moved that Bill C-309, an act providing for equal treatment for persons cohabiting in a relationship similar to a conjugal relationship, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to this bill, since it is certainly a bill having to do with human rights. That is what we must remember. It is with this principle in mind that I hope to be able to count on the support of members of the House, whose consent I will seek to make my bill votable at the close of debate.
This is the third time I have tabled this bill. No one in the House can say I do not persevere. I sincerely hope that this time we will get approval because much progress has been made legally during the past five years. The paradox is that the courts have recognized same-sex couples and I think the time has now come for us, as parliamentarians, to take a stand.
There is a tradition in the House that partisanship is set aside when it comes to human rights. I see the parliamentary secretary nodding her head. It is my fondest hope that, when the debate is over, she will rise in her place and say, on behalf of her government, that she will support the bill, that the government will move ahead and that we will be able to engage in the necessary debate, as parliamentarians.
I am rather proud of what we have accomplished today because, a bit earlier, in the afternoon, there was a press conference attended by all political parties, with the notable exception of the Reform Party, but I have not given up. Knowing that it is through convictions, through words, through persuasion and debate, who knows but what the Reform Party may even come to the inescapable conclusion that men can love other men, that women can love other women and that it is possible for their relations to be genuine, authentic and personally enriching. Perhaps it will not be long before we hear of individuals within the Reform Party caucus who have chosen this path.
That said, I wish to thank the four hon. members who supported the bill at our press conference a little earlier this afternoon. These were: the hon. member for Toronto-Centre—Rosedale, well-known for his legal expertise and as an enlightened spokesperson for the Toronto gay community; my colleague, the hon. member for Shefford—let me make it very clear, she is not homosexual, but being a democrat and a believer in human rights, she clearly understood that this debate was inevitable and that we had to take a position as parliamentarians. Then there was my friend, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, a pioneer in his own time, a forerunner, one of the first to make a commitment to the recognition of same-sex partners.
What is in my bill? If passed, it proposes that, in each piece of legislation in which there is a heterosexist definition of spouse, there will also be a homosexist definition. In total, there are some 70 laws which confer benefits or responsibilities upon spouses, 70 laws in which there is a definition of spouse. These include the Merchant Marine Act, the Income Tax Act, and the Criminal Code. The entire list totals 70.
What I would like the hon. members to understand today is that it would be terribly inconsistent, and a source of pride to no member of this House, to not pass such a bill. What inconsistency? The inconsistency of saying that we have passed various bills as parliamentarians which do not allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
I refer to the debate we had in 1995 when we amended the Canadian Human Rights Act and added an 11th prohibited grounds for discrimination—sexual orientation. What message did we send as parliamentarians to the people of Canada and Quebec?
The message was that we recognize that sexual orientation is no grounds for discrimination, that there are, in our society, people who are openly homosexual—men and women—and that this does not prevent them from taking their place in society. It does not prevent them from being committed in their professional environment. It does not prevent them from being involved in their community. It is another way, a very fulfilling way, to experience one's sexuality.
However, when we amended Bill C-33, we took another step that affected individuals.
I digress a moment to remind you that, in 1995, the only minister voting in favour of my bill was the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the member for Hamilton East. I thank her for being the only member of cabinet to step out and vote for my bill. I will never forget that, despite our differences, she is a woman of conviction. I am sure that the entire community across Canada is grateful. I say this, because she is here and I think it should be mentioned.
That said, we recognized that we could not discriminate on an individual basis. The next step for us in Parliament is to recognize that we cannot discriminate on an emotional basis.
Men who love men and women who love women are in emotional relationships. They are building a common heritage. They make a commitment on the basis of feelings that are real, and this action must be expressed in legislation.
I would like to give you examples of what that means in concrete terms. This is no academic debate. This is no scholastic debate. This is not a theoretical debate. It is a debate about equality rights, about the full recognition of all citizens, as taxpayers, as committed members of society. It is about all dimensions of life, all dimensions of our existence.
I will, if I may, describe a number of situations that are discriminatory. For instance, there is the Employment Insurance Act. One becomes eligible for employment insurance because one has paid premiums. This is not charity.
In passing, I must say how heartless this government has been when it comes to the unemployed. What became of the just society that the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau strove so hard for in 1968? If we put ten unemployed workers in a room, only four of them would qualify for benefits.
I know that the parliamentary secretary shares my indignation. This unspoken indignation must become vocal. That is the challenge.
That having been said, I return to the recognition of same-sex couples. I will give a specific example. Take someone who is on EI and who has been living with someone for three years, in Abitibi say, whose spouse is transferred for professional reasons to Montreal, the beautiful city in which my riding is located as everyone knows. There is a penalty. They cannot follow their partner. They are not eligible for benefits, as they would be in a heterosexual relationship. That is the first really concrete and pragmatic example.
Second example, the whole matter of pension funds. Pension funds are contributory. Every MP, every person who contributes to a pension fund, does so on the basis of a commitment. For example, if I died tomorrow, even though I have been with my partner for five years, he would still not be eligible for my pension. This is true for all public servants. This is the kind of situation that needs to be changed, because it is unacceptable.
Then there is the Immigration Act. Canada is a land of immigrants. We welcome 250,000 immigrants every year. Along with New Zealand, Australia and the U.S., Canada is one of the four countries in the world with a tradition of immigration. As far as sponsorship goes, there is no formal mention of this in the act.
I see that the solicitor general, the minister responsible for prisons, is with us in the House.
I would like her to take a look at the amount of discrimination experienced by people who are imprisoned and are not acknowledged as spouses, and what this means when it comes to visiting rights for same-sex partners.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat, I am truly convinced that, if all goes well, we shall both see the new century in, me because of my youth and you because of your tenacity. The fact is that we could not contemplate changing centuries without resolving this problem of discrimination, because what is happening, I repeat, is that in 70 federal statutes, there is ongoing discrimination because this Parliament has not yet found a way to pass an omnibus bill.
I wish to oppose the government's strategy and I want to put it gently. I offer this government the opportunity to repair an injustice, because we are not mistaken in saying that there are two major categories of our fellow citizens who are still the brunt of social discrimination in 1999: the gays and lesbians and the poor. I will be introducing anti-poverty legislation in the coming weeks, but that is another debate.
The fact is, we as parliamentarians can pass the bill I propose, if we want, to permit full recognition. Who can say we are wrong in saying that all members of Parliament, whether they come from Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec or elsewhere, have, within their borders and their ridings, fellow citizens waiting for this?
What a regrettable thing it would be for this Parliament to skirt this debate and allow the courts to decide in our place. I have nothing but respect for jurists. The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who kindly supported my bill, is one. I too am taking law courses—one a session. Whether or not I become a lawyer, I know that it is not up to the courts, the judiciary or judges to stand in for parliamentarians. It is very important that parliamentarians—I see the Solicitor General agrees with me, and I am delighted—very important—