Mr. Speaker,
Same sex benefits. These are a political hornet's nest bound to vex MPs, the public, the family values lobby and gay and lesbian groups alike. But honest debate is needed about what should be done and why. It is not in the interests of our political system to sneak this one through the back door, nor to duck it indefinitely, or they could all just go home.
This editorial comment was printed in today's Ottawa Citizen .
Indeed parliament must debate difficult questions, as we have done in the House today with regard to another issue, child pornography.
I cannot support Bill C-309 for a number of reasons which I will now outline.
This act calls for equal treatment for persons cohabiting in a relationship similar to a conjugal relationship. Later on in the act the following assertion is made: “The lives of homosexual and lesbian couples in Canada who cohabit in relationships similar to conjugal relationships are in many respects identical to the lives of heterosexual couples”.
This bill is built on a misunderstanding of the nature of heterosexual relationships. Gay and lesbian relationships preclude the act of procreation. Granted, some gay and lesbian couples have children from previous relationships, but I am not talking about that point. Let me clearly state once again that heterosexual relationships by their very nature allow for procreation.
Family is the essence of any society. There is a compelling, universal public interest in the unique status of the family. Supreme Court Justice La Forest wrote in the Egan case:
[The heterosexual relationship] is the social unit that uniquely has the capacity to procreate children and generally care for their upbringing, and as such warrants support by Parliament to meet its needs. This is the only unit in society that expends resources to care for children and sustained basis.
Marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long-standing philosophical and religious traditions. But its ultimate raison d'etre transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual.
Proponents of this bill might use the argument that childless couples cannot procreate as is the case with gay couples. To use this argument is to use an exception to the rule to generalize a particular conclusion. To state that some same sex couples have children, which is true, is also to use the exception rule to generalize a particular conclusion.
It can be safely asserted that the majority of heterosexual relationships such as married and common law individuals have the ability to procreate while homosexual couples do not have the ability to procreate within that relationship.
While this bill does not expressly state a change in the definition in marriage, it does assert that homosexual relationships are identical in many ways to heterosexual relationships. It also attempts to redefine the term spouse to include individuals who are of the same sex.
There is one glaring flaw in this piece of proposed legislation and that is the phrase “similar to conjugal relationships” which is never defined. It is referred to at least 10 times in this bill. If we are to infer a definition without actually hearing what was intended by the drafter of this bill, I think we are proceeding along a very tenuous path. I encourage my colleague to spell out exactly what is meant by that phrase as it is the underpinning of the entire bill.
It appears as though this bill is making the assertion that gay and lesbians should receive the same benefits as heterosexual or married or common law individuals by nature of their sexual relationships. This in and of itself, using the reasoning of the member presenting this bill, is discriminatory. Let me illustrate this by way of a personal story.
My mother is a widow as is her sister, my aunt. My mother and aunt have lived together for several months and could very well end up spending their lives together. Will individuals such as my mother and aunt be included in the definition same sex spouses as outlined in this bill? No, they will not. Why not? Because they are not engaged in a sexual relationship. The assertions put forward in this bill are counterintuitive from any logical standpoint.
What about the argument that same sex couples contribute financially to a program from which they receive no benefit. On the face of it this seems to be a compelling and reasoned assertion. Let us examine such an assertion in closer detail. Those individuals who do not qualify for a public benefit still share in the public interest that it serves. Many dependant relations fail to qualify for family programs, yet the people in those relationships benefit from the children of others.
Childless seniors find their medicare, old age security and Canada pension benefits paid by other people's grown children. Other people's grown children maintain the economic infrastructure as a whole. If family type benefits are distributed to purely private social relations an enormously intrusive administrative effort will be required to determine who qualifies and who does not.
My colleague is committed to seeing change in this area and he has devoted a great deal of time and effort in his cause. I do not agree with his conclusions and cannot support his bill for the reasons I have outlined in my presentation.