Debates of April 3rd, 2000

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 21 on page 10 the following new clause:

“27.1 Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage.”

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 21 on page 10 the following new clause:

“27.1 Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 36 on page 10 the following new clause:

“28.1 Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage.”

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 36 on page 10 the following new clause:

“28.1 Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 11 the following new clause:

“29.1 Subsection 100(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage.”

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 11 the following new clause:

“29.1 Subsection 100(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-23, in Clause 30, be amended by adding after line 23 on page 11 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-23, in Clause 30, be amended by adding after line 23 on page 11 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage.”

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-23, in Clause 40, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 14 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-23, in Clause 40, be amended by adding after line 3 on page 14 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage.”

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-23, in Clause 42, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 3 on page 16 with the following:

“42. (1) The definition “spouse” in subsection 2(1) of the Canada Pension Plan is replaced by the following:

“spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage.”

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-23, in Clause 42, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 16 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-23, in Clause 66, be amended by adding after line 32 on page 37 the following:

“(4) For the purposes of this Act, “spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage.”

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-23, in Clause 66, be amended by adding after line 32 on page 37 the following:

“(4) For the purposes of this Act, “marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-23, in Clause 72, be amended a ) by replacing line 18 on page 39 with the following:

“12. (1) In subsections 10(1) and 11(1), “com-” b ) by adding after line 22 on page 39 the following:

“(2) For the purposes of this Act, “spouse” means either a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage, which is the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-23, in Clause 72, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 39 the following:

“(2) For the purposes of this Act, “spouse” means either a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage, which is the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-23, in Clause 73, be amended by adding after line 39 on page 39 the following:

“In this paragraph, “marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-23, in Clause 73, be amended by adding after line 39 on page 39 the following:

“In this paragraph, “spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage.”

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-23, in Clause 74, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 40 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-23, in Clause 74, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 40 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage.”

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-23, in Clause 77, be amended by adding after line 28 on page 40 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-23, in Clause 77, be amended by adding after line 28 on page 40 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage.”

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-23, in Clause 78, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 41 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage.”

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-23, in Clause 78, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 41 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-23, in Clause 84, be amended by adding after line 11 on page 43 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage;”

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-23, in Clause 84, be amended by adding after line 11 on page 43 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-23, in Clause 87, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 44 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 39 on page 44 the following new clause:

“88.1 Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage;”

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 39 on page 44 the following new clause:

“88.1 Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-23, in Clause 89, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 45 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-23, in Clause 89, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 45 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage;”

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-23, in Clause 91, be amended by adding after line 43 on page 45 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-23, in Clause 91, be amended by adding after line 43 on page 45 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage;”

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 34 on page 46 the following new clause:

“96.1 Subsection 45(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-23, in Clause 99, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 48 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-23, in Clause 99, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 48 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage;”

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-23, in Clause 106, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 54 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-23, in Clause 106, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 54 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage;”

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-23, in Clause 111, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 56 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-23, in Clause 111, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 56 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage;”

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-23, in Clause 116, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 57 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-23, in Clause 116, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 57 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage;”

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-23, in Clause 122, be amended by adding after line 32 on page 58 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage;”

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-23, in Clause 122, be amended by adding after line 32 on page 58 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-23, in Clause 124, be amended by adding after line 30 on page 59 the following:

“(1.2) In subsection (1), “spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage, which is the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-23, in Clause 125, be amended by replacing line 4 on page 60 with the following:

“employee's child, and”

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-23, in Clause 125, be amended by adding after line 4 on page 60 the following: c ) the spouse of the employee.”

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-23, in Clause 125, be amended by adding after line 4 on page 60 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-23, in Clause 125, be amended by adding after line 4 on page 60 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage;”

Motion No. 90

That Bill C-23, in Clause 127, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 60 the following:

“4.3 For the purposes of this Act, “marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

Motion No. 94

That Bill C-23, in Clause 139, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 67 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-23, in Clause 139, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 67 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage;”

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-23, in Clause 147, be amended by adding after line 34 on page 68 the following:

“(1.1) Subsection 20(1.1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (1.11):

(1.12) For the purposes of subsection (1.1), “spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage, which is the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

Motion No. 98

That Bill C-23, in Clause 148, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 69 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 99

That Bill C-23, in Clause 148, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 69 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage;”

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-23, in Clause 153, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 70 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage;”

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-23, in Clause 153, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 70 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-23, in Clause 159, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 72 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 105

That Bill C-23, in Clause 159, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 72 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage.”

Motion No. 107

That Bill C-23, in Clause 170, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 76 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-23, in Clause 176, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 81 the following:

“(3) Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 109

That Bill C-23, in Clause 187, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 88 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 110

That Bill C-23, in Clause 187, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 88 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage.”

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 192.

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-23, in Clause 192, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 91 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage;”

Motion No. 116

That Bill C-23, in Clause 192, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 91 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 135

That Bill C-23, in Clause 210, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 100 the following:

“(3) For the purposes of this Act, “marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

Motion No. 137

That Bill C-23, in Clause 211, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 101 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage.”

Motion No. 138

That Bill C-23, in Clause 211, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 101 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

Motion No. 140

That Bill C-23, in Clause 243, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 116 with the following:

“plan, means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage, and includes a person who is a party to a”

Motion No. 142

That Bill C-23, in Clause 243, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 116 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 143

That Bill C-23, in Clause 243, be amended by replacing line 38 on page 116 with the following:

““époux” S'entend d'un homme ou d'une femme unis par les liens du mariage et de la personne”

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 144

That Bill C-23, in Clause 254, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 6 on page 120 with the following:

“254. (2) The definitions “joint and survivor”

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 146

That Bill C-23, in Clause 254, be amended by adding after line 33 on page 120 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 147

That Bill C-23, in Clause 254, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 120 with the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage and, in relation to an individual, in-”

Motion No. 148

That Bill C-23, in Clause 266, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 126 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

Motion No. 149

That Bill C-23, in Clause 266, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 126 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage.”

Motion No. 153

That Bill C-23, in Clause 286, be amended by adding after line 29 on page 131 the following:

“(3.1) For the purposes of this Act, “marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

Motion No. 154

That Bill C-23, in Clause 288, be amended by adding after line 43 on page 132 the following:

“(4) For the purposes of this Act, “marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

Motion No. 155

That Bill C-23, in Clause 288, be amended by adding after line 43 on page 132 the following:

“(4) For the purposes of this Act, “spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage.”

Motion No. 156

That Bill C-23, in Clause 291, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 133 the following: a .1) For the purposes of this Act, “marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 157

That Bill C-23, in Clause 295, be amended by adding after line 32 on page 134 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 158

That Bill C-23, in Clause 295, be amended by adding after line 32 on page 134 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage;”

Motion No. 160

That Bill C-23, in Clause 298, be amended by adding after line 38 on page 135 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 161

That Bill C-23, in Clause 298, be amended by adding after line 38 on page 135 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage;”

Motion No. 163

That Bill C-23, in Clause 303, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 137 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 164

That Bill C-23, in Clause 303, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 137 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage;”

Motion No. 166

That Bill C-23, in Clause 311, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 139 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage;”

Motion No. 167

That Bill C-23, in Clause 311, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 139 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others;”

Motion No. 168

That Bill C-23, in Clause 315, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 141 the following:

“(3) For the purposes of this Act, “marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

Motion No. 169

That Bill C-23, in Clause 315, be amended by adding after line 12 on page 141 the following:

“(3) For the purposes of this Act, “spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage.”

Motion No. 171

That Bill C-23, in Clause 317, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 143 the following:

““spouse” means either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage.”

Motion No. 172

That Bill C-23, in Clause 317, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 143 the following:

““marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise at this time to speak to Motions Nos. 1 and 3 which are in my name on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and to speak in opposition to the remaining motions in Group No. 1.

When I rose at second reading on Bill C-23, the bill which is now before the House at report stage, it was to congratulate the government on recognition of the committed loving relationships of gay and lesbian people and to congratulate the government on recognizing that instead of fighting statute by statute in the courts it would do the right thing and extend equal benefits and equal obligations to gay and lesbian people involved in relationships.

I noted at the time that while the bill extended significant equality there were still some remaining steps on the road to full equality, that the provisions of the immigration law and regulations must be clarified to recognize gay and lesbian relationships. I pointed out as well at that time that the federal common law which denies the right for gay and lesbian people to marry is still clearly in my view discriminatory.

The minister spoke shortly before me at second reading. She spoke eloquently about the importance of equality and, with equal passion, she made it clear that Bill C-23 had nothing whatsoever to do with marriage or the definition of marriage.

That same minister appeared before the justice committee at the first hearing of the justice committee on February 29 and she was clear and unequivocal. In response to a question from a member suggesting that perhaps there might be a definition of marriage included in the bill, the minister said “There is no need to put it in here because this does not deal with the institution of marriage. There is legislation, the Marriage Act, which deals with the institution of marriage, but this does not and I do not think it would serve society well to confuse the two in this legislation”.

What we have seen is a shameful collapse by the Minister of Justice to the pressure of her own backbenchers, the so-called family caucus in the Liberal Party, which some have called the dinosaur wing of the Liberal caucus, working in coalition, in this unholy alliance, cette coalition incroyable, between the Reform Party on the one hand and the Liberal Party on the other.

It is no surprise that many of the Liberals who have spoken out against the bill are the same Liberals who spoke out against equality in the Canadian Human Rights Act. I see the member for Scarborough Centre here. He has been very clear. He does not believe in equality. He voted against it in the human rights act and he is voting against this bill as well.

What we have seen is a response by the Liberal justice minister, a quite shameful and cowardly response by the justice minister, to a campaign of fear, of distortion, of lies by too many people in the public and those, in some cases, in the House.

I got a press release from the member for Yorkton—Melville. He said that Bill C-23 should be renamed the death of marriage act. This is from a Reform Party member. I am sorry, it is the Canadian Alliance now. They say they have changed, but I ask you, have they really changed when we hear this? Here is what the Canadian Alliance member had to say: “In the 1950s buggery was a criminal offence. Now it is a requirement to receive benefits from the federal government”.

That statement was made by the Canadian Alliance/Reform Party member. I suppose it is no surprise when one of the leading candidates for their leadership, Stockwell Day, talked last week about homosexuality as a choice. I guess that a person would pour milk on their breakfast cereal one morning and decide “Hey, I think I am going to be gay”. Or, “I think I am going to be straight”. That is a brilliant analysis by Stockwell Day, the same person who referred to homosexuality as a mental disorder. I guess we should not be surprised that this kind of amendment would come from the Reform Party.

What is absolutely shameful is that the Liberal members would support it, and not only support it but initiate that particular amendment, and that they would do this without any consultation whatsoever. The national lobby group ÉGALE, Égalité pour les gais et les lesbiennes, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, voiced their anger and concern that after they testified in good faith before the justice committee, relying on the representation of the minister that marriage was not an issue addressed by the bill, the repeated statements by the minister that this was not something we had to deal with, ÉGALE did not in any way respond to this campaign of fearmongering and homophobia. ÉGALE felt a sense of betrayal when the minister introduced this bill, as indeed I and other members felt. They said that in fact the proposed amendment before the committee fundamentally altered the tenor, purpose and potentially the constitutionality of the legislation.

What this amendment effectively does is to send a signal to gay and lesbian people that our relationships are inferior, that they are not as committed, not as loving and not as worthy of recognition in the eyes of the law as all other relationships. That, in my view, is a shameful concession to the forces in the Reform Party who have argued that point.

I want to make it very clear that there were some members of the Liberal Party who spoke out against this in committee. The member for St. Paul's spoke eloquently. It will be interesting to see how other Liberal members vote on this amendment, how the member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale, the member for Vancouver Centre and others will vote on this issue of fundamental equality.

I also wish to thank the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his support to the amendment. I know that one quarter of the Bloc Quebecois members have even voted against the principle of this bill, which is highly regrettable, but the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has supported the amendment.

Let us be clear what this is about. This is the first time in a federal statute that we are defining marriage in a way that would exclude gay and lesbian people from access to marriage.

The current definition of marriage is one that dates back to an 1866 decision of the British courts, back to a time when marriage had a very particular meaning. For example, in 1866 men were allowed to beat their wives as long as they used a stick that was no wider than their thumbs. That was the definition of marriage then.

Marriage was for life. We know that many argued that divorce would somehow be the end of marriage. We have heard since then other alleged threats to marriage, such as contraception. Interracial marriage was only struck down in the U.S. in 1967, and 19 states had laws on the books in 1967 barring interracial marriage.

I have to ask, what is the threat? Is marriage such a fragile institution that if we allow the choice, and I emphasize that, the choice of gay and lesbian people to marry, that somehow it will collapse like a house of cards? I do not think so.

I want to be very clear that I speak today on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party in support of access of gay and lesbian people to marriage. I believe that this amendment of the government will be found to be unconstitutional and in violation of the charter of rights and freedoms. Indeed, an eloquent dissenting judgment of Judge Greer in the case of Layland and Beaulne struck down the definition. The government did not make any meaningful attempt to defend it in committee.

The Canadian public in an Angus Reid poll in May of last year showed that a majority of the Canadian public support this recognition. The Netherlands is moving ahead.

I urge all members of the House to rise above intolerance and homophobia, to reject the campaign of fearmongering, to appeal particularly to Liberal members to do the right thing, to recognize the diversity of Canadian families, to recognize that our relationships as gay and lesbian people are just as loving and just as committed, and that we should have that choice. To deny us that choice is not only deeply offensive and demeaning, but I believe is unconstitutional as well.

For that reason I proposed an amendment to delete the definition of the government, or at the very least to delete the words after “marriage”, to ensure that that opportunity would be available for gay and lesbian people to marry.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address the House today, in particular with respect to the amendment which I have proposed, Motion No. 5.

However, I begin my remarks by noting in passing that the hon. member who spoke just before me began his remarks by trying to say that this bill has nothing to do with marriage, and then spent the next nine minutes of his speech telling the House why gays and lesbians should be able to marry. Clearly this bill has something to do with marriage. That of course is why people were concerned about the institution of marriage as they had always known it. That is why numerous witnesses appeared before the justice committee to express their concerns. That is why thousands of people have contacted their members of parliament to express their concerns.

What has the government done in response to that? It has addressed the concerns of the people who have contacted the House of Commons. It has done so, I would say, a bit late, but better late than never.

What has the government done? It has not done anything radical. It has not done anything unusual. It has simply restated what most people in this country know to be the definition of marriage. It has restated it in clause 1.1 of the bill, which is worth referring to. It reads:

For greater certainty, the amendments made by this Act do not affect the meaning of the word “marriage”, that is, the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

That is exactly what marriage is and that is what I would argue marriage should remain. I believe I speak for the vast majority of my constituents when I make that statement.

My amendment is a very specific amendment. It states that wherever the word “marriage” appears in Bill C-23, immediately after that word the definition of marriage should be placed in parenthesis, namely, “the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”.

Why have I brought this amendment in view of clause 1.1 moved by the government in committee? I guess we are talking technicalities. This is the way I view it. Bill C-23 is an omnibus bill. The sole purpose of the bill is to amend 68 statutes of the Government of Canada.

Once Bill C-23 becomes law, as I am certain it will, the 68 statutes that it seeks to amend will be amended. In effect, therefore, the function of Bill C-23 will have been completed. All of the parts of Bill C-23 deal with other acts. They command that those other acts be amended. Once Bill C-23 becomes law, all of the sections which command that other sections of other acts be changed will be changed.

In effect, Bill C-23 will have served its purpose and will be legally spent, except for clause 1.1, which will remain all by itself, in what I term a ghost law; a law with only one section, having completed its task. That ghost law will remain a law but will soon be forgotten. It will not be reproduced in the revised statutes of Canada. It will not be before parliamentarians on a daily basis. It will not be before adjudicators, administrators, functionaries, bureaucrats and, most importantly, it will not be before judges on a daily basis.

However, if we add the definition that is in clause 1.1 as a parenthetical definition after the word “marriage” wherever it appears in Bill C-23, then as Bill C-23 amends each of these acts that definition will be carried into each of those acts, so that judges, administrators and parliamentarians, when they are dealing with specific sections of a pension bill, the Income Tax Act, the Judges Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, or whichever act it is of the 68 statutes involved, that definition would be front and centre before these people who are dealing with these acts on a daily basis. Otherwise, it would be out of sight, out of mind.

My amendment adds the exact words from clause 1.1 as a definition after the word marriage in each and every place where it appears in Bill C-23. It does nothing more.

I noticed the member who spoke before me used his familiar tactic, in that he attempted to demonize those who disagree with him. He used his usual pejorative words such as “dinosaurs” and “unholy alliance”. This is a favourite tactic of those who have no real argument; it is not to attack the argument but to attack the person making the argument.

I cannot say it any better than Hartley Steward who wrote a column in the Sun on Sunday, April 2. I would like to read his take on this kind of attempt to demonize those who disagree with the legitimization of same sex marriage:

The shame is threefold.

First, in this fashion, extremists steal from all Canadians the agenda of political campaigns and make impossible a thoughtful and useful discussion of a broad range of issues. In their mindless way they take from us the ability to address the issues, like health care, which need our attention.

Indeed, they make it impossible for us to enjoy the practice of democracy.

This is not an accident. It is by design. It is vital for them to make primary only issues on their agenda and to attach despicable motives to those who hold honest beliefs on the side opposite theirs. It is a victory for their side if they can demonize those who hold different views; if they can characterize them as bigots, tyrants and dangerous people.

Then they need not debate the issues. Listen to the juvenile chants and you will realize how futile it would be for them to engage in debate with people who can actually think in sentences and employ logic in their arguments.

Homosexuality and how a society can and should deal with it is a debatable issue. Homosexuality itself, its cause and effect, is still a debatable issue. It has been since the time of Socrates. It is not good enough, nor does it serve society well, to demonize anyone who asks a question or holds a contrary view.

But if you can demonize someone, convince the world he asks the question because he is an evil person, why the argument is won.

To chant, red-faced and hysterically, “anti-choice” at someone who is against abortion is again the tactic of those who care nothing for democracy, and would frustrate it in a moment to gain their ends.

That is what we see when people do not like to hear the kinds of comments for example that I am making. I allow that in a democracy everybody has the right to make the comments that they wish to make without having to be called names. It is ultimately up to the people of Canada in the House and through elections to decide what direction they want their country to take. Enough of this name calling. Let us just deal with the issues.

For my part, I advised the government that in my view the best way to have approached the protection of marriage as we have always known it was to amend the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act. Unfortunately that advice was not followed. Rather we have this unfortunate way of introducing it as an afterthought in Bill C-23, but as I say, better late than never.

I ask the House to support my amendment which is that the definition of marriage be carried as a definition wherever marriage appears in Bill C-23. That definition is the common law of Canada. It is the position of the Government of Canada. It is the position of the House of Commons as decided on June 8, 1999. It is the position of Bill C-23. For those reasons, I ask that my amendment receive favourable support.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what does Bill C-23 do? Bill C-23 gives every benefit previously reserved for married couples to any two people, opposite or same sex, who live together for one year in a conjugal relationship.

The bill does not define conjugal relationship anywhere, so it leaves that wide open. I will not focus on that too much today but it is one of our concerns.

I want to go on to point out that the bill came into being by the Department of Justice bureaucrats who worked on the bill. They informed us that they searched all the federal statutes for the terms “marriage” and/or “spouse” and inserted a new definition for the term “common law partner” so that two people of the same sex would be considered the same as married as far as public policy goes.

I did ask the justice minister in committee if there was any difference in the treatment of married and same sex couples in Bill C-23. She did mention one, that married couples still have to get divorced. I do not know what people in same sex relationships do. Perhaps they walk out the door when it is over. It is not clear from the bill.

Bill C-23 also redefined in statute “related persons” in clause 9. It redefined family in clause 134. It redefined it from those connected by blood, marriage or adoption to a new definition which includes two people of the same gender in a same sex or homosexual lifestyle.

Public pressure against the bill has been enormous. Some members of all parties have received more e-mails, faxes, letters and phone calls on this issue than on any other issue this session. People from coast to coast overwhelmingly do not want the bill to go ahead. Petitions against the bill are coming into my office at a rate of almost 1,000 signatures a day.

It is also ironic that 10 short months ago the Liberal government voted in support of a Canadian Alliance motion to ensure that parliament “take all necessary steps to preserve the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. Now the Liberals have brought forward Bill C-23 as their first priority, which gives every marriage and family benefit to two people of the same gender in something called a conjugal relationship.

With Bill C-23 the Liberals have removed any unique public policy recognition of the institution of marriage and have set the stage for the courts to endorse homosexual marriage in Canada. It is no wonder that the people of Canada are reacting. The Liberals said they would strengthen the definition of marriage in law and that they would make it their first priority. They said that but they have done just the opposite.

Because of the high public pressure the justice minister was under, she fought her bureaucrats and had an amendment included at the very beginning of the bill, right after the title, that is meant to reassure Canadians that the bill will not affect the meaning of the word “marriage”. Do not be deceived. The justice minister's amendment will not appear in a single one of the 68 statutes that Bill C-23 is changing. It will not appear in Canadian law.

After reviewing the wording of the justice minister's amendment in clause 1.1 of Bill C-23 and the location of it in the bill, a legal analysis was done by David M. Brown, an experienced charter lawyer from one of the largest legal firms in Canada. In the lengthy analysis, the leading Canadian text on statutory interpretation, Driedger on the Construction of Statutes , was extensively referred to. Some previous case law was also considered.

The conclusion of this professional, legal analysis from a prestigious and respected law firm in Toronto was as follows:

[The justice minister's amendment] is not an enacting provision of the bill; it does not operate to amend any of the particular acts referred to in the bill by including a definition of the word “marriage”. Passage of a version of Bill C-23 which includes [the minister's amendment] will not result, as a matter of law, in any of the specific bills containing a definition of “marriage”.

Parliament took a position 10 months ago in support of a motion by the Canadian Alliance to take all necessary steps to secure the definition of marriage in law. That is why we have moved amendments to each of the 68 statutes to include a definition of marriage and spouse in each of the statutes. By including an enacting definition in the laws of Canada it would, in the words of expert legal opinion, make a difference that would mean that if the bill was amended to enact a definition of marriage for each of the particular acts referred to in the bill, then parliament would be giving a clear indication of its intentions to the courts and the public at large.

That is what parliament resoundingly said it would do in June 1999. That is what the public wants us to do. For goodness' sake, why is the Liberal government not doing it?

Bill C-23 repeatedly places in statute the definition of common law partner to include those involved in a homosexual lifestyle. If these definitions can be repeated throughout the statutes, is it not reasonable to have a marriage definition also defined in the statutes? That is exactly what our amendments call for.

If the purpose of the justice minister's amendment is to give “greater certainty” that marriage is a lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, why leave it outside the affected statutes and laws? Why not make it certain and support the Canadian Alliance amendments that put the definition of marriage in the statutes of Canada?

The Liberals' approach of leaving marriage outside of the same sex benefits bill is misleading. It does not really achieve anything. It is misleading because it gives the impression that the one man and one woman definition of marriage has been secured when in fact it has not been, not by parliament.

I will quote again from this leading legal expert:

If parliament intends to state that, as a matter of federal law, “marriage” is the “lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”, then in my opinion, [the minister's amendment] does not achieve that objective. As previously stated, [the minister's amendment] is not an enacting section; it will not bring into force any legally binding definition of “marriage”.

By contrast, if the bill was amended to enact a definition of marriage for each of the particular acts referred to in the bill, then parliament would be giving a clear indication of its intentions to whom? To the courts and to the public at large. The public have been making us very aware that they are concerned about this issue.

Marriage means something to Canadians and that is why we have brought this forward. Canadians know that marriage is good for kids. It works for families. Government policy should serve to strengthen it instead of undermining it like Bill C-23 does. To my hon. colleagues in the House who supported a motion that they voted for in June 1999 to secure and strengthen the definition of marriage, do not vote against marriage now. Support the Canadian Alliance amendments that state clearly in law what marriage is and in fact should remain.

In committee the justice minister told us that initially this bill had nothing to do with marriage, but it is clear from her amendment that it does affect marriage. It gives every single benefit that is currently available for married couples and families to people of the same gender in what is called a conjugal relationship. That is the second part of our concern about the bill. Nowhere in the bill does the government define who qualifies. It simply says a conjugal relationship.

People are wondering if this bill goes ahead whether or not they are able to participate in what the bill offers. It is irresponsible for the House to pass legislation that is unclear and defers to the courts to make assessments as to who and who does not qualify.

We have asked repeatedly is private physical intimacy between two adults contingent upon qualifying for these benefits? A conjugal relationship implies that. The term implies that there must be some sort of marriage-like sexual activity going on between two people. That is what the dictionary says. We have asked whether that is part of what Bill C-23 requires. We cannot get an answer. This is unclear. It is the second problem we have with the bill.

I appeal to members opposite to support the amendments that make it clear in law for all Canadians that marriage will remain the union of one man and one woman regardless of what may come down from the courts and respect the will of the Canadian people.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to take part in this debate at report stage. I want to point out that this is a bill that I am very happy to support. As the member for Québec knows, my conviction is all the greater for having introduced private member's bills proposing the same debate myself on four occasions since 1994, as is our prerogative.

I believe that report stage should make possible a number of clarifications. The first thing that needs to be clarified is that this bill has nothing to do with marriage, contrary to what members of the Canadian Alliance would have us think. Even the minister, in her evidence before the parliamentary committee when we began consideration of Bill C-23, started out by saying that the bill has nothing to do with marriage.

I will have an opportunity to come back to this during my speech, particularly at third reading, but this is a bill the purpose of which is to do something about the inequities and discrimination faced by members of the gay community, gays and lesbians, in recent years.

An examination of the bill reveals that it contains hundreds of clauses and concerns 68 statutes. That is a lot. In the history of parliament, few bills have had the effect of amending 68 laws applying to various departments at one go.

What does this bill propose? First, it is in line with decisions made by the courts. I think our colleagues in the Canadian Alliance have a bit of a hard time understanding that.

We have a parliamentary system that distinguishes between the executive, judicial and legislative powers. Nevertheless, all are subject to the Canadian charter of human rights. Despite the battle waged at the time by the young member for Burnaby—Douglas to have sexual orientation included in section 15 as a prohibited ground for discrimination, it was not.

The lawmakers did not listen to the member for Burnaby—Douglas, it will be recalled. That is why a number of people had no choice but to turn to the courts.

Along the way, the supreme court handed down decisions providing that we should consider that section 15 provided specific reference to sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination, but it was not enough to afford full recognition to gays and lesbians.

A coalition was formed at the initiative of the group known as EGALE. It made representations and took the matter of the discriminatory nature of the failure to recognize same sex partners to the various courts of justice. The bill before us, presented by the Minister of Justice, will rectify the situation.

It is hard to imagine the impact of this bill on all aspects of life. It affects employment insurance. The law provides that when one partner in a heterosexual relationship moves the other partner may follow without penalty and without disqualification from receiving employment insurance benefits.

The bill deals, of course, with income tax. It continues the harmonization process undertaken last year, following the Rosenberg case. Members will remember that the court of appeal forced the Minister of Finance to amend the Income Tax Act, because it was discriminatory.

This bill also amends a very important tool, namely the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code defines a number of guarantees that must exist in a common law partnership or in a marriage concerning the provision of essential goods.

Again, Bill C-23 amends 68 different statutes, it concerns 20 departments and it confirms a recognition that parliament should have granted many years ago. Ten years went by between the time the first piece of legislation recognizing same sex spouses was passed and the bill now before us.

There is a problem in how Canadian Alliance members approach this debate. That problem is primarily due to their sterile stubbornness, their narrow-mindedness in that, for the Canadian Alliance, the homosexual reality undermines the family reality.

There can never be too many of us to explain to Canadian Alliance members that the homosexual reality does not in any way undermine the family reality, since we do not choose to become homosexuals. One simply discovers that one is a homosexual and the choice then becomes to either accept it or not. But once a person has discovered and accepted the fact that he or she is a homosexual, there is no reason to say that homosexuals are not part of families, that they cannot build families, or that they cannot enjoy the full protection provided by the legislation as a whole.

Incidentally, this bill has nothing at all to do with marriage. Why? First, because the definition of marriage is not enshrined in an act. The definition of marriage is to be found in the common law, in the rulings made by the courts. What exists regarding marriage are provisions on accepted or prohibited degrees, provisions which specify that this person cannot marry that person, because of the blood relationship that exists between them.

Let us be clear, the bill we have before us not only has nothing to do with marriage, it also has nothing to do with adoption. Why is that? Because adoption does not come under federal jurisdiction, it is provincial. To give the example of my province of birth, the Civil Code sets out the procedures for adoption.

Moreover, in civil law there is no obstacle to adoptions by homosexuals. The only obstacle is that if someone is in a couple relationship, and his or her partner adopts a child, the partner living with the adopting parent will not have parental status, in the eyes of the law, because adoption is on an individual basis.

Let us look briefly at the reality of a conjugal relationship. The bill we have before us today is an omnibus bill. It arises out of the supreme court judgment in M. vs. H, which dates back to May 20, 1999, as hon. members will recall.

As it has been indicated to me that I do not have much time left, I will conclude by saying three things to my colleagues. I trust that, when the bill is voted on at third reading, all hon. members will rise and this bill will be passed as close to unanimously as possible. This is a bill of reparation, a bill that consecrates a fundamental value of our system, namely the equality of all individuals.

It is impossible to make reference in the wording of legislation to individual equality, on the one hand, while continuing, on the other, to call for consistent discrimination by not recognizing same sex partners.

I have strong hopes that parliamentarians will understand that this bill has nothing to do with marriage, but with equality of treatment, and that many of us will support the government in this excellent initiative.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-23 extends to common law, same sex relationships, the same benefits and obligations already granted to common law, opposite sex relationships under federal law.

The bill also extends to common law partners some of the remaining obligations and a few remaining benefits of more limited applications currently limited to married couples.

The debate so far this afternoon has dealt with the issue of marriage. We keep saying that Bill C-23 is not about marriage. Notwithstanding, I will address some of the concerns expressed.

It is not necessary to add a definition of marriage to each individual statute in Bill C-23. The government has already amended the bill to add an interpretive clause that accomplishes the same result. The legal definition of marriage in Canada is already clear in law. It has been successfully defended and upheld by the courts.

On March 22 the Government of Canada tabled an amendment to Bill C-23. The amendment confirms the Government of Canada's commitment to the institution of marriage by reaffirming that marriage is the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. That was stated in the motion passed by the House of Commons last year. This clarification fully preserves the integrity of the bill while ensuring that it addresses the concerns of Canadians.

As we have stated before, nothing in this bill affects the definition of marriage. This bill is not about marriage. This amendment reflects this fact. This amendment will not change the law or the legal status of marriage. However, Canadians have made it clear that they want some assurance that there will be no change to the institution of marriage, and that is what we are doing through this amendment.

As we have said time and time again, Bill C-23 is about fairness. It will extend equal treatment for benefits and obligations to same sex couples on the same basis as common law, opposite sex couples.

The importance of marriage is not something derived from the law but from society itself, the men and women who make that commitment. It is clearly evident in that some 20 years after a majority of the benefits applied to marriages were extended to common law, opposite sex relationships, people are still getting married and do so in significant numbers.

It is also wrong to suggest that marriage will not continue to have a special status in law after this bill. For example, unlike common law couples, married people have a marriage certificate to prove their relationship and they are given extra protection by being considered to be in that relationship until the day it is dissolved by divorce.

To say that there is nothing left for marriage except for a divorce is clearly wrong. Several statutes and provisions retain distinctions and treatment that are directly connected to the legal difference between marriage, a de jure relationship, common law relationships and de facto relationships. These distinctions will be maintained in federal law.

The definition of marriage, as we will keep repeating, as contained in federal common law will not be modified. A married relationship has effect for benefits and obligations under federal law as of the first day that the marriage is registered. Common law relationships are established as a question of fact; that is that a reasonable period of cohabitation is required before the relationship has effect for the purposes of benefits and obligations. At the federal level this period of cohabitation is one year.

There is also a difference with regard to the legal treatment of separations. Because marriage is a legal relationship, where married spouses are separated their relationship still exists in law until the marriage is dissolved in divorce. This provided additional protection under the federal law for purposes of benefits and obligations.

Common law relationships, however, as a fact based relationship, end on separation. For example, several Treasury Board statutes related to survivors' benefits, such as the diplomatic service, the special Superannuation Act and the Lieutenant Governor's Superannuation Act, provide for the apportionment of the survivor benefits in those few cases where there may be two survivors: a legally married separated spouse and subsequent common law partner. These provisions do not apply to separated former common law partners.

The Divorce Act also contains a series of protections for married couples who separate and divorce. Similar protections for common law couples within the provincial jurisdictions are generally less favourable.

As one example, the federal Divorce Act provides for the division of marital property which is not available in any provincial legislation for common law couples who must instead apply to the courts for a judgment in equity of unjust enrichment. Similarly, provisions allowing for spousal and child support generally afford greater protection to married couples on relationship breakdown.

The government has a duty to guarantee the fundamental rights and freedoms of all Canadians. Courts have clearly found that same sex relationships of some permanency have many of the same issues of support, dependency and obligation as heterosexual couples and have indicated that it is necessary for the government to act under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill C-23 does this.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to focus my remarks, in opposition to Bill C-23, on three main areas. I will begin by stating that I do not support the amendments proposed by the member for Burnaby—Douglas, but I do support the amendments proposed by my colleague from Calgary Centre who attempts to strengthen a very severely flawed bill.

I will begin by making a broad overview of the philosophical underpinnings of the bill to explain the divide on this topic. The second area I want to focus on is what I call the language game being used by the justice minister and by some who support Bill C-23. I will conclude by mentioning some of the implications for proceeding along this path.

Why is the whole issue of same sex benefits such a hot topic? Is it simply because sex sells, as all good marketers know? I suggest that there is another more important reason why this topic strikes such an emotional chord. It is because this is an issue that forces people to confront their own philosophical core beliefs. The guiding philosophy of our day and our society, I would propose, is something called personal subjective relativism.

Some might wonder what I mean by this term. Let me explain it in terms that are familiar to all, which is the philosophy that “what is right for you is right for you, what is right for me is right for me”. I would define that as relativism. That seems to be the guiding philosophy of our day.

Let us take a look at this philosophical stance. At its core, the philosophy holds that man is the measure of all things and that there are no transcendent absolute truths. Truth is relative. One can pick out his or her truths, much like picking out items from a buffet or choosing a particular flavour of ice cream from his or her favourite ice cream parlour. On the face of it, this seems a reasonable way to proceed to those who espouse this philosophical stance. Many espouse to this stance without understanding that they themselves hold to this belief. They tacitly hold the belief, that is, they have it without really knowing on the face of it, that this is what they believe.

Many people would say “Yes, this is how I confront issues when confronted with issues”. That is all fine and good. The difficulty arises when people hold to such a view that their buffet plate of beliefs or their favourite ice cream cone of core issues is the one that everyone else should also choose. It is this difficulty which leads those who are relativists to have these kinds of conversations with others, those who may even be absolutists. They might say things such as “There are no such things as absolutes. Truth is relative”. Some might say, in response to them, “Really?” The relativists would respond “Yes, indeed and those who claim that there are absolutes are simply attempting to impose their morality on me”. “Oh, really”, would say the absolutist. “Yes there are no absolutes,” claims the relativist. In response, “So, is that an absolute that there are no absolutes?”

The house of cards argument falls in on itself. A person who espouses that there is no such thing as an absolute and there are no truths falls on their own petard, philosophically speaking, with stating this is the case. How can they claim that something is right or better than another thing when there is no such thing within their own definition of what is right and what is wrong?

That is a position that the government is squarely placed in, in proceeding on the pathway with this bill, Bill C-23.

Those who say there are no truths proceed quite comfortably to impose their own moral view or philosophical view on others, even when shown that they are holding to a self-defeating perspective. If one is a true relativist, why would he or she care if someone holds to an absolutist point of view? Should not anyone be free to choose their own perspective?

Some have tried to make Bill C-23 a religious issue. Proponents of Bill C-23 can use this tactic to paint opponents of Bill C-23 as religious extremists. They can marginalize it or minimize the opposition by saying that this is just a certain segment of society who are backward in their thinking and that we do not have to listen to them.

I would say that it is this philosophical divide that crosses religious boundaries. There are those, who would call themselves religious, who support Bill C-23, and those, who are not religious at all, who oppose Bill C-23. It is for this very reason that there is a philosophical difference in approach to the notion of same sex benefits before us, and on other issues as well.

For example, I have received hundreds of letters and phone calls opposing Bill C-23 from a wide cross section of constituents. I have received less than 10 letters and phone calls supporting Bill C-23. However, I do want to note one comment made by an ordained Reverend, Rev. Ken Baker from All Saints Anglican Church in Mission. He says “I wish you to note that I am in favour of Bill C-23 and I wish you to express my viewpoint in the House”. I make the argument that there are religious people who support Bill C-23. I would not include myself in that category. This is a man who wanted that on the record and it is now on the record.

Bill C-23 presents an issue before us that is not a religious divide. It is a philosophical divide between a relativistic perspective and an absolutist perspective. An absolutist is a person who believes that there are truths that can be known and on these truths the foundations of right and wrong within a society are built.

To summarize, the Liberals are saying to Canadians that there are no absolutes, that this bill is the right way to proceed. They then go on to argue as if there are absolutes and that this is the very reason why people should accept Bill C-23.

The minister and members have used terms such as this bill is the right thing to do, it is about equality and fairness, when it is really about something else. It is about those Liberal members on the other side imposing their moral perspective on Canadians.

This brings me to the second part of my discussion today, which is a tactic being used by the Liberals and those who would support Bill C-23. It is something I call the language game. The language game can be a very effective tool, especially when the groundwork has already been laid to erode the notion of truths or absolutes.

Let us talk about this language game being employed by the government. It is a well crafted technique and strategy that Liberals and those who support Bill C-23 use to try to intimidate, punish and scorn those who disagree with their claims on a philosophical perspective.

Those who claim to be promoters of tolerance will even resort to bringing personal lawsuits against those who speak out against them. These can cause a great deal of personal hardship and even economic ruin. I know an individual within my own riding who is faced with this because he has been on the public record as being opposed to this particular issue.

We have seen the creation of new words in the language game, again played by the justice minister to try to shut down those who disagree with the bill. We are well acquainted with the word homophobia, a word where people who believe that there is such a thing will say that it is a fear of homosexuals; a label used to brand those who object to the state's sanctioning of homosexuality.

I implore the government to note that the weakest form of any argument is name calling. When one's arguments do not withstand the test of its own merits, it is a sign of weakness within that argument. We have seen this tactic employed by the government when proceeding with this bill.

Redefining terms is another plank used in the language game. Because language is such a powerful tool, we have seen the government use this tool in branding others for various different reasons to try to shut down and stifle debate. On this particular issue, this is very clear.

If the meaning of a word or a phrase can be shifted to mean something else, then wide support can be granted for an idea. Who would be against equality? Who would possibly want to be perceived as anything but tolerant? Who could disagree with either of these statements?

Let us look at the term tolerance. What does the word actually mean in light of public policy? Tolerance on this topic of same sex benefits would seem to indicate that the state should not be allowed to intrude on private, consensual sexual relationships between adults as long as all involved consent and no one gets hurt.

What does the government call tolerance? What does the justice minister call tolerance? What does she mean by the words tolerance and equality? The minister believes that no personal sexual arrangement is better than any other, which can be defined as sexual egalitarianism, and that anyone should be allowed to participate in whichever arrangements they choose or are predisposed to. That is the first part of tolerance.

In conclusion, the minister goes well beyond this definition and redefines tolerance to mean social acceptance. She wants to legislate the benefits reserved for married couples or extended to others, that there is no difference in law between those who are married, a common law heterosexual or same sex relationship.

I would implore my colleagues to look at the philosophical underpinnings of this debate and see that it really is a divide on philosophical grounds. Those who oppose it, oppose it on such. This marriage amendment that is being proposed by the justice minister is nothing more than a shell game, which my colleagues will expound on in the House today to let Canadians know that this bill is simply wrong.

I implore Canadians not to be fooled by this trick of putting forward an amendment as some saviour to marriage, because it certainly is not. It goes down the wrong road and Canadians should be aware of that.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have before us today Bill C-23. Sociologists and others who are expert in societal ethics, such as the Canadian religious and academic community and those who have achieved national prominence through their defence of the institution of the family, are all concerned about the basic societal significance of this bill. The gay and lesbian political groups are happy. However, it has become clear to me from the constituents who have contacted me that this bill does not have much legitimacy in my community.

The government members claim that their hands are tied by the courts and that they are just doing the housekeeping in law that is necessary to accommodate what the supreme court has already decided. Nevertheless, the point is that it must be parliament that makes Canadian law and the courts should interpret, not the other way around. The court was wrong to read that in at section 15(2) of the charter.

The bill is summarized as follows on the second page of the bill:

A number of federal Acts provide for benefits or obligations that depend on a person's relationship to another individual, including their husband or wife and other family members. Most of those Acts currently provide that the benefits or obligations in relation to a husband or wife also apply in relation to unmarried opposite-sex couples who have been cohabiting in a conjugal relationship for at least one year. Some of those Acts provide for benefits or obligations in relation to certain family members of a person's husband, wife or opposite-sex common-law partner.

This enactment extends benefits and obligations to all couples who have been cohabiting in a conjugal relationship for at least one year, in order to reflect values of tolerance, respect and equality, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There was a last minute insertion in the bill at the beginning that will not appear in the text of the 68 statutes that the bill amends. In that section it says:

l.l For greater certainty, the amendments made by this Act do not affect the meaning of the word “marriage”, that is, the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

The bill then goes on to insert the new definition of common law into 68 statutes, which reads as follows:

“common-law partnership” means the relationship between two persons who are cohabiting in a conjugal relationship, having so cohabited for a period of at least one year;

We must then understand what conjugal means, and that will be for the courts to interpret in the future. My understanding can be deduced from several sources, such as Black's Law Dictionary , which says:

“conjugal” of or belonging to marriage or the married state; suitable or appropriate to the married state or to married persons; matrimonial; connubial.

There is also the definition in Black's dictionary of the word “consortium”. It says:

Conjugal fellowship of husband and wife, and the right of each to the company, society, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation. Damages for loss of consortium are commonly sought in wrongful death actions, or when a spouse has been seriously injured through negligence of another, or by a spouse against third person alleging that he or she has caused breaking-up of marriage.

What we have are financial benefits and federal social programs based on what people will claim about their undocumented, private sexual behavioural associations, rather than on family dependency, economics and the legal and perhaps even religious contract of marriage.

I refer to another reference book that is on the clerk's table before me here in the Chamber. It is called the Bible, translated into English and published in 1611 at the request of King James. It is foundational to all our law, and I note in Corinthians I 10:23, in relation to what is acceptable to partake of, it outlines a principle which may apply to the bill. It reads: “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not”. To put it another way, the new international version says “Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial: everything is permissible, but not everything is constructive”. Moreover, I paraphrase by saying that courses in life might be possible but are not recommended.

Despite denials during the last parliament and during the last election, the Liberals have indeed steadily moved to enhance the complete social condonation of the gay-lesbian lifestyle. Instead of clearly outlining that particular political agenda in their platform policy and seeking a political mandate for such aims, they have been less than honest with Canadians and have brought it to the country by stealth, which they have often denied they were doing. It seems now they no longer make any pretence about their longstanding political agenda, despite the past denials. Consequently, there was no basic political consent in this country to do this.

The bill is very prescriptive in nature, telling average Canadians what is good for them, and it strikes at the heart of what family has meant to Canadians.

Canadians need to wake up and read the label on the bottle of what is being prescribed as medicine for the country. The elites make astounding prescriptions, such as the Law Commission of Canada when it pronounces, revealing its low regard for average Canadians' opinions and the democratic will to be expressed in the House of Commons. They said at the justice committee:

However much we are committed...to undertaking the broader inquiry, we also believe that legislation like Bill C-23 merits enactment today. However much we believe in the need for Parliament ultimately to strive for its legislative “best”, we also believe that there are times (and this is one of them) when it should proceed to enact what is, constitutionally, a legislative “good”.

This new, Liberal government created and staffed law commission arrogantly pronounced on our democracy and the worth of the House with that statement, and it is appalling. It is like the condescension to Canadians evidenced by the Nisga'a bill, or what the government did to Canadian human rights at the University of British Columbia when our nation hosted some oppressive foreign dictators. It is more of “we know best what is good for you, and by the way, do not think for yourself to disagree”.

We need to build community consensus on these things. Parties need to declare during elections these kinds of matters and seek mandates. If they will not, certainly it is only the Canadian Alliance that would change the system and put the power into the hands of citizens to give them the ability to seek community support and drive the public agenda through a local initiatives law process.

Basic issues can be settled in line with what Canadians really want, not by fighting politicians or receiving Liberal style condescending coercion. Rather, the social concepts must submit to the Canadian marketplace of ideas where neighbour can convince neighbour in discussion, knowing in advance that their discussion has real power, and where the disciplines and moderating limits of democracy and the ballot box can more fully work.

No one should be discriminated against in basic human rights. However, we discriminate all the time when we define limits of access to programs and benefits, such as the age discrimination against me to receive the old age pension. I am too young.

There has been a deliberate confusion between rights and benefits. People desire to eliminate real discrimination when they find it, but they can be socially conservative and traditionalist in their outlook and yet not be socially intolerant or discriminatory.

Traditional marriage is seen as very special, if not sacred, by all major religions of the world, and the bill is seen as demeaning those ideals. Yet Canadians want to be fair, non-discriminatory and certainly not mean-spirited.

I will be voting against the bill because I do not believe it is supported by most of my community, and they cannot be labelled as prejudiced when they make that decision.

On June 8, 1999 parliament passed a motion to take all necessary steps to preserve the definition of marriage as the union of one man and woman to exclusion of all others. It is time for the government to act on this directive and clearly and effectively define marriage in legislation. It is unfortunate that the Liberals chose to disregard the recognition of the institution of marriage in legislation.

Common law status will now have wide interpretation. Formerly in law the standard has been at least two or three years of living as if married. The change to one year will have unforeseen social effects. One disadvantage of the definition of common law partner is that its very flexibility gives rise to uncertainties in its application, uncertainties that may require intrusive inquiries into the intimate details of people's lives for their resolution.

This bill may soon become known as the end of marriage act. An interpretation clause of marriage in an omnibus bill will likely have little future legal weight. Therefore, this amendment does not truly preserve the traditional concept of marriage in legislation. If the government were serious, it would attach the definition to all statutes whenever it adds the new definition of common law.

However, I doubt they are sincere, for this amendment is a political move by the Liberals to try to deflect legitimate concerns about marriage being made meaningless in public policy. The public is presently not accepting outright gay-lesbian marriage, but we are getting there by stealth. Maybe the public will want it someday, but whatever happens, it must be democratically legitimate, not proscribed.

The bill has many internal flaws and it does not have the support of my community. Consequently, Canadians will have to defeat this government so that we can fix this bill, like so many other measures the Liberals have propounded, for they do not reflect basic Canadian character and mainstream values.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are bills we debate that do not cause us too much distress. There are others, very important ones, that affect us in the way we were raised, in our beliefs. Bill C-23 hits us hard in the gut. However, we want to behave as MPs, it pushes us to think more.

On the subject of Bill C-23, the Progressive Conservative party has decided the vote will be a free one. There has always been a free vote in caucus, but in the House, where the members belong to a political party, there must be solidarity. In this case, as in others in which moral fibre is very important, the members will have the option of voting according to their own conscience or that of their electors.

I listened to the Reform members' presentations. It is not clear whether their consciences will win out or whether they will follow the wishes of their constituents. As I can see, their consciences are likely to have the upper hand.

This bill is not easy. When we talk about the rights of homosexuals in the country, in fiscal terms, with some sixty laws involved, it is not an easy matter. It is tempting to hide, saying “It is true, there are homosexuals, there are gays and lesbians, but why are we talking about it?” People ask us “Why talk about gays and lesbians?” Who does not know people who are gay or lesbian? We cannot say they do not exist. They are there.

Someone said “They are fine people, but—”. That is a bit backward. “They are fine people, but we should not go too far. There is the marriage issue”.

On the subject of marriage, with the rule of interpretation, the government took a step in the right direction. It is a rule of interpretation that has force of law, much more so than some members might imagine. Why do I say that? Because I recall that the conditions set out in the Meech Lake accord were rules of interpretation.

The concept of distinct society was included in a preamble. It was a rule of interpretation. I remember that, in certain parts of the country, people were afraid of that rule and its weight from a legal standpoint. Personally, I am very, very pleased with that rule.

Naturally, it is not easy to discuss giving gays and lesbians who are in a common-law partnership the same tax benefits as a man and a woman in a similar partnership. Personally, I will support the bill. Did I read all the clauses and assess all the implications? The answer is no.

People in my riding have asked me what this bill was all about. I told them “It is an omnibus bill”. In order to understand fully the impact of Bill C-23, one must know all the acts that are mentioned in it. This makes Bill C-23 an absolutely incredible document.

I am not an expert on this bill like the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, but there are principles involved here. I had discussions with people in my riding. Some support this bill, and others oppose it. Some people ask many more questions than others. An older lady told me “I remember 25, 30 or 35 years ago, when my daughter decided to move in with her boyfriend, it was a tragedy. We would tell them “What are you doing? You are living in sin. Such a relationship is illegal, as evidenced by the fact that the Church opposes it, while the law does not recognize it”.

Finally, things have evolved. I think that the discussion nowadays is much like the discussions that used to take place in Canada and Quebec and all the provinces about cohabitation—although not quite the same, because any analogy is imperfect. Do we provide the same benefits? People were afraid that the sacrament of marriage might disappear if they recognized the existing reality.

I was asked how I saw it? When I was a teenager, people would ask me what I wanted. Back then, I said that I wanted to get married and have children. That was what I wanted. I did not get married and I have a little boy of four. I do not feel excluded from society in any way. I am a practising Catholic and I do not feel excluded.

I have also spoken with a few people in the Church and some take a harder line. Others make a distinction between their concerns and those of others, between secular society—this does not mean that they are not interested, that they are not a part of that society—and religious society. What concerns them is faith, religion. For them, marriage continues to be the union of a man and a woman. That does not change. However, they naturally take a stand on any bill that secular society comes up with. Within the Church itself, there are divisions, different stands. It is the same way within the Progressive Conservative Party.

Who am I to say that, as you cannot have children in the normal way, you cannot be recognized as a couple for tax purposes, for the purpose of benefits? Who am I? My faith may tell me that a family, a marriage, takes a certain form. That is all very well, but who am I to judge?

This is a reality. Some will say that being gay or lesbian is not normal. Some people in this House still believe it is a disease, or that it is hereditary, or if not hereditary is a matter of behaviour and the result of some past problem. They contend that the gays and lesbians in this country are the result of family breakdown.

I do not have the answer. I do know that people must adjust to reality, a reality that is, in some ways, accepted by those who live in this country. Unlike the situation with other issues of equal importance and difficulty, I have not seen people picketing the homes of gays or lesbians. Has it been seen? I have seen not such thing. Have hon. members seen signs proclaiming “We are anti-gay. We are against lesbians”? I have not. We do, of course, have our protester out front, but that is what democracy is all about.

There is some openness in this country. Bill C-23 is putting into law what the supreme court has called upon us to do. We know that members of the Reform Party are not keen on the supreme court. They do not like courts of law, and yet, unfortunately, they are going to end up in one once again, because of their name, but that is another story.

Our thinking must evolve with the times, our open-mindedness in particular. The government can be heavily criticized for one thing about Bill C-23 and I believe that all opposition parties agree on this point. They could have taken more time to consult the—

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to remind my colleague that in his speech he referred to us as the Reform Party. I remind him that we gave the House the documents which say we are members of the Canadian Alliance.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I think we have all agreed to call the former Reform Party by its new name but please give us a little leeway. It is not very easy to make the change overnight in our debates and conversation but I am sure that we will try to do our best.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would lie to point out to my Reform colleague who is a member of the Canadian Alliance that, even if we are not allowed to call each other names here in the House, I may call him whatever he wants, provided that he acknowledges that I am a member of the Progressive Conservatives of Canada.

Discussion on Bill C-23 must continue in an atmosphere of open-mindedness, not narrow-mindedness. That is why the Progressive Conservative Party will have a free vote on this issue.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I point out to the member who just spoke how it does make a difference. That will be the whole point of my speech. I ask him too to look at reality.

Last summer I spent a lot of time working on a family farming project. It was very labour intensive and provided jobs for a lot of young people in our area. I worked side by side with many young people between the ages of 16 and 20. Many of them were from a youth rehabilitation centre that worked with young people who had run afoul of the law.

After working side by side with me and doing some very difficult work, they began to talk with me one on one. They of course did not know that I am a member of parliament, nor did they care and it would not have made any difference to them. As they began telling me about themselves, their backgrounds and especially their home environments, I was struck by the fact that they all had one thing in common: every single one of them did not have a father in the home.

My experience provides the passion for what I have to say today in my whole argument. We have given certain groups within our society special privileges without balancing them with responsibilities. Who suffers? It is the children. That is my theme today. If we go ahead with Bill C-23 as it stands today without amendments, it is the children who will be hurt and it is the children who are not even born yet who will be hurt.

Let me explain. Hopefully Liberal members are listening and not just giving catcalls as they are doing now. This is not just an issue of personal conscience. Every law has consequences otherwise we would not even be talking about it or dealing with it in parliament. What are the consequences of Bill C-23 going to be?

By going back to the example I began my speech with, let me underscore the fact that if we do not have healthy, strong homes and close families where both parents play a strong role, we will end up with children who begin life with two strikes against them. It is the children who are hurt. Those are the consequences.

Solid homes and families build a strong nation. A solid home and family is built on a firm foundation. That firm foundation is a lifelong marriage commitment. It is not a sexual relationship. That is the big flaw with Bill C-23.

It is a huge mistake for the government to base benefits on a conjugal relationship. That is not the same as a marriage relationship. The state needs to encourage lifelong commitments to form the basis of a strong, stable family where children can grow, develop and learn the values from their parents that will give our society its palatability.

We have done some in-depth research on this. Legal research in the last week has indicated that putting a definition of marriage in the preamble of Bill C-23 is not good enough. The research shows clearly that the amendment is very weak and will do nothing to the 68 pieces of legislation that are being amended.

I want to emphasize that because that is a key argument in everything we are saying today. Why? Because Bill C-23 is an omnibus bill. It amends 68 other pieces of legislation. At the very least every other one of those pieces of legislation must have the preamble of Bill C-23 included in it and that is not going to happen as it is presently structured. Lawyers tell us that this bill is set up in a way that it will not happen. That is the great flaw with this legislation.

We must preserve the marriage commitment for the sake of our children. Is it any wonder that the world's greatest teacher said that it would be better for a millstone to be put around a person who hurt one of these little ones and then for that person to be dropped into the sea. Let us never forget that.

Benefits should never be based on a sexual relationship either. Benefits, if the government so chooses, could be based on a relationship of dependency. If I have time I am going to propose that positive alternative to what the Liberals have done.

This bill should not undermine the strength of the family home. If the state is to provide any incentives, it must consider the most vulnerable in our society, our children. Those incentives should promote stable family relationships where children are nurtured and developed. The state needs to promote the commitment, not the sexual act.

Let me point out that since I spoke up a week or two ago on this issue, I have received a lot of mail, both pro and con. The government's handling of this issue has created deep divisions. These divisions would have been unnecessary. Without exception the criticism I received did not counter my arguments. It only called me names. Pinning labels on those who disagree is hardly legitimate debate.

I pointed out that buggery was against the law back in the 1950s and is still in the criminal code today with two exceptions. Today one can receive benefits from the federal government if one practises it. As a noted person once said, if we want to get a jackass to listen, first we have to get his attention. By pointing out that we as a society have changed since the 1950s, people did pay attention. Many were shocked.

Here is another aside. Those who are preaching tolerance and respect, those who are criticizing me now quite verbally, do not respect the alternate point of view or even listen to the arguments.

The experience I have had in dealing with children is underscored by Statistics Canada data. I would now like to go through that. Two years ago Edmonton journalist Lorne Gunter analyzed how costly common law relationships are for taxpayers. Here are some of the startling facts he found published in Statistics Canada data.

Sixty per cent of domestic violence occurs in common law marriages. The chance that a woman or a man in a common law arrangement will be the victim of abuse is more than nine times that of a married person.

Sixty-three percent of children born in common law relationships will witness their parents separate before they reach 11 years of age. This compares to just 14% for those children whose parents never lived together before marrying and 26% of those children whose parents shacked up together before getting married.

Forty percent of common law relationships end before marriage. Couples who live together before exchanging marriage vows are more than 50% more likely to divorce than couples who did not shack up.

How do these family breakups affect children? Children whose parents' relationship breaks down are much more likely to underachieve in school and in life. They are twice as likely to drop out of school. Girls are nearly three times as likely to get pregnant before leaving their teens and far more likely to have abortions. Suicides are higher. Illegal drug use is greater. They are nearly six times more likely to get in trouble with the law. Four out of every five convicts come from broken homes.

Mr. Gunter's conclusion is that marital breakdown is a leading cause of social problems, perhaps the leading cause. Because common law relationships are so prone to breakdown, they contribute disproportionately to social ills and everyone must live with them and subsidize them.

I gather from the comments from across the way, the members are not even listening to the relevance of this argument.

[An hon. member]

Relevance?

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

It is a disgrace.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the only power I have is to tell the people of Canada what the government has done at election time. I cannot force the government to do anything. It simply invokes closure—

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Is this the new Canadian Alliance?

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member has two minutes left.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention.

I cannot force the government to do anything. It will simply invoke closure on a bill and will ram it through. The power will rest with the people. We can be sure that if all the amendments we are proposing are not made, those people will render their verdict.

I have one more point. With all the interruptions I have had, I did not get through my speech. I would like to read a quotation from barrister and solicitor, Iain Benson. I think he said it best on March 21, 2000 when he testified before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

“What the gay rights approach has done is struck an arrangement with Ottawa that divides people into the sexual and non-sexual, in which only the sexual is recognized outside of marriage. Yet this is an unfair attack both on the primacy and genuine social importance of heterosexual marriage and to all those who are in dependency relationships of whatever sort, sick, single or same sex where sexual activity is not present or permissible. Other jurisdictions such as Hawaii in the United States have determined that other categories need to be created such as reciprocal beneficiaries or registered domestic partnerships where the focus is not so, to be blunt, genital”.

I cannot finish the rest. Maybe I will be able to finish it at a later time.

The Montreal Gazette agreed. The editor wrote:

And when did a sexual relationship become a new standard by which a relationship of dependency is measured? It is worth remembering that the existing laws surrounding benefits and obligations for dependent spouses were designed to support traditional marriage and, by extension, the raising of children.

[The Speaker]

Time is up and we will now proceed to Statements by Members.