Madam Speaker, I regret that we again do not have enough time allocated to debate a very important piece of public policy, Bill C-78, which deals with several issues that are of great importance to Canadians, including the ones we are dealing with in this group of amendments.
The issue of same sex benefits, whether it is in the public service or the private sector, has been an issue that has developed over a period of years. I would remind members of the House that the supreme court has been consistent in its interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which protects the rights of all Canadians. That is very important.
It is also important to remind ourselves as members of the House that we were elected to represent and defend the rights of all our constituent and to protect the rights of all Canadians. That is not simply the groups of Canadians that we tend to agree with or the groups of Canadians that we feel live in a lifestyle that we happen to support. We were elected to support and represent all Canadians.
As some suggest, this is not an issue of the redefinition of the family. This is not about the redefinition of marriage. This is simply an issue of fairness.
There are some people who use the phraseology “family values”. Family values should be an intrinsically positive phrase. I think every member of the House believes very strongly in the benefits of a supportive, close-knit family, a nurturing family that provides support and encouragement throughout one's life.
If we are serious about defending the family, defending family values, defending the principles of support and that type of important nuclear relationship that can exist within a family, we should be encouraging all Canadians to live in the types of unions that provide them with that level of support throughout their lives. If we are serious about it, we should be encouraging not discouraging Canadians to live in those types of relationships.
Unfortunately, family values is used by some members of the House as a euphemism for discriminatory policy against one group or another. Although some would argue that when we extend rights or protect the rights of some we diminish the rights of others, there is absolutely no precedent in history to that effect. A significant number of precendents have been set throughout history showing that when we fail to protect the rights of one group we imperil the rights of all groups collectively. It is very important for all of us in the House to defend the rights of all the people we represent and all Canadians.
Seventy-five per cent of Canadians support human rights legislation to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination based on sexual orientation. The supreme court has been consistent in its interpretation of the charter of rights. There is currently a federal legal challenge that was initiated in January 1999 to force the federal government to recognize same sex benefits within the public service. The PSAC union has represented the interests of its members in this case in support of the extension of same sex benefits, particularly relative to survivors.
This debate is not dissimilar to the debate that I believe existed at some point relative to common law spouses and an extension of survivor benefits to common law spouses that has taken place in the House. We have seen how that has evolved. The family has evolved and there is a more flexible definition of the family in that regard.
We can have two individuals working for the public service who perhaps work in the same job category or even in the same office with desks next to each other. One person is in a heterosexual marriage, works for the government for 10 years and then dies. The survivor benefits, based on what he or she has paid into the pension plan, will be there for his or her survivor.
In the other case, the second individual could be gay or lesbian and living in a long term supportive relationship with dependants. He or she may also have worked in the same job over a period of 10 years. However, if something happens to this person, the spouse will be denied benefits despite the fact that both the first individual and the second individual paid taxes and both paid identically into the public service pension plan. This is a clear case of where the government needs to ensure that this discriminatory policy is not permitted. Canadians do not want a discriminatory policy to be part of our public service.
Corporations, not just government, have been proactive in terms of providing these types of benefits. I will list a few of the corporations, universities and provincial governments that have moved in this direction: 3M; A & W Canada; Air Canada; Air Ontario; BC Telecom; Bank of Nova Scotia; Bank of Montreal; IBM Canada; Chrysler Canada; General Electric; Levis Strauss; London Life; McMillan Bloedel; Sears; Stentor Resources; and Toronto-Dominion Bank. I think part of the reason for this move is from the legal perspective that there is no choice. We do have a charter of rights and freedoms in Canada that was put in place to protect the rights of all Canadians. The supreme court has been consistent in its interpretation of that charter of rights.
I do resent the fact that the government has not allowed proper debate and discussion on this very important issue and has slipped this into another piece of legislation. The government has pitted members of parliament, whose views on these issues have been very clear for some time, against something they believe in. It is unfortunate because this is a fundamental issue of fairness. Fairness is a tenet of Canadian policy, not just Canadian social policy but of what it means to be a Canadian, our determination as Canadians to stand up and defend the rights of minorities and of those who are being persecuted, not just within Canada, but anywhere in the world.
We are known around the world through our peacekeepers and through our foreign policy initiatives as a country that stands up to defend the rights of all peoples. Yet within our own country we still have intrinsically discriminatory policy within the legislative framework. The government has moved to address this, but I do not believe that it has acted appropriately in terms of providing this as part of a very comprehensive piece of legislation that will effectively pit members of parliament, who may agree with some elements, against the legislation.
Polling is supportive of the extension of same sex benefits. However, I would never argue that we should use polls to determine policies on minority rights. Populism is not the proper means through which to develop minority rights. If in the U.S. polling had dictated what the leaders were going to do during the civil rights movement, the civil rights movement would not have moved forward. Black Americans probably would not have been given the vote if polling had determined what the government was going to do.
What defines the difference between politicians and political leaders is that politicians do what the polls tell them to do and political leaders do what is right.
The government is not doing what is right by being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century avoiding debates on very important issues like this one and denying proper debate in parliament on issues that are important to all Canadians.