Mr. Speaker, the member for Elk Island was getting quite vociferous, and rightly so. He was trying to point out that the government, through Bill C-78, is overturning all the norms of society. It is allowing through the back door changes affecting same sex marriages and so on. It is becoming a term that is used in society every day.
When I arrived at my desk this morning I had a government response to a petition that I tabled in the House some time ago regarding marriage and so on. Let me read the government's response. It states:
The term “marriage” in Canada is clear in law and is defined as “the union of one man and one women to the exclusion of all others”. There is no need to either enact this definition in legislation or to amend any existing legislation. The definition of marriage in federal law is not in a statute passed by Parliament, but is found in what is called the federal common law dating from 1866 British case of Hyde and Hyde v. Woodmansee , L.R. l P. & D. 130. This case has been applied consistently in Canada and states that no marriage can exist between two persons of the same sex, and is void ab initio , similar to “marriages” made within prohibited degrees of consanguinity.
This government remains committed to supporting Canadian families and there are no plans to legislate a change to the definition of the term “marriage”. The definition of marriage is clear in law in Canada and has been successfully defended before the courts as the union of two persons of the opposite sex.
The government says it is committed to maintaining marriage as it is seen in the eyes of the Canadian people, but through the back door it is ignoring marriage and is now into conjugal relationships and cohabitation. What this long sentence means is that any kind of sexual relationship, perverted or otherwise, is now deemed to be the norm and will therefore qualify for survivor benefits under this pension.
I would have thought that the government, which is here to represent the Canadian people and uphold the laws of the land and which tells us that marriage as defined is the law of the land as accepted by all Canadians, is allowing that venerable, holy institution of marriage to be watered down, defiled, changed and become anything whatsoever. That is a serious affront to many Canadians across the land and to the sanctity of their marriage. As it states here, a marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. However, in the eyes of the government that no longer matters.
We have a serious problem with single parent families in the country. A large percentage of them are poor and rely on some form of government assistance. Research is now telling us that children brought up in a single parent family may not develop as well emotionally as children growing up in a two parent family. We are now being pressured by same sex couples to adopt children. We now have same sex couples demanding the right of marriage. We see the definition here saying that they want the same rights as everybody else.
We have to recognize that people of the same sex form associations and live together as couples, but let us not call it marriage by any stretch of the imagination. The government is failing Canadian society when it allows the encroachment of the idea that any kind of relationship can be called marriage.
We are talking about survivor benefits under pension plans for the civil service. When an employee, who was living with someone or was married, died in his or her old age what would happen to the person's survivor? Our society said that the survivor should be cared for. However, we are now questioning the definition of a survivor. Anybody who has any kind of a relationship with the retired employee seems to be now called a survivor provided there is some kind of conjugal relationship going on.
As the member for Elk Island pointed out, will we be installing video cameras in every bedroom? Are we going to have sex police around to check on whether there is some kind of conjugal relationship going on or not. I do not know. The government has never said and I do not think it intends to say.
When we had the lawyer from the Department of Justice and Treasury Board before committee last week—the bill is being rushed through by the way—I asked about the common law conjugal relationship.
I know this is a sensitive and delicate issue that one does not normally talk about in public, but we do have to get the facts on the table. If two people are living common law and that common law relationship ceases to exist before one of the persons dies then there will be no survivorship entitlement.
I put forth the scenario of a retiree whose health is gone. One person is living in a nursing home and the other person is living at home. They are not cohabiting and they may not cohabit for several years because the health of the retiree is completely gone. One has to assume there is also no conjugal relationship. Therefore, under the law, as proposed by the government, the survivor would not qualify, even if the couple had been living together for 40 years.
I posed that point to the lawyers. They told me that the courts would probably be lenient and recognize it. Again the House is deferring to the courts to write the laws that we know, as we stand and debate the bill, are flawed and deficient. Under the above circumstance, that couple would have no protection at all. The government knows it, we know it and the lawyers know it.
The government does not know how to deal with the issue because it is kind of technical and complex. At the same time, it wants to extend survivor benefits to virtually every kind of relationship we can think of. It wants the courts to figure it out. We complained in the House about the courts dictating to parliament and about abdicating our responsibility to write legislation that is clear, definitive and which makes it obvious what is meant. I think the bill is absolutely terrible.
We will be debating other issues in a few minutes when we move on to the financial side of the bill. However I wanted to put on the record that the government says it is clearly committed to upholding marriage. By its omission and commission it is circumventing the whole institution of marriage. It is not upholding it. It is allowing it to be overwhelmed by people who do not understand the sanctity of marriage. Therefore, we have a problem in the land, led by a government which does not stand up for principles any more.
Our great society was built by people who came here for freedom and opportunity. They have prospered and lived together in the sanctity of marriage. They have raised families. They did a wonderful job of building the country from nothing. Because the government has no desire to uphold the principles people have been living by for generation after generation, we are seeing the erosion of our standards. We see that through its back door attempts at eliminating and undermining the sanctity of marriage. That is why we are opposed to it.
I am very disappointed in your ruling a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, on the disallowance of the motions. I understand the point you are coming from; it is just rather unfortunate that the wrong bill was used. In closing, I hope the government would withdraw the bill and rethink the whole issue.