Eric C. Lowther

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

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.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

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.”

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

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”

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

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.”

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-23, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 30 on page 1 the following:

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

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-23, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 2 the following:

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

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-23, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 2 the following:

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

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-23, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 42 on page 3 the following:

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

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-23, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 42 on page 3 the following:

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

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 6 on page 10 the following new clause:

“26.1 Section 31 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. 16

That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 6 on page 10 the following new clause:

“26.1 Section 31 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;”

[The Senate, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Alberta Senator Ron Ghitter is resigning. He is giving the Prime Minister an opportunity to actually fulfill an election promise, this one regarding the Senate.

Some time ago the Prime Minister sent a task force out to Alberta to find out why Albertans will not vote for him. The simple answer is that Albertans do not feel the Prime Minister is listening to them.

They are frustrated for example, that in the middle of Alberta's Senate election the Prime Minister appointed a man who was not even on their ballot. Undaunted, Albertans gave Mr. Bert Brown more votes than any other federal politician in history.

Last week in Calgary the Prime Minister asked Mr. Brown if he wanted to be appointed to the Senate. Mr. Brown humbly replied “Yes, Mr. Prime Minister, I do on behalf of Albertans and Canadians”.

On behalf of those Albertans, Canadians in general and Mr. Brown, the Prime Minister should show respect for them and have the courage to listen, to change and to appoint Bert Brown to the Canadian Senate.

[Division No. 1211, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I was here for the reading of the motion. I would like my vote to be recorded.

[Witness And Spousal Protection Program Act, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very important bill, Bill C-223. For the clarification of the House, I want to drive home a point I was leading to when we last debated this private member's bill which was some time ago.

The bill focuses on protecting people who are in relationships when one person becomes violent and puts the other person at risk. The bill is an innovative and very needed approach to better protect spouses who are in abusive situations.

Under the HRDC ministry there is a new identities program. It is intended to give a new identity to a person who was in an abusive relationship so that the person can protect himself or herself and get away from that abusive situation and not be harassed and chased by the abusive partner.

The problem is that the current program in HRDC is on an ad hoc basis. It has been thrown together by some well meaning bureaucrats. It has no real mandate. It actually has no funding. Not surprisingly it has very limited structure. For people who have need of this kind of program, something that would protect them when an abusive partner is putting their lives and health at risk, it is obscure. It is hard to find out about it and to access it. It has had very limited application.

Bill C-223 intends to address the problem by moving the new identities program that is very loosely structured in HRDC over to the RCMP witness protection program. It already exists in Canada and is structured and funded. In a sense it would be a subprogram of the RCMP witness protection program.

By combining the new identities program within the witness protection program, participants would be registered with the police and under the direction of the commissioner of the RCMP. Participants would also benefit from the knowledge and expertise of the RCMP and the witness protection program. We have taken it from an obscure ad hoc program with no funding to something that is structured, already works and has the oversight of the RCMP. This is critical.

I can relate it to a story in my riding which involves a personal acquaintance of mine. We will call her Sally to protect her name. She is the mother of four children. She was married. Early in her marriage she realized that her husband—in this case it was the husband but it is not always the husband but I use this as an example—had become abusive to her. It got worse and worse. It got to the point where her life was literally at risk. Of course she had to remove herself from that situation but he pursued her and actually traumatized the children. It was a tragic story.

Eventually charges were laid. He was out on probation for a while. She lived in fear when she went shopping. Even at home at night sounds in the house would traumatize her because of the abusive nature of this relationship.

She went to the authorities. There was some limited support and guidance but there was not much she could do except sweat it out for well over a year. I think it was almost two years before charges were finally laid, a conviction resulted and the individual was incarcerated for a period of time. During that time she had some relative peace of mind. Of course he will get out one day and she will continue perhaps to live in the fear of being pursued by an abusive mate.

Bill C-223 as put forward by my hon. colleague would give a person like Sally some badly needed peace of mind.

It is essential that we put forward this kind of legislation. There are some statistics that will drive this point home. A simple change like this one would mean so much. It would save lives. Between 1977 and 1996 there were 2,048 spousal killings in Canada. In over 56% of spousal homicides, investigating police officers had knowledge of previous domestic violence between the victims and suspects. In 56% of the spousal killings, the police knew there was a problem.

It is just like the case of Sally to which I referred. She thankfully is alive and well at this point in time. I suggest to the House that she will stay that way, but 2,048 people—and they are not always women because it goes both ways, let me be clear on that—were killed by their spouses and the police knew about the situations.

In situations such as those, Bill C-223 would have allowed the individuals to apply to the RCMP witness protection program which would have under it the new identities program which is currently hard to access. They could have applied to that. They could have taken on a new identity and perhaps could have relocated. Details such as the cost of relocation would be worked out in the regulations, but certainly they could have had a new identity and could have established a life free from the threat of physical violence. Many people have actually died, but we would save lives with a simple fix to the structure that is in place today.

In that light I close by saying that it is time the new identities act be moved under the RCMP auspices. I encourage all members in the House to support this private member's bill. I encourage a speedy passage of Bill C-223.

[Petitions, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting petitions with approximately 1,000 names of people across the country including from Langley, Winnipeg and Saskatchewan. They are petitioning that the House respect the motion of nine months ago in defence of and to uphold marriage.

They are petitioning that in light of the fact that the Prime Minister has limited debate on Bill C-23 and has not allowed a free vote, that the House withdraw Bill C-23 and instead affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution both in name and policy.

[Tara Sloan, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay respect to Tara Sloan, one of Canada's top swimmers. Ms. Sloan passed on two days ago in Calgary after being involved in a tragic car accident.

Tara was a five time Canadian breaststroke champion and set the women's 100 metre breaststroke national record in the short course pool. She was a great competitor with a passion for life who proudly represented her country at the world championships, the Pan American Games and the Commonwealth Games. She won 17 international medals.

At the national championships this weekend her Calgary teammates dedicated their events to Tara. Her teammates won. They won the men's and women's overall team titles.

Today our sympathy and the thoughts and prayers of this House join with those of the family, friends, teammates and competitors of this wonderful young Canadian, Ms. Tara Sloan.