected. They are not accountable to anyone except the Prime Minister. He appoints them. That is a flaw in itself.

I will come back to the essence of the member's question, which comes to grips with the very basic issue of the family and marriage in Canada. I think we have to recognize that in law and enshrine it in legislation.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to engage in this debate because I agree with the member for Kelowna. This is a very delicate issue for Canadians and we need to have a very good debate in the House of Commons on it.

My reaction to Bill C-23 is that it is both a good bill and a bad bill. It is a bad bill in the sense that it still keeps the issue of sex in legislation, and I am one who believes that the statement of a former prime minister that the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation is very apropos and very correct. I am disappointed that the bill did not go much further, as many of us on this side wanted, to explore dependent relationships, which would certainly include same sex or heterosexual relationships, but to expand that to other forms of dependency. It would have been a better bill for that.

However, it is an excellent bill for another reason, a very different reason. It is a classic example of the government responding with alacrity to pressure coming from members of parliament. This is a case where the government actually responded to the very insistent demands for action on the part of backbench MPs on this side and many members on the other side.

I will tell the House a story with respect to this and I will address my remarks, to some extent, to the member for Kelowna. In his remarks the member for Kelowna suggested that this bill was driven by supreme court decisions. In fact, Madam Speaker, there is a story to this bill.

Last spring I served for a while on the committee studying Bill C-63, the citizenship bill. I was not actually a member of that committee, but I was very interested in that particular piece of legislation and served quite a bit of time on the committee. I was interested actually in the oath of citizenship. I was there for an entirely different reason.

We had several witnesses come to the committee who pointed out what they thought was a major flaw in Bill C-63. This was a small section, section 43(i), and what it said, simply, was that the governor in council would be able to define spouse for the purpose of the legislation at hand.

Elsewhere in the bill there was a clause dealing with the problem of Canada's officials when they serve overseas. If they enter into permanent relationships which would lead to citizenship, the law wanted to acknowledge that this should include same sex relationships as well as heterosexual relationships. With leaving the governor in council the opportunity to define spouse for the purpose of these other clauses, what was happening was that this was abrogating parliament's responsibility to define spouse.

I should say that this issue was brought up first in committee by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. Its members spoke very well before the committee. Later there were a number of legal representations made by people from law societies who raised the same concern. They pointed out that this clause which gave the governor in council the authority to define spouse, and that could be defining spouse as a same sex relationship, was actually anti-democratic. People spoke out very loudly against it.

Then came clause by clause. This was all compressed into a very small space of time. The committee sat very late that night because the minister wanted the bill finished as quickly as possible. Of course the committee does try to help the minister in this regard.

This is what happened on the Liberal side of the round table. We sat in a room with opposition members of the committee on one side and Liberal members on the other side. As we went clause by clause, there was a group concerned about section 43(i) on the Liberal side. At about 10 o'clock at night, even though we were still discussing other clauses, three members of the committee held up debate on the citizenship bill. We complained that the Reform Party was not co-operating and we used that as a pretext to suspend debate on the bill.

We left the committee room and went to another room and phoned the citizenship minister. We told her that we could not pass this bill. We told her that we could not pass the clause as it stood because we all felt, all of the members who were sitting on the committee that night on the Liberal side, very strongly against the clause.

The minister was quite upset. She said “Look, I don't like it either, but it is impossible for me to change it without consulting cabinet. Can you hold on for a few days?” We came back and continued to go through clause by clause and that clause was accepted. The bill in fact returned to the House for third reading and we continued to be concerned.

What happened subsequently, as everyone will remember, is that the House prorogued and Bill C-63, the citizenship bill, actually went into suspension during prorogation. Interestingly enough, when the House resumed the government picked up just about every other piece of legislation that it had before prorogation except the citizenship bill. In fact, Madam Speaker, if you look at the new citizenship bill now, Bill C-16, you will find this particular offending clause missing. It is no longer there. It was taken out.

The background to the background is that after this confrontation of the Liberal backbenches and the minister—and it was a polite confrontation but nevertheless it was a confrontation—in the fall, at the same time as this clause disappeared from the new citizenship bill, the Minister of Justice held a meeting for all members of the Liberal caucus and said that she was prepared to undertake an omnibus bill that would fix the situation with respect to the definition of spouse once and for all.

The hon. member for Kelowna is quite right. It is absolutely wrong to leave it to judges to define things that are so essential to the way we interact with one another as human beings, much less as Canadians. What had been happening is that because the charter indicated that we had to give equality to people regardless of gender and regardless of sexual activity, the courts had been more and more inclined to redefine marriage.

The majority of people in my riding would be absolutely opposed to defining marriage as a same sex relationship. I would not hesitate to vote against the bill in a flash if I felt that in any way it was perpetuating the idea that marriage should be a same sex relationship, but it is not. What it is in fact doing at last is providing a means to give people in same sex relationships the same kind of benefits that people have in heterosexual relationships outside of marriage. The operative word is common law.

Madam Speaker, you cannot be married and be in a common law relationship. The whole idea of a common law relationship is that it is not marriage. All the legislation is doing is making a parallel. It is saying that a common law relationship can be heterosexual for the purpose of benefits and a common law relationship can be same sex. It is simple. No problem.

The problem though in the bill is twofold. The legislators sometimes get very frustrated. In amending various sections of the act, the legislatures chose to create this common law definition of same sex relationship. In every instance, they have said it is a common law relationship involving people of the same sex cohabiting in a conjugal relationship.

Sometimes we people who are into the meaning of words just throw up our hands because conjugal means heterosexual. It does not mean same sex under any circumstances. I just cannot for the life of me understand why the people who advised the justice minister did not simply use the word sexual. What is wrong with sexual? It covers everything. It is absolutely same sex and opposite sex. Sexual covers it all but conjugal actually refers specifically to a heterosexual relationship.

In a sense I sympathize with members like the hon. member for Kelowna because when the drafters of legislation use a word improperly, a word that has a pejorative meaning that is completely contradictory to what is intended, of course we are liable to have suspicions about the intent of the people who are crafting the legislation.

In that context, I am hoping I can persuade the minister to, for heaven's sake, change the word conjugal. I will try to move an amendment on that subject.

There is another simple way to alleviate many of the fears of members in the House. I am convinced that the bill is important and that it does at last take away from the courts the pressure they have been putting on us to define same sex relationships. It was very important to bring this back to parliament, and this bill does that.

However, there is fear and worry out there. I sympathize with that worry. I cannot for the life of me understand why we cannot, simply to satisfy that concern, put a definition of marriage in the bill, the classic definition: the union of one man and one woman. It is simple. Just stick it in the bill.

The argument is a lawyer's argument “We cannot do that because it is beautifully enshrined in common law and it will somehow box in the courts if we narrow the definition of marriage”. We are not in this place because we are lawyers. We are in this place because we are legislators. We are here to shape society by the good laws that we create. I have great sympathy for anyone in the House who says “for Heaven's sake, don't be driven by the supreme court necessarily. The supreme court can give some direction but we do not have to do whatever the lawyers tell us”.

I cannot for the life of me, nowhere up here, see a single reason for not defining marriage in the legislation and satisfying the many people in my community and Canadians across the country who are worried about losing the traditional legal definition of marriage.

I will speak briefly about my community. My riding contains a large number of people who are very devout Christians. I have a number of Christian communities, Protestant and Catholic, that are very concerned about this issue. I also have a number of people in my riding who do live in same sex relationships and who contribute very well to the community.

This compromise that exists in the legislation where same sex benefits are grouped very narrowly under common law relationships—although we are not entirely satisfied that it is completely done—and where marriage is protected, at least the minister, I point out, has been very careful to eliminate the word spouse from the legislation so that we do not get into that trap. So that is gone from the legislation.

My sense of most people in my riding is that they really do believe that people who live in same sex relationships and who have a genuine dependency on one another should have the same benefits as people in heterosexual relationships who develop benefits so long as it is not a married relationship. Marriage is the key thing.

I also have a problem with marriage. I do not believe marriage can ever be considered a same sex relationship because marriage implies the rights of adoption. I would never ever take away the rights of children in order to satisfy the rights of adults. Until evidence is to the contrary, and I do not think it will ever occur, I think all things being equal there is not doubt that heterosexual partners make more appropriate parents than do same sex partners. So we cannot detract from the rights of children.

All in all, the bill at least finally addresses what we on this side of the House, and I think many across the country, have been clamouring for, to take away the initiative of the courts that were poised to define marriage and spouse as same sex relationships which would be entirely inappropriate. I will support the bill on that basis.

Having said that, what I want the members opposite to realize is that many on this side fought very hard behind the scenes to have the bill take the whole sexual component out entirely and to address dependent partnerships. There is no question about what is ultimately fair here. We should not be talking about sex at all, any kind of sex. What we should be talking about is the relationships that occur between human beings. They may be of the same sex. They may be of the opposite sex. They may be a sister and sister or a brother and brother. They may be any kind of combination where after a while they have lived together and they have become emotionally dependent on one another. It is not just material dependency. It is that real emotional dependency that can occur in families.

In the case of the Citizenship Act, what I wanted to see there was a dependent partnership relationship occur where someone could adopt a child when he or she were serving overseas and have that child be treated as a dependent in a dependent relationship for the purposes of the Citizenship Act. However, we did not achieve that. Unfortunately, the government has said—and I have to accept it—that there are aspects of the dependent partner concept that it has not fully examined.

It is certainly true. We must be careful about plunging ahead with something that is really novel just in case we create problems for people to whom we had not intended. The justice minister has said—I do not know whether she has said it in the House but she has certainly said it on the side—that she is prepared to study this issue of dependent partners forthwith.

We have a bill that addresses a current problem, gets the court out of parliaments, settles the legitimate concerns of people who have same sex relationships and who have been denied the equivalent benefits and other opportunities of heterosexual people living outside marriage. We have solved that problem with this legislation.

However, this is only a beginning. It is an important beginning. What I like about it is that it is a beginning that actually began in this place, in this parliament, in a committee, at least for me, but I really do believe it is a beginning that began here among these MPs and the government has taken action. In that sense, I think the government should be congratulated.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech. I understand that he supports the bill, but that he would have appreciated a number of clarifications.

This bill does not and cannot concern marriage. Some members of the Bloc Quebecois and other parties find it regrettable, but it was the supreme court which asked the legislator to recognize homosexual relationships as conjugal relationships. This ruling was made in the M. v H. case, on May 20, 1999.

I want to ask the hon. member if he agrees with me that what is at issue now is the recognition of same sex spouses.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I actually think the bill is quite clear. As long as we keep before us the idea that something that exists in common law is a common law relationship because it is not marriage. In syntax and in grammatical sense, if it is common law it means that it is not marriage. Whether the common law relationship is same sex or heterosexual it does not matter. The final answer is that if it is common law it is not marriage. In fact, we may put it in another way. The bill creates a condition where if you are living in sin and getting benefits, it does not matter how you are living in sin.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. member who just spoke. He is one of those members on the opposite side of the House who actually makes sense every once in a while. I think that is very complimentary.

On the other hand, the hon. member seems to be very happy with the progress that has been made. He then goes on to say “I'm going to support this bill simply because there is a little bit of progress here”. The government has made a little bit of progress, but with that progress it may be creating all kinds of other problems that it has not anticipated.

The member does a compromise but has not studied the full problem, so now what is he creating? Does he know what he has? It seems to me that the hon. member should very carefully re-examine his position because it made such eminently good sense and then all of a sudden he said “I'm going to support this because we got something”. It is not enough.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the pressure was coming from the courts. Parliament simply had to act. I do not know about the members on the opposite side, but many of us on this side were getting very, very panicky because the supreme court and other levels of courts were more and more interfering or directing the definition of spouse, and not so much the definition of marriage. They were more and more inclining toward defining spouse as a same sex relationship.

What this bill does is that it cuts supreme court off at the pass. It stops the courts from defining a spouse or marriage in a way that the vast majority of Canadians would find unacceptable. However it is true that the bill does not go far enough. The reason it does not fully explore the idea of dependent partnerships—and I have to take the minister at her word—is that she feels there are implications to dependent partnerships that may have adverse consequences.

On the one hand we solve a problem that is current, which is what we should doing. We should fix the problem that is current, but as far as I am concerned this is only a interim fix. The real answer will be when we can extend this kind of thing to all dependent relationships and take sex out of it.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I quite enjoyed the speech of the hon. member on the other side. I agreed with most of it. There are a couple of problems. The things I do not agree with are not part of the bill. We seem to be spending an awful lot of time talking about marriage and spouse. There is not a mention anywhere in the bill of these two words, yet the debate has continuously revolved around those words.

I agree with the member that it is up to the House to define marriage and spouse. That is what we should have done, but I am afraid it will have to be done in another bill. Does the hon. member agree that we spent an awful lot of time on this bill debating the wrong thing?

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the reason why we are not debating spouse is because one of the things this bill does is take the word spouse out the various acts and legislation it affects and replaces the word spouse with common law partner. Spouse is very much a part of this legislation because it takes the word spouse out of all kinds of other laws.

No, I do not think we are debating the wrong thing. I have to go back to my original point. The only thing to me that is really missing in this legislation that I would have liked to see is changing the word conjugal to sexual. Let us be upfront about it. Let us put the proper definition of marriage in the bill and satisfy everyone's fears.