Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the chance to speak on this bill again. I have been listening with some interest to comments from the other side of the House about how this legislation is going to undermine marriage and families. Mr. Speaker, if you tried to book a church or a hotel in this city or in any city across Canada for a wedding in less than a year, I think you would know that the institution of marriage is alive and well and thriving in Canada.
Members opposite have made the argument that only people married should be entitled to benefits and that the purpose of benefits, pension plans, health plans and so on is to assist in supporting a family with children. I think that proposition would lead most people who contribute to benefits ineligible for those benefits. It would exclude any family, like mine, that has already had their children and no longer able to have children. It would exclude any married couple that does not wish to have children, does not plan to have children or is unable to have children. It would exclude anyone who does not fit the very narrow definition of the traditional family, that does not represent the majority of families in this country.
During the debate members opposite have stated that Bill C-23 is further evidence of this government's anti-family agenda. This kind of hyperbole may make good sound bytes and good headlines, but it does not make a lot of common sense.
Let us look at the provisions of Bill C-23. A member opposite made a reference this morning to “good families”. This member's definition of a good family is a mother and father who are married and have children. Everyone else is excluded from what is a family.
I ask the hon. member, what about lone parent families? What about couples without children, families where the parents are common law partners, either opposite sex or same sex? Are these bad families by inference? I do not think so. I think most of them have the same commitments as those who happen to be married, to look after each other, to share with each other and to contribute to their community.
The government recognizes that there are many types of families in this country. This government's agenda supports families and does not make distinctions between what is a good or a bad family.
A significant number of the provisions of Bill C-23 have been drafted to allow common law partners, either same sex or opposite sex, to name each other as beneficiaries in their pension plans, pension plans I remind the members opposite, which they contribute to either as employees or as taxpayers. These provisions in Bill C-23 do not take away existing benefits from other couples from what would fit the opposition's definition of a good family. They will not take away pension provisions for children. In fact, these amendments will provide additional protection for children whose parents are in common law relationships.
Bill C-23 will encourage common law couples, both opposite sex and same sex, to plan for the financial future of their partners, reducing the burden on the state when people are left destitute. How can encouraging people in committed, caring relationships to look after each other be a threat to the family?
How is Bill C-23 anti-family when it repeals the last few remaining references in federal law to illegitimate children? What a horrendous reference. I give great credit to my colleague from Ottawa Centre for introducing a private members' bill on this subject, to remove that horrible term from all federal legislation. It is finally done in Bill C-23. It has finally put every child on the same footing in this society.
I do not see how Bill C-23 can be anti-family when it amends a provision in the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal Act that will allow common law partners to be included in the list of next of kin who may receive a medal on behalf of a partner who is awarded a medal posthumously. How is amending that provision anti-family?
How is Bill C-23 anti-family when it removes from the Bills of Exchange Act antiquated reference to “his wife, his clerk or his servant” or the obsolete reference to the “father, son or brother of a master” which currently appears in the section from the Trade Unions Act which is being repealed in this bill?
How is Bill C-23 anti-family by amending the Bridges Act to clarify that common law partners may also be included in the list of persons who can establish a claim in the event of an injury or death of a partner on a bridge? How is it anti-family when it amends the Carriage By Air Act by adding common law partners to the list of persons who can sue an air carrier for damages when there is a death of a passenger?
These are only a few of the examples of the provisions in Bill C-23. Where is the threat to Canadian society when we encourage people in this legislation to have a mutual relationship of care and interdependence? I think that strengthens society.
The bill does not take away from society or families; rather it encourages people to look after each other by extending both benefits and obligations. It is about fairness and tolerance. Anybody who thinks this bill is anti-family either has not read the legislation or chooses to misunderstand and misrepresent it.
During the course of this debate we have heard comments that are both hurtful and hateful. I regret that very much because I do not think those kinds of comments toward anybody who is not married represent the views of most Canadians or of most members of the House of Commons.
We have before us legislation that further extends fairness and equality of treatment in our society. That is an advance for society and for families. It is not a retrograde step.