Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion put forward in the House by my colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, seeking the legal recognition of same sex spouses.
I want first of all to stress that this motion does not seek at all, as some would believe or might want to make us believe, to promote same sex relationships as the ideal way of life that every Canadian man and woman should adopt. This motion only seeks to recognize something that already exists in our society. Quite obviously, there are homosexuals in our society.
Homosexuals lead the same kind of life we do. Just like other Canadians, they have a job and sometimes live with a spouse. Just like other workers, they get fringe benefits to which their spouse could be entitled.
This motion recommends that homosexuals get the same rights as heterosexuals. I think it is about time Canada moved with the times and stopped discriminating against homosexuals.
Both at the provincial level and in collective agreements of federal public servants, precedents are building up to the effect that fringe benefits should be granted to same sex spouses. All existing federal statutes that are discriminatory in nature will eventually be challenged in court with a very good chance of success. Over the past few years, an increasing number of organizations, private companies and government administrations have come to offer the same benefits to same sex couples and opposite sex couples, in order to respect the principles of equity and non-discrimination.
This acknowledgement should not be seen as a threat. What we give to others will not lessen our entitlements. And this will not prevent anyone from choosing a more conventional, traditional lifestyle or from being heterosexual.
Furthermore, I must say that same sex couples should be entitled to benefits. It is not a privilege but a right, a right for which they have already paid. In the current state of things, employees who have contributed for years to health, sickness and life insurance plans or to pension plans cannot transfer their entitlements to their same sex spouses.
This could lead to situations where, for example, a homosexual employee living with the same person for 20 years could not share his benefits with this person, whereas one of his coworkers, a heterosexual, could share his benefits with someone he had been with only since the day before.
I repeat, this is not a matter of granting special rights but of not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. People who are more or less well intentioned will want to hide their intolerance behind financial objections. These people will claim that measures providing the same benefits for same sex partners will cost too much, just as they did when it involved obtaining the same benefits for working women.
I want to talk about the low cost of these measures. Several private businesses, organizations and governments asked actuary firms to estimate the cost of measures they intended to take respecting same sex couples.
For example, at The Globe and Mail , out of 700 employees, only a dozen took advantage of the program, while at the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children, less than 1 per cent of the employees took advantage of the program and at Northern Telecom, which has more than 20 000 employees in Canada, the company said: We do not expect this to represent a lot of money''. William Mercer, an actuary firm, said:The changes requested will probably represent less than 0.5 per cent of the total payroll of the company''.
Another interesting example is that of the City of Montreal, which, since 1989, has treated all its employees on the same basis, whatever their sexual orientation or the sex of their spouse. Only 10 of the 8,000 City of Montreal employees have registered spouses of the same sex. Because of the actuarial nature of its benefit plans, the City of Montreal would incur no immediately identifiable costs by introducing this policy.
Given the small percentage of homosexual people in Canadian society, the smaller percentage of gay people living in a common-law relationship and the even smaller percentage of
gay people living in a common law relationship who would claim spousal benefits, the experts surveyed agree that costs would only go up by 0.5 to 1.5 per cent, depending on the various benefits being considered.
According to two recent surveys conducted by SOM in Quebec and Angus-Reid across Canada, 73 per cent of Quebecers feel that homosexual couples should be entitled to the same benefits as those enjoyed by heterosexual couples. In Canada, the percentage is lower but still represents a majority. Indeed, 54 per cent of Canadians feel that, except for the right to adopt children, same sex couples should enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples.
According to another poll, 70 per cent of Canadians would support legislation prohibiting any form of discrimination based on sexual orientation. These figures confirm that Canadians are increasingly aware that we should all enjoy the same rights. I do hope that this House will not be more conservative than the population which it serves.
I will conclude by pointing out that, on March 18, 1994, the Minister of Justice provided the following answer to my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve: "Mr. Speaker, in its campaign for office, in its throne speech and in statements made subsequently in the House, the government has committed itself to amendments to the Human Rights Act which will add sexual orientation as a ground on which discrimination is prohibited. We intend to follow through on that commitment".
I ask only one thing, that the Minister of Justice make good on his promise to end discrimination against homosexuals and start by supporting, with me, the motion tabled by the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.