Debates of Feb. 2nd, 1999

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 309

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on the main motion.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 310

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion lost.

The House resumed from February 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-302, an act to establish the rights of fishers including the right to be involved in the process of fisheries stock assessment, fish conservation, setting of fishing quotas, fishing licensing and the public right to fish and establish the right of fishers to be informed of decisions affecting fishing as a livelihood in advance and the right to compensation if other rights are abrogated unfairly, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Fishers' Bill Of Rights

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, February 1, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-302.

The mover of this motion is sitting on my left. The division will be taken row by row, starting with the sponsor of the bill and then proceeding with those in favour of the motion beginning with the back row of the side of the House on which the sponsor sits.

After proceeding through the rows on that first side, the members sitting on the other side of the House will vote, again beginning with the back row. Those opposed to the motion will be called in the same order.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 311

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion lost.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Based on an earlier decision of a vote in the House, may I recommend we close this place and let the judges and courts run this country.

Equal Treatment For Persons Cohabiting In A Relationship Similar To A Conjugal Relationship Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

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—

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

She is Minister of Labour.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

She is Minister of Labour now? Congratulations.

I see that the Minister of Labour agrees with me, and I am convinced that we cannot forgo this debate.

I will give an example. A little under two years ago, the Public Service Alliance of Canada actively supported two individuals who filed suits before various common law courts. The result was the Rosenberg decision. This is without a doubt one of the most important decisions for equality rights, because it ruled that various provisions of the Income Tax Act were invalid and unconstitutional, but not all the provisions concerning spouses. It could have gone further, but it ruled that paragraph 4 of section 252 was unconstitutional because it did not recognize the right to a survivor's pension for workers in that union. This is a tremendous step forward legally, but it was a step that parliamentarians should have taken.

My time is about to run out. I will save my conclusions for the end of the debate. I will wrap up for now by calling all parliamentarians to justice, to courage and to convictions, and urge them to allow a real debate, a real vote for the right to equality, the recognition of same-sex couples.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-309, introduced by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois—for the fourth time, apparently—is, I am certain, a sincere attempt to settle a matter of vital importance for gays and lesbians in Canada, which is that there is currently no recognition of their relationships.

The bill proposed by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois is, I am sure, a sincere attempt to address an issue of significant concern to gay and lesbian Canadians; that is, the lack of recognition for relationships.

One of the values that Canadians consistently identify as important in our society is the protection of individuals, including gays and lesbians, from discrimination.

We heard from Canadians that discrimination is not to be tolerated. Furthermore, polling results clearly indicate the majority of Canadians support providing the same economic treatment for same sex couples as heterosexual couples.

Bill C-309 proposes to create that same treatment by redefining spouse for all federal legislation and purposes. That is the point unfortunately on which I disagree. We have also heard from the ports across Canada that discrimination is not to be tolerated.

In 1995 the Supreme Court of Canada said it was discriminatory to refuse benefits to same sex couples that were available to heterosexual common law couples.

The court felt that this limitation was justified but only for a time. Since that time other courts have seized upon the more recent supreme court case that suggests these justification arguments may no longer be sound.

We have a problem that needs to be addressed, a problem that relates to equality and the elimination of discrimination. We in this government are committed to fairness. The question is how to bring about change responsibly and effectively.

We live in a diverse society and the Government of Canada must respond to the needs of all its citizens. For some time the government has believed the responsible course of action is to seriously examine its programs, policies and laws over which it has jurisdiction and take the appropriate steps to further equality.

The review of this matter has revealed that this issue does not lend itself to simple solutions or necessarily a single solution for all purposes.

We need to talk about more than providing similar benefits. There is clearly more to recognizing same sex couples than merely extending the same benefits available to heterosexual couples in federal laws and policies.

Fairness and equality for all Canadians requires that this matter be explored in relation to both benefits and obligations imposed by laws and policies.

My concern with Bill C-309 is that I am not convinced that we have fully explored the implications of a change to the definition of spouse sufficiently to know what will happen when each federal law has been modified.

Members may be aware of a recent charter challenge in the Ontario courts by a group that alleges the 52 federal statutes that refer to the word spouse or dependent are discriminatory because they do not incorporate same sex couples.

There are likely more than these 52 statutes and many more regulations and policies where the change to the definition of spouse proposed by Bill C-309 will have an impact.

There are also likely many other laws where there will be incidental or spillover effect. I must say also that it is not only the Minister of Justice who has to act but a number of other ministers within their jurisdiction.

Each of these statutes, regulations and policies must be carefully examined to see what is the most effective way of making changes. The one size fits all approach in this bill may not be appropriate in all circumstances, we feel.

There may be a variety of legislative approaches available. Some will make more sense than others in the context of each law and each statute and still provide us with a means of ensuring that same sex relationships are treated with fairness.

We must take the time to do this properly. This is not to say that the government has not already acted on some of these issues. For example, members will recall that the minister of immigration recently spoke of her new direction for immigration and refugee legislation.

She announced that in order to adjust to social realities and to ensure fair treatment under the legislation, the new directions are aimed to expand the class of individuals who may be sponsored in the family class and who may accompany an immigration applicant. This extended class will include common law and same sex couples.

Everyone recognizes the difficulties of this complex issue, that there are a number of ways of responding to questions being raised by Canadians. Whatever approach is chosen to ensure the relationships, we must carefully consider how to appropriately maintain a balance between entitlements and obligations, and between ensuring fairness in recognizing the realities of many Canadians while preserving the importance of the institutions of marriage to other Canadians.

This is not an easy task. As I said, is not only one minister who has to act but a series of ministers in the government.

I look forward to further debate on this issue after more careful consideration on how to balance competing considerations.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

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.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill. Bill C-309 is an attempt to attain equality, equality for a group that has been left out of the circle.

If this bill passes it would not mean that we would alleviate the fear gays and lesbians live under. It would not mean that we alleviate the discrimination they live under. It would only be an attempt to make sure they got some of the economic benefits that are available to other families. We are talking about people who could be our brothers or sisters or our children and for some of us our friends.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equality and guarantees that groups will not be discriminated against. It is about human rights. Even though the parliamentary secretary said there is no simple solution, and there never is, it does not mean we do not make an attempt to begin somewhere. When human rights compete with other interests they have to be balanced. Human rights should not compete with other interests. We should make every attempt to make sure the rights of our citizens are guaranteed not just in word but in law.

I also agree with my Reform colleague that this should not be slipped in through any back door and that we should be debating it openly. Being gay or lesbian is nothing to be ashamed of.

A lot of the discrimination is based on fear and it is unbased. Heterosexual couples far outweigh homosexuals. They do not reproduce themselves. They come from heterosexual families. I do not know a single gay or lesbian person who is a threat to my family structure. We need to recognize the benefit that they provide to our community both economically and culturally. They need to be recognized in law.

What we are after are more families that support each other. Heterosexual families break down regularly. It does not mean that the children will automatically be looked after. It leaves a lot of children out in the cold. I know lots of aunts and uncles who happen to be gay and lesbian who look after a lot of young children. They do not shirk their responsibilities to our society or their part in it.

As parliamentarians we do need the courts to tell us what is right and what is wrong. How many times do these issues have to go before the courts? How many times do the courts have to say that this is their right before parliamentarians act on it? Just because it is a more difficult issue, something that perhaps some people do not want to face, does not mean that we should not face it.

We were elected to debate and make decisions on difficult issues. I do not see this one as being difficult. I see it as being an issue of fairness.

What we have faced in the past is making decisions based on fear. But the fear of what? We are not the gay or the lesbian, except for a very few in here. So we are not in fear of being assaulted. We are not in fear of losing benefits. We are not in fear of being stigmatized. Therefore it is incumbent upon us to make a decision in favour of justice.

We should not be allowing fear to determine the lives of gay and lesbian people. We should not be letting it determine Canadian legislation.

I support this bill because I believe it is time to let fairness be our guide.

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to advise you that I am going to split my time with my colleague from Kings—Hants.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret to inform the hon. member that this will require the unanimous consent of the House, because it is a 10 minute speech.

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to divide her speaking time?