Eric C. Lowther

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments. I understand that he is a man with considerable academic credentials.

I have presented petitions in the House from people in Quebec who have asked for the definition of marriage to be reaffirmed in statute. I also have in my hand a legal opinion from a senior counsel in Toronto who has basically said that the approach to define marriage as a union of a man and woman at the front end of an omnibus bill but not in the statute will not bring into force any legally binding definition of marriage.

Based on the petitions from Quebec and the attempts of the official opposition to put the definition of marriage in the statutes where it will have significant legal effect and express the will of the House, would the member condone this? If so, would he support the motion that this bill be referred back to the justice committee to consider including a meaningful definition of marriage in the statutes that the bill addresses?

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that reply from the hon. member and I appreciate his candour. Certainly, it sounds to me like there are problems in that department and that the justice minister should be the one who is in charge. She is ultimately responsible for what comes out of her department and she should act on that.

I have noticed in Bill C-23 that the definition of common law partner, which includes two people of the same sex in a conjugal relationship, is repeated in every statute. In fact, it is repeated sometimes more than once in each of the statutes under Bill C-23. Yet the justice minister and the justice department have deemed it not appropriate to put the definition of marriage in every statute. It appears at the front of the bill, but it is not in the statutes.

We have a legal opinion which says it will have no legal weight when a court challenge comes. Therefore, is it not appropriate, in his mind, that our amendments which were voted down by the government yesterday should have been included? If we can include a definition of common law partner, why not a definition of marriage which we have been advocating all the way along?

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments of the member for Wentworth—Burlington.

He commented that Bill C-23 inappropriately used the term conjugal. I agree with him. We have made the comment a number of times in the House that not only is it inappropriate to use it in a same sex relationship, it is also probably irresponsible not to define it in a bill, particularly one which uses it so frequently.

I was concerned when I understood him to say that the real problems with the bill were generated primarily from the bureaucracy in the justice department; that it really was not the justice minister who was responsible for bringing forward the bill in the manner that it is and structured as it is, with all its inherent weaknesses which we have itemized several times, but that the problem was really in the justice department. I find that shocking. Is he implying, by his own volition, that the justice minister does not have control of her department, that she cannot call the shots over the people who work in the ministry? Certainly that was the tone of his comments.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the hon. member would say that this is about equality and fairness. I would like to remind him that the government moved closure on this bill at second reading, at report stage and now at third reading. It limited committee study to three and a half days. Many people were not allowed to voice concerns about this bill. It seems to me that is not in the spirit of the bill, if it is about fairness.

The member made the point that the issue of economic dependency would be addressed sometime down the road and that this particular bill is addressing something else.

We have often asked if the requirement for a conjugal relationship is the criterion for receiving benefits under this bill. These are benefits which have previously been given to married couples and families. Now two people of the same gender in a conjugal relationship will have access to these benefits. I would like to ask a question of the member opposite, who I know is a member of cabinet and an esteemed member of the Liberal Party. I asked the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, who spoke before him, if, in order to fulfil the requirements of a conjugal relationship, people would be required to have a physical or sexual relationship to qualify under Bill C-23. She said no, not necessarily. When the justice minister announced the bill, she said that benefits and obligations to individuals in other relationships, such as economic and emotional interdependence, were not included in the bill.

It seems on the one hand that we have the justice minister saying if it is economic dependency, it is not included. On the other hand, when I asked the secretary of state exactly “Would two people who do not have a physical relationship qualify under Bill C-23, yes or no?”, her answer was, if they fulfilled the other requirements of a conjugal relationship, yes. I hear conflicting positions.

It seems to me, if it is not about economic dependency and it is about conjugality, are we not saying that we are extending benefits to people based on private physical intimacies about which a lot of people have concerns?

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, that was what we heard in the House. He stood up and said we were extremists and that we were trying to exclude people from something when really all we are saying is that marriage should remain the union of a man and a woman. That is our party policy. That is what the House endorsed nine months ago. The question I am trying to get the member to answer is if that is the position of his party. Would he stand up on that?

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the member from the Progressive Conservative Party said it was an extreme view. He said we were extremists in that we would like to see marriage in Canada remain as a union of a man and a woman.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Progressive Conservative Party is consistent in being vague and evasive on taking any kind of firm position. As usual, he talks about how important he thinks various aspect of this are and how much he appreciates opinions but every time I listen to him I wonder where he stands on the issue. It is always hard to sift it out.

When we were in committee I recall that the member voted against actually defining what marriage was. When the justice minister put forward her motion in committee he wanted to terminate it. When the justice minister's motion went on to define marriage as a union of a man and a woman, he wanted to exclude that part. He voted in favour, as I recall, to exclude the definition of marriage.

The member's party was split on this back in June 1999 when we had a motion on the floor of the House of Commons. The motion asked whether we agreed that marriage should be the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. It passed four to one, but his party was split. Almost half of his caucus were not sure whether a marriage should be the union of a man and a woman. This seems to be consistent with his actions at the justice committee when the justice minister put forward her motion on the definition of marriage.

It almost seems like members of that party want to say how important marriage is but they do not want to define it. It is frustrating for me, and I think for a lot of Canadians, who would like to see this party take a stand on something and not be wishy-washy. Maybe he can explain that. Maybe I have misinterpreted his actions.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, again I think it is regrettable that the hon. member of the NDP continues to use terms that take away from the debate: extremist and hateful. Those are labels which I think undermine the credibility of the House. I appreciate there are different opinions on issues. Our party has a policy that says that we feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman. It is right in our policy document.

I notice that we had a motion on the floor last June to the effect that this House affirm that marriage remain the union of a man and a woman in law and that the House do everything possible to keep it that way. A majority of members, perhaps even all the members who were there that day in the NDP party, voted against that motion to keep marriage defined as a man and a woman. I can respect that they have a different opinion.

I guess I want clarity from the member. Is that the official position of the NDP party, that we should not have marriage defined as a union of a man and a woman? Do they want to have in statute same sex marriage?

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the hon. member made reference to treating people fairly. I could not help but be reminded that a few nights ago in a private member's bill by one of the members of our party the member for Wild Rose asked for an ombudsman to be put in place to hear the issues of the native people on reserves so that they could be treated fairly. Her party voted against the grassroots native people having an independent ombudsman to hear their concerns.

It seemed to me to be a very reasonable private member's bill. It focused on the needs of grassroots people so that they would have a fair hearing. Yet strangely enough every member of her party voted against an ombudsman for native people. It seems inconsistent with her concern for—

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I noted that the hon. member referred to the Canadian Alliance members as hateful probably a dozen times in her speech. It does not serve anybody's interests to revert to name-calling. I notice that when people disagree in the House, particularly members of the NDP, they go on the attack and make accusations of this kind rather than substantive debate, which is unfortunate.

One of the things the member has missed in our comments, which we have continually repeated and which I would like her to address, is the fact that our core themes on this bill have been that if marriage is going to be put at the front of the bill, does the member have a problem with putting marriage right into the statutes, where legal opinion says it will actually have substantive legal effect? Legal opinion is that, the way the justice minister has done it, marriage will be left out.

Second, she said that we did not want to put people in the courtrooms and cause them to incur legal costs. Yet with the undefined definition of a conjugal relationship in the statute, people will probably be driven into the courtrooms to have their relationships assessed by the state. We have consistently said that is probably inappropriate, that it would be better to define it in the statute. I would ask her to speak to those two issues.