Madam Speaker, the justice minister would have us believe that his proposed legislation is merely a fuzzy, feel good statement with no potential economic or social cost.
He blithely assures us that the proposed amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act will not open the door to same sex marriage, same sex spousal benefits, or the application of laws governing taxation and joint property.
Perhaps the hon. minister does not recognize the opinions of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, which is a little out of character when one considers that it is his party which has already essentially transferred governance of the country from the
elected Parliament to the appointed Supreme Court. However, that is a subject for another debate.
Today, let us merely accept the reality that, to a very large extent, the court now calls the tune. In the Mossop case in 1993, Mr. Mossop was denied bereavement leave on the death of his homosexual partner's father because the partner did not fit the definition of common law spouse. Fair enough. However, the Chief Justice stated that if Parliament had included sexual orientation in the human rights act, the interpretation of family status might have been entirely different.
The minister is so defensive about the long term implications of this legislation that yesterday he circulated a lengthy paper in which he attempted through generalities and half-truths to discredit the detailed research done by the hon. member for Scarborough West and the research branch of the Library of Parliament. Methinks the minister doth protest too much.
This is hardly surprising when one considers that in March 1994 he stated categorically that the logical next step to amending the Canadian Human Rights Act would be to extend spousal benefits rights to same sex couples. If this bill is harmless window dressing, why is it being promoted through deviousness and deceit?
The minister makes much of the fact that although the capacity to marry is within federal jurisdiction, solemnization and registration of marriages is a provincial responsibility. He knows full well that the law is the sum total of statutes and precedents. To suggest that federal legislation will have no effect on provincial policies is absurd. To say that it would not accelerate the avalanche of regulatory board and lower court decisions in favour of same sex spousal benefits stretches the bounds of rationality.
Some of the oh so sophisticated and with-it members opposite might ask what difference does it make if a few hundred co-habiting homosexuals get spousal dental benefits? For one thing, it makes a lot of difference to me because it makes a lot of difference to my constituents.
Bill C-33 was tabled only nine days ago, but it has already ignited a firestorm of anger. The minister's strategy of pushing legislation through the House before real public opposition can develop has already failed.
Second, the payment of same sex benefits will add credibility to demands for state recognition of same sex marriage. These terribly sophisticated Liberals may then ask, what difference does it make if homosexual liaisons are classed as marriages? What does the collective wisdom of the ages mean to people who profess to know everything? What does it matter to them that the basic building block of almost every civilization of record has been the traditional family?
With minor variations, the definitions of those families would have conformed to the Reform Party definition of those individuals related by blood, marriage or adoption. Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman as recognized by the state, including common law relationships.
This is the definition that we would endorse with respect to the provision of spousal benefits for many federally funded or regulated programs. If the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, surely the corollary is that the homosexuals of the nation have no business in the wallets of taxpayers of this country.
Where does one rationally draw the line with respect to benefits? What of the common practice of same sex heterosexuals living together for long periods of time for convenience and household economy? Should they be less entitled to consideration than their homosexual peers? Will the government have a squad of bedroom police to ensure that applicants really are engaging in the requisite practices?
The institutions of marriage and family developed over millennia and they have served civilization well. They have served the essential purpose of procreation and the nurturing of children. Strong family units are the foundation blocks of society. When they are weakened by hedonism society as a whole suffers. Anyone capable of learning from history should look at ancient Athens or ancient Rome.
It is impossible to extend special rights to any group without detracting from the rights of others. In this case the potential losers are children. The minister maintains this bill does not endanger children because pedophilia, even though technically a sexual orientation, is now a criminal act. I remind the minister that less than 30 years ago homosexual acts were illegal, and please observe where we are now.
However, assuming there is no danger of misapplication of the law, it should be obvious the proposed legislation will extend opportunities to potential molesters of whatever gender.
Would any member opposite really want to put his or her children at risk by forcing communities to accept, for example, male homosexuals as scout masters or homosexuals of any stripe as guidance counsellors? How many Mount Cashel types of disasters would it take to impress on these people that the defensive instincts of previous generations of parents were based on valid concerns?
Liberals like to prattle about their deep concern for children but they do not hesitate to expose them to potential trauma in order to bolster their ideological fantasies.
Make no mistake, I do not much care what adult homosexuals do in private. I do care a very great deal about children. I am a parent-