House of Commons Hansard #82 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was family.

Topics

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-23 has been used as a proxy for a much broader discussion around the area of sexual orientation. It is useful to have the discussion, but I think it is also useful to put it into context.

In much of the discussion today many members have talked about intolerance, saying that if one is opposed to the bill then one must be intolerant. I do not believe that would be a very fair characterization of the position of members who try to argue for something rather than against something. There is a difference.

Discrimination is not exclusively a negative concept. There are positive or affirmative discriminations within our society. In fact policy by its very nature is discriminatory because we do not treat everybody the same.

We discriminate in favour of seniors so that when they reach age 65 they can qualify for old age security. That is discrimination on the basis of age. We discriminate in favour of the disabled. We understand there are people in our society who have needs that as our value system dictates, we want to provide the assistance they will need to care for them and their family members. We discriminate in favour of aboriginals. We have special programs to assist aboriginals.

We could talk a lot about the needs of various groups within our society. All of these discriminatory practices within policy in fact reflect the values and the consensus of the views of Canadians. It is a value system. Although talking about values in our society seems to be politically incorrect these days, the fact remains that we do have a value system and we do have standards and guidelines that ensure when we make policy in this place and around the country that we are dealing with the lives of Canadians in all walks of life.

Back in the 35th Parliament Bill C-33 came forward. Bill C-33 included sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination in the human rights code. The then commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Mr. Max Yalden, made public statements that if one were to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination that it was logical. Of course members know that discussion had to do with issues such as discrimination vis-à-vis employment, housing and access to services. Those were the negative discriminations with which I believe all Canadians would agree. I think all Canadians agree that people should not be discriminated against with regard to housing, employment and access to services regardless of their value system.

In Bill C-23 we are no longer just talking about the negative discriminations. Now we are talking about the affirmative discriminations. One group does not get the same as another group and there are these linkages. Now the pendulum is swinging. We have taken care of the negative discriminations. Now we are saying that we are that good and that equal that now we have to do this.

The supreme court dealt with it. There was a series of cases. There was Egan and Nesbit with regard to pension entitlements. The court said yes, it is discrimination but the value system of Canadians was that it would be permitted discrimination. I think that was the language the court used.

There is now M and H, a case that came through the supreme court. It said we have to recognize that people have other relationships. M and H had to do with whether one same sex partner had to pay support payments to the partner whom they broke up with. All of a sudden this whole thing started to creep from negative discrimination through equity and fairness and then “I want a piece of the pie too”. That is how the pendulum has swung.

I understand why there is so much discussion here. The die was set early in the 35th parliament as to the direction we were going. Max Yalden said if we put sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination, this is the logical extension of that move. Parliament made that step.

I am not so sure that it is the supreme court which is telling parliament what to do. I think the decisions of parliamentarians over the years in dealing with items that came to parliamentarians have been acted upon by the courts because parliament did not do its job.

I do not believe parliament did its job with regard to this issue. We should have consulted with our constituents. We should have raised legislation. We should have dealt with this if we felt strongly enough but we did not as a parliament. The courts did it as a result of that ruling.

Bill C-23 responds to the court decision. I believe it responds accurately to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

When people talk about intolerance, it is not a fair label. It is something from a broader discussion that people have been talking about that we find difficult to discuss and talk openly about.

Canadians should appreciate that about 3% of the population of Canada are homosexual persons. It is quite a small number. Based on the numbers from the corporations that provide benefits and so on and what justice officials told me earlier today, about 1.6% of same sex couples actually will ever qualify for benefits under the bill. The reason is that relationships must last for at least one year for them to qualify for any benefits.

That is why, as members have said quite often in the debate, there is very little cost associated with it. There are two reasons. One is that there are so very few couples that will ever qualify for this. The other is that many of our benefits, like the GST credit, are going to be based on partner income rather than individual income and in fact same sex partners in a relationship will last longer.

This bill actually is ultimately about marriage because we are going to deal with it eventually. Canadians will know that society exists and sustains itself because of the family. It is a very difficult issue for a lot of members to deal with. I believe in the traditional family. I believe that couples who raise families, who raise healthy, well adjusted children are to be put on a pedestal.

Many of the members here who are arguing against Bill C-23 are actually arguing in favour of the family. Should we not discriminate in favour of the family? Should we not hold that traditional family on a pedestal and say that it is doing exactly what is necessary for our society to continue to thrive and to grow? Should we not discriminate in favour of that family and give it more benefits?

We do have discrimination in our policy now. I gave many examples. Can we not continue to discriminate in favour of the traditional family with children? I believe we can. Canadians ought to tell parliamentarians that they believe in the family, that they believe marriage as is in this bill, which is the lawful union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others and it reflects the value system of Canadians.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

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

The question is on Motion No. 117. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The recorded division on Motion No. 117 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 118 to 133.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

6:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The first question is on Motion No. 1.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 1266Government Orders

6:40 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to indicate that I voted in favour. I just thought we were voting a second time.

Division No. 1266Government Orders

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Lawrence O'Brien Liberal Labrador, NL

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to have my vote recorded as no on the vote just taken.

Division No. 1266Government Orders

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Parrish Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as an abstention on the last vote.

Division No. 1266Government Orders

6:45 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare Motion No. 1 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 3.

Division No. 1266Government Orders

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you would find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion now before the House.

Division No. 1266Government Orders

6:45 p.m.

The Speaker

Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?

Division No. 1266Government Orders

6:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 1267Government Orders

6:45 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare Motion No. 3 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Division No. 1267Government Orders

6:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Division No. 1267Government Orders

6:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Division No. 1267Government Orders

6:45 p.m.

The Speaker

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Division No. 1267Government Orders

6:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Division No. 1267Government Orders

6:45 p.m.

The Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Division No. 1267Government Orders

6:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.