Debates of Feb. 15th, 2000

Questions Passed As Orders For Returns

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-23, an act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Government of Canada, it is my pleasure to speak in support of Bill C-23, the modernization of benefits and obligations act.

Bill C-23 amends federal legislation so that it reflects these values. It ensures respect for the principle of equal treatment before the law of persons living in recognized stable relationships.

Bill C-23 ensures that federal laws reflect the core values of Canadians, values that are enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The fundamental tenets of Canadian society—fairness, tolerance, respect and equality—are touchstones of our national identity and serve to enhance our international reputation.

Bill C-23 brings federal statutes into line with these values. It ensures that the principle of equal treatment under the law, in relation to individuals in committed common law relationships, is respected.

Equally important, Bill C-23 does so while preserving the existing legal definition and societal consensus that marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Let me briefly elaborate on this point.

This definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada and which was reaffirmed last year through a resolution of the House, dates back to 1866. It has served us well and will not change. We recognize that marriage is a fundamental value and important to Canadians. That value and importance is in no way undermined by recognizing in law other forms of committed relationships.

The timing of this bill is important. As Canadians have pointed out, society is ready for this change. In fact there have been numerous challenges before the courts and human rights tribunals concerning the equal treatment of same sex couples. The results of these processes have invariably been the same. Common law same sex couples must be accorded the same access as common law opposite sex couples to the social benefits programs to which they have contributed.

To ignore either obligations or benefits is discriminatory and in violation of both the charter of rights and freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act. Indeed, this was the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of M. v H. But while the courts have provided us with a road map of what needs to be changed, the onus is on us as parliamentarians to determine how to proceed.

Important matters of social policy should not be left to the courts to decide. If parliament does not address the issue, the courts will continue to hand down decisions in a piecemeal fashion, interpreting narrow points of law on the specific questions before them. This guarantees confusion and continuing costly litigation. Most worrisome, it risks removing us from the social policy process altogether.

In recent surveys more than two out of three Canadians agreed that same sex couples should have the same legal rights and obligations as their common law opposite sex counterparts. The changes we are proposing are consistent with our previous efforts to adapt policies to changing values. They are also consistent with the efforts of other jurisdictions and the private sector. For example, last year parliament passed Bill C-78, which extended survivor pension benefits to same sex partners of federal public service employees. Manitoba, Quebec, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories have undertaken similar initiatives for their public service employees. As well, several provinces have already begun to amend their legislation more broadly.

Since 1997 British Columbia has amended numerous statutes, including six core statutes, to add same sex couples.

Last year Quebec amended 28 statutes and 11 regulations to grant same sex couples the same benefits and obligations that are available to opposite sex common law couples.

Last fall, to comply with the supreme court decision in M. v H., the Government of Ontario passed omnibus legislation to bring 67 statutes into compliance with that court ruling.

Most large cities in Canada and more than 200 major private sector Canadian companies currently provide benefits to the same sex partners of their employees, as do many smaller municipalities, hospitals, libraries and social service institutions across Canada. We are on the right side of public opinion and we are on the right side of the law.

It is against this backdrop that I would like to clarify what this legislation will do. This omnibus bill provides a responsible, balanced and legally sound framework within which to amend relevant Canadian laws.

The bill will enable us to modernize existing federal laws affecting some 20 departments and agencies. In all, 68 statutes will be affected, including, among others, the Income Tax Act, the Canada pension plan and the Old Age Security Act.

Because of the comprehensive nature of this legislation we will now be able to ensure that our laws confer both benefits and obligations equally to all common law relationships, whether of the opposite sex or the same sex. This is a critical point, the significance of which must not be lost. This law is about equality, and equality is a two-way street. We are not simply extending access to certain social benefits to same sex couples, we are also imposing new obligations on them.

As I stated earlier, Bill C-23 maintains the clear distinction between married and unmarried relationships. Wherever possible neutral terms are used to define relationships and the partners within them. For example, the term survivor is used in the Canada pension plan context.

Where a neutral term could not be used the act uses the term common law partner—conjoint de fait en français to encompass people in common law relationships, both opposite and same sex. The term spouse—époux en français—will now be used exclusively in relation to married couples.

Bill C-23 will bring fairness to the application of government benefits and obligations to all common law couples. Let me cite just a few examples.

If we look at the issue of benefits first we can see that the new laws will treat Canadian couples more fairly. Under the Canada pension plan, for example, the surviving spouse in a married relationship or the surviving partner in a common law opposite sex relationship may qualify for survivor's benefits based on his or her spouse's or partner's contributions to the plan. Bill C-23 would provide that in similar circumstances the surviving partner in a common law same sex relationship would qualify for the same benefits.

At the same time however, the changes are, as I mentioned earlier, not one way. Common law same sex couples will also be subject to the same obligations as common law opposite sex couples.

In the case of bankruptcy, for example, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act limits the ability of married people to transfer ownership of their home or property to their spouse prior to declaring bankruptcy. Yet, because this statute refers to spouse, it does not apply equally to common law opposite sex or same sex couples. In this instance the changes would provide for similar obligations for married and common law couples.

There are also obligations associated with eligibility for the GST-HST credit. In married and common law opposite sex relationships the combined income of the two partners is used to determine eligibility for the tax credit. By comparison, people in same sex partnerships may currently apply for the credit as individuals. With Bill C-23, in order to determine eligibility to receive this tax credit, same sex couples will now declare the income of their common law partners.

The Department of Finance has concluded that the cost of these measures will be minimal, if any. Clearly this is not a cost issue.

Canadians do not want laws that discriminate unfairly or that violate charter principles. We must proceed expeditiously with this bill because it is clearly the right thing to do. We should be proud to support this bill.

Before I conclude, I would like to address the issue of other dependent relationships in which some members of the House have expressed an interest. I would first like to emphasize that by moving forward with this legislation we are not precluding discussion which has already started on whether or how to acknowledge the nature and reality of the many types of dependent relationships that exist. We know there is some interest in extending benefits and obligations to individuals in other relationships of economic and emotional interdependence.

Dependency is a complex issue with far-reaching consequences for both individuals and society as a whole. It deserves to be studied carefully. It is for this reason that we will be referring this issue to a parliamentary committee.

Indeed, there is a qualitative difference between the relationships addressed in Bill C-23 and the types of relationships that may exist among relatives, siblings or friends living under the same roof and sharing household expenses. The reality is that many adult Canadians currently reside with elderly parents, siblings and other relatives. While benefits that reflect dependency would likely be welcome, it is not quite so clear whether the accompanying legal obligations would be equally well received.

For example, one could take the case of an elderly woman living with her son and daughter-in-law. Should the younger couple's combined income be included in the senior citizen's calculations of her eligibility for the guaranteed income supplement under the Old Age Security Act? Or, consider the example children caring for parents in their home. In one case a daughter supports her widowed father. In the house next door, another woman provides for both her mother and father. How would we treat these cases? Would relationships of dependency apply to any two people who live together or to unlimited numbers as long as they are under the same roof?

Other issues also need to be resolved. These include how dependency relationships would be defined and which relationships would be allowed. Would individuals be allowed to self-identify their relationships or would the government require proof of some kind? Would the government exclude any relatives from these relationships of dependency, as France has done, or exclude only opposite sex common law couples, as Hawaii has chosen to do?

These are not trivial issues and they are not amenable to easy answers. It is for this very reason that we must consult broadly with Canadians. These issues are too important to act on before talking to Canadians about what it means to take the benefits and also what it means to accept the obligations.

Others have endorsed the notion of domestic registries for unmarried adults living in dependent relationships. Under this system two adults living together whether they are unmarried sisters, elderly parents living with an adult child, or lifelong friends who are roommates could register for benefits and obligations. Proceeding down this path requires discussion with those likely to be affected and an assessment of costs and discussion with the provinces and territories.

Moreover it is not clear that voluntary registries are the best solution. What happens for example where a clear dependency exists but one partner refuses to register in order to avoid obligations? Should the relationship be deemed to exist and if couples can register, under what circumstances can they deregister and what if only one of the partners wishes to do so?

There are also important privacy issues to consider. Presumably a registry would be open to the public in the same way registries are for births and deaths. This might result in people being forced to have their relationship publicly known. More important, if such a system were created at the federal level, it would have limited utility as it would apply only to areas of federal jurisdiction.

In Canada where the many pieces of legislation that grant benefits and impose obligations are divided between or shared among the federal, provincial and territorial governments, a registry would require the unanimous agreement of all levels of government. This would be necessary to help assure Canadians that a registry would work effectively, efficiently and fairly.

Proceeding with such a policy on a unilateral basis without public hearings, without assessing the costs and without consulting with the provinces and territories would be irresponsible and unrealistic.

All parliamentarians agree that in considering changes to the system we must encourage rather than discourage people to take care of each other. We must be careful to ensure that any legal changes would not impose obligations that act as barriers to people supporting each other.

This legislation is about ensuring that Canadians in committed common law relationships are treated equally and fairly. This bill is about tolerance and respect. I invite all members of the House to support the bill.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to advise the Chair, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), that Liberal members for the balance of the debate on Bill C-23 will be splitting their time.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the short title of Bill C-23 is the modernization of benefits and obligations act. This bill will affect 68 different federal statutes and 20 different departments and agencies to extend benefits to same sex couples on the same basis as opposite sex common law or married couples.

The bill states in the preamble that it is intended to reflect values of tolerance, respect, equality with respect to the benefits and obligations of all couples. The bill is the government's poorly thought out quick fix approach to an issue which requires a much more thoughtful and comprehensive approach in order to realize the values it says it is intending to reflect.

I will primarily be examining two aspects of the bill that make it so weak in its current form that no thinking person could possibly support the bill. I will also suggest some ways to improve the bill.

Let me begin by reminding the House of a particular motion that was debated and passed in the House by a four to one margin just a few short months ago in June 1999. That motion stated that in the opinion of this House it is necessary, in light of public debate around court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that parliament will take all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of parliament—

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We all listened intently and politely to the minister. I wonder why she is not here to listen to our speakers.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member knows very well that we do not comment on the presence or absence of members in the House.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, we hope that she is listening out there somewhere.

The motion that was passed by the House back in June was a very clear directive from the Parliament of Canada and the people's representatives to the Government of Canada to make sure that the definition of marriage does not change.

In Bill C-23 the government has ignored that directive from parliament. It has done nothing to strengthen the current definition of marriage in law. Bill C-23 provided the government with an opportunity to respond to the direction from parliament and secure the definition of marriage in federal legislation. This is important.

People have become increasingly concerned that the definition of marriage in Canada needs to be strengthened and protected before the courts because of case rulings one after another that increasingly suggest that the opposite sex definition of marriage may soon be deemed unconstitutional by the courts. In the last two years alone, 84 members of the House have presented petition after petition totalling thousands of names, calling for parliament to enact legislation to define that marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female. The people of Canada are speaking.

Are Canadians overreacting or do they have justifiable concerns? Let us examine some of the recent events that have added to public concern about the erosion of the definition and concepts related to marriage.

Until recently Canadians understood the word spouse to be either a husband or a wife in a marriage. I can point to the immigration bill that was recently introduced in the House, Bill C-63, which would give the minister and the bureaucracy under her the power to define what a spouse is, whatever they deemed it to be that particular day.

Bill C-78 was pushed through the House. It was the 52nd bill the government forced closure on. It dealt with the public service pension plan. The bill removed every reference to wife, widow or spouse and replaced them with the word survivor in order to extend benefits previously reserved for marriage to same sex relationships.

In the fall the Minister of Human Resources Development went beyond the Canada Pension Plan Act to extend pension plan benefits normally reserved for married couples to same sex relationships, even though there was no legal or legislative authorization to do so.

In addition, a number of court cases have served to erode the distinctiveness of marriage and the concepts, rights and obligations tied to it. Many Canadians are concerned about this trend. The petitions are evidence of that.

In the courts, the Liberals refused to appeal a tax code case, known as the Rosenberg case. A provincial court redefined spouse to mean two people of the opposite sex or the same sex, even though every dictionary, including all the legal dictionaries, have always understood and still do understand spouse to be either a husband or a wife in a marriage. But the justice minister across the way, her law, the federal law, chose not to appeal the new definition of spouse.

Canadians are watching this trend. Some say the last thing that remains is the full blown establishment of homosexual marriage in Canada as a normative practice. It becomes somewhat self-evident that sooner or later the opposite sex definition of marriage will be challenged in the courts. If the courts can rule that the way Canadians use the word spouse is unconstitutional and must include a same sex definition of spouse, why could they not rule that the current definition of marriage is unconstitutional unless it includes same sex and possibly a variety of other relationships as well?

Due to the lack of accountable leadership from the Liberal government, the courts end up setting social policy often derived from a single case using charter arguments. The Liberal government follows the courts with legislation saying that the courts made the government do it. The people of Canada are totally left out of the process.

Marriage as it has been defined throughout history is significant to people for a variety of reasons. It would be presumptuous of me to attempt to adequately capture all the values and the rationale Canadians have that are associated with why the current definition of marriage is so important to them. It is enough to say that the institution of marriage has been important to Canadian society from the very beginning of our nation.

In marriage a man in relationship to a woman gains the insights, sensitivities and strengths that she brings to the relationship and vice versa. A lifelong committed union of a man and a woman in marriage creates a unit that is stronger than the sum of the individuals because their differences complement each other.

In Corbett v Corbett the court said that marriage is an institution upon which the family is built. In other court cases the importance of marriage has been underlined. Let me reference a comment made by Justice La Forest in the Egan case where he said:

The legal institution of marriage exists both for the protection of the relationship and for defining the obligations that flow from entering into a legal marriage. Because of its importance, legal marriage may properly be viewed as fundamental to the stability and well-being of the family and, as such, parliament may quite properly give special support to the institution of marriage.

The kind of positive character modelling we see in marriage with access to both genders does not stay confined to the home but continues with children outside the home and adds a stabilizing and strengthening component to all of society. Recent Statistics Canada studies report that children in home relationships with both parents, mother and dad, have far fewer behavioural problems and a significantly higher percentage complete high school. Marriage is more than just a legal concept defined here; it is an institution that works for families.

According to a 1991 review of research in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry competency levels of children are influenced more by the quality and quantity of their interaction with their parents than by the parents' income or occupation or any other social variables. What kids need from their parents is mainly the parents themselves.

In the 1986 book Single Mothers and Their Children political scientist Sara McLanahan found that teenage girls raised with their fathers are far less likely to get in trouble. Fatherless girls are 111% more likely to get pregnant and 164% are more likely to become single mothers. A girl needs her father. We can make the same argument for the influence of mothers on children.

It is also interesting to note that a recent study of young people in Canada found that they aspire to have strong families. In a recent poll 93% of youth predicted that their family would be the most important part of their life. Eighty percent believe that the currently defined marriage between a man and a woman is for life.

Let me also share a comment from one of the editors of a paper in my own city. It captures well the importance of marriage and why marriage needs to be clearly defined in legislation which does not currently exist at the federal level. That is one of the major improvements that is needed to Bill C-23.

Let me quote from Peter Menzies of the Calgary Herald . He says:

Laws defining marriage and common-law relationships were not designed just to protect the interests of two people involved in an intimate relationship. They were designed primarily to protect the interests of children. This is because heterosexual intimacy alone results in babies.

Societies decided to do this because: a) procreation is fundamental to the biological survival of the species, and, b) it is by consensus and statistical fact in the best interests of the cultural survival of the species to have its offspring raised in a stable home involving a mother and a father who have made a commitment to each other in sickness and health, until death do them part. That is because society has decided, through tradition and experience, that a male-female marriage is a form of relationship—due to its procreative nature and the depth of commitment required—best suited to act as a societal cornerstone, from a biological and cultural point of view.

To marry, you must be willing to make a lifelong monogamous commitment to the person of the opposite sex. Commitment, monogamy and possibly procreative sex are all typically necessary. If one, the procreative restriction, is not—as the court believes—justifiable in a free and democratic society, then surely monogamy and commitment are just as discriminatory against polygamous and those who wish to keep their options open.

None of this guarantees that all marriages result in perfectly functional families or that non-married relationships are by definition dysfunctional. Statistics, however, support the broadly-held view that—in general—the marriage model remains worthy of the exclusivity society has granted it, even though an increasing number of people prefer—and are free to—live otherwise.

Marriage is important. Marriage is good for kids and marriage needs to be defined in legislation. This is important to Canadians. We have seen the trend.

I want to get back to the concerns that many of the petitioners have raised in the House. It is reasonable for them to assume, based on the trends they have seen, that some day there will be a constitutional challenge to strike down the opposite sex definition of marriage in Canada, but why wait until that happens? Why continue to let the courts lead, as the Liberal government chooses to do on a regular basis, not just on this topic but on many topics? Why not respond? Why not let parliament for once lead instead of having the courts lead? Why not let the voice of the people represented by their elected representatives be what sets the agenda, as opposed to the courts always leading?

If we do not act now, when the courts say later that the charter made them do it, then the Liberals say that the courts made them do it, the question of using the notwithstanding clause will come up again. Would the Liberal government use the notwithstanding clause to defend the current definition of marriage?

Clearly, the Liberals have a position that seems to say that they will never use it. They will do everything in their power to make sure no one else does as well.

It is interesting that Premier Klein of Alberta recently made a pronouncement that if the courts ever ruled in favour of same sex marriage, he would invoke the notwithstanding clause. That is encouraging, but will we ever hear that from the federal government?

It is important to note that the provincial government has the authority to perform or solemnize marriages, but it is the federal government that determines what marriage is. Currently there is no federal statute that states that marriage must be between a man and a woman. Marriage is defined simply in common law, by case law, by judges. It has been decided in the courts over the years that it is a union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others.

In light of the court's demonstrated willingness to redefine language and write into law within the context of the charter and there determine what is “reasonable”, it is clearly reasonable for the people's representatives in this parliament to proactively define in legislation that the definition of marriage must remain the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

Unfortunately, because the justice minister did not take the opportunity, Bill C-23 does exactly that, to follow the lead and the expressed will of the House to do that. If, and some would say when, the day comes that the Liberal appointed judges determine that limiting marriage to opposite sex partners is unconstitutional, having marriage defined in statute rather than in common law will allow for the expeditious use of the notwithstanding clause to uphold the legislation. Without an existing definition of marriage in statute, one would have to be drafted and put in place if the common law was overridden by a new ruling of the court. Therefore, why are we waiting?

Bill C-23 is a perfect opportunity for the government to act on the vote held here last June that called on the government to do everything possible to protect the current definition of marriage. I remind the House that it was four to one in favour of that motion. There was a large majority in favour that expressed the will of the Canadian people. This is an opportunity to put the statute in place that defines marriage. There would definitely be broad support in the House if the government would include marriage legislation as part of Bill C-23.

I will move to the second aspect of Bill C-23 which warrants examination and substantial reworking. This part of the bill is so horrendously weak, so ludicrous that it is hardly possible to rework it, but we will try to work with this as best we can. I am talking about the part of the bill that defines the new concept of a common law partner.

Bill C-23 defines in statute that a common law partner is an individual person who is cohabiting with another individual in a conjugal relationship, having so cohabited for a period of at least one year. To put this in layman's terms, this basically says that if I live with someone and I have some sort of a conjugal relationship with the person, I now have a common law partner. It does not matter if it is a man or a woman, as long as we live in a house for a year and have some sort of conjugal relationship I now have a common law partner.

Bill C-23 extends every benefit and obligation that we currently have in place for marriage and for family to this new common law partner definition: under the same roof, conjugal relationship. Except for the Divorce Act, there is no difference between a married relationship and a common law partner relationship in the way government policy looks at those relationships.

There are many types of gender relationships: siblings, friends, roommates, partners, et cetera. However, the only relationship the government wants to include is when two people of the same gender are involved in a private sexual activity, or what is more commonly known as homosexuality. No sex and no benefits is the government's approach to this bill. Even if everything else is the same, even if there is a long time cohabitation and dependency, if there is no sex there are no benefits.

Bill C-23 is a benefits for sex bill. It is crazy. Under Bill C-23, benefits will be extended to any person who has had, as the bill says, a conjugal relationship, regardless of sex. It could be male, it could be female, it could be two males or two females. The bill refers to the phrase “conjugal relationship”.

According to Black's Law Dictionary , conjugal means sexual activity. That is how ever major Canadian dictionary defines it, but the bill does not define it in any way. It does not make reference to the definition. It just uses the term and throws it back to the courts. It has added a new legal expression: A relationship of a conjugal nature. With absolutely no definition of what it means in the bill, we are left to assume that it means what Canadian dictionaries tell us. The government seems determined to make private sexual activity between two people, regardless of gender, the primary condition for benefits, which is what Bill C-23 does.

Bill C-23 is a compliance verification nightmare. Given that sexual relations seem to be the sole criteria for obtaining benefits, one wonders how the government will know whether a couple is truly having a conjugal relationship or simply trying to obtain a benefit.

Because of the difficulties in proving the conjugal aspect of the benefits equation, the government would be opening up a whole new front of litigation in the future. Upon one cohabitant moving out of a shared residence, he or she could find himself or herself in a position of having to prove that there were no conjugal relations if his or her former roommate claimed common law partner status. That is not too different from the recent M. v H. case we saw ruled on in the supreme court.

In addition, these new common law partners are not required to register anywhere in order to qualify or claim benefits, nor are there provisions for information sharing between federal departments. Thus couples could apply for conjugal benefits under one piece of legislation, while maintaining they were simply roommates or friends for another piece of legislation. That might impose some of the obligations that the justice minister waxed so eloquently about.

This legislation would allow these people to say that they are conjugal to get the benefit, but because there is no information sharing they do not have any of the obligations. They are saying that they are just roommates or friends in another piece of legislation. This does not work.

What about all the people who are left out? The minister talks about equality and fairness. Let me share a story.

I have an elderly gentleman in my riding who was a friend and was down on his luck. This is a senior who is living on a meagre pension. A wealthier person took him in as a friend. They have been sharing accommodation for years. They basically share everything in that household. They have a deep friendship, but it has never crossed their minds, and I doubt if it ever will, for these two men to have any kind of physical physical intimacy or sexual relationship.

[An hon. member]

Conjugality.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the comment made by the member behind me, that is exactly what would be required for them to qualify under Bill C-23. Bill C-23 totally excludes the kind of relationship that I just spoke about.

The only way for survivor benefits or any of the benefits to be extended to a person who might otherwise be dependent on the public purse is for these two gentlemen to enter into some sort of physical intimacy or sex which they do not want to even entertain. They are left out of this. This is the equality bill. This is equality and fairness, as the justice minister says.

The bill leaves out all kinds of people. The sole criteria is, is it conjugal, is there sex. It is inappropriate and unworkable. If the government is intent on extending some benefits, it would be better to extend them based on some stated dependency agreement which people voluntarily enter into rather than have them excluded all together, which is what Bill C-23 does. Without this consideration of dependency, dependency really means nothing in Bill C-23 and sexual activity is a qualifier as I have said.

I remember when Bill C-78 went through the House. It had a similar kind of approach to this issue. I questioned the treasury board minister at the time in committee. I asked him about it and he responded kind of weakly and kind of meekly that the courts made him do it, that the lawyers wrote it this way.

Does the government serve the people by letting the courts set policy and the lawyers draft the legislation in the whole process? Where is the voice of the people? It is not there. We are not hearing it. The Liberals do not want to hear it.

We launched a lot of committees across the country to get input from people, to hear what they had to say. I remember being a member of the committee that travelled from coast to coast on the issue of custody and access situations that had to be dealt with in divorce. We heard from hundreds, if not over a thousand Canadians, their input on what needed to be done to restructure family law to cope better with marital breakdown and make the law more beneficial to families with these kinds of problems.

I know that members of the House travelled with all kinds of committees. The finance committee travels every year to hear input from Canadians. Here we have a piece of legislation that changes 68 statutes and will affect 20 different departments, and what are they taking as their guide? They have an Angus Reid poll that is telling them that this is what people want.

Angus Reid predicted that Mike Harris would lose the Ontario election. Angus Reid said the Liberals would win in Ontario, and they lost. This is what they are using as the basis for justification for bringing forward a bill that affects 68 statutes and 20 areas of the government. They do not want to have any public consultation on it.

The minister talked a bit about public consultation at the end of her speech, but she is implementing a bill without any of it. What I suggest is that the government put it on hold. Let us hear what the people have to say. Let us launch a committee. There are 68 statutes being changed. How about some public hearings, public input?

I am reminded too of the comprehensive report we put together on the custody and access committee. There was a lot of agreement around the table by all members of the House. There was a whole screed of recommendations. The justice minister said she would not act on it because she wanted to think about it. Maybe in another three years or so we will do something with it.

That is the voice of the people coming through the committee process being shelved. The bill says that they like the results of a poll, the court told them to do it. Boom, it is done and people are shut out. Bill C-23 is weak because the Liberals have not allowed the people to have input.

I remind members opposite and all other members that every word spoken in the House is recorded and bound in volumes which are kept in the Speaker's office. Everything we say and every vote is recorded. In a sense it is our accountability. In a sense we might say it is a legacy we leave to our families and those who follow that may want to reference what we said and where we stood on issues.

I ask members to consider their positions on Bill C-23. It takes every benefit and every obligation we currently extend to marriage and families and gives them to two people living together for a year, provided they have sex.

The bill needs to be sent back for a redraft. It needs to include a clear definition in law, in legislation, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. Let us get that in the statute. That is what people have asked for in petitions. That is what the House has voted in support of. It is time to do it. Unfortunately the justice minister has missed an opportunity to do exactly that.

It also needs to be redrafted to include respect for people's private intimacies. To make benefits subject to the private sexual activities of individuals is clearly inappropriate in our opinion. If the government is intent on drafting legislation to allow benefits to flow to relationships between two people of the same gender and to make benefits contingent upon their having some sort of sexual relationship, it is inappropriate.

Is it not more reasonable to focus on demonstrated interdependencies and the social contribution of the relationship when considering benefits rather than on the private physical intimacies of the person being considered? I believe, Mr. Speaker, you would even agree with that.

I encourage all members of the House to send Bill C-23 back for an improved redraft. Let us protect marriage in legislation and let us focus on dependency, not on conjugality. In its current form this is an unworkable piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to this bill, and I hasten to congratulate the government on finally taking action to respect human rights.

Throughout the debate that is beginning today, many speakers, particularly from this side of the House, from among the Reform Party members, will try to persuade us that this is a bill that undermines the rights of the family, that undermines the institution of marriage, and that it is therefore an unacceptable bill.

I believe that one would have to be of singularly bad faith not to recognize that the bill before us today is a bill relating to human rights. It states that, in future, parliament, the lawmakers, this lofty decision-making centre that is the House of Commons, will not accept any form of discrimination whatsoever toward same sex partners.

That is what we are speaking of here. The purpose of the bill we have before us is to amend 68 pieces of legislation in all sectors of life in Canada and in Quebec, whether the Criminal Code, the Citizenship Act, pension plans, banks, all sectors of society, anywhere there is a “heterosexist” definition of spouse, so that in future, if this bill goes through, there will be a “homosexist” definition.

I respectfully submit that this has nothing to do with the family, nothing to do with marriage. That does not mean that one day down the road we will not have to debate that as parliamentarians. I do not hesitate to state that, in my opinion, parenting ability has nothing to do with sexual orientation. They are two completely different things.

However, that is not what we are dealing with today. I believe it is very important to be extremely clear about this, for the benefit of our fellow citizens. There is, however, one point on which I am forced to agree with our Reform Party colleagues: it was high time for the legal activism that started back in the early 1990s to come to an end, and high time for us to assume our responsibilities as parliamentarians.

In all the judgments pronounced in recent years, be it in the Haig case, the Nesbit-Egan case in 1995, the Rosenberg case or, more recently, the M. v H. case, the various courts of justice, and often the supreme court, have told parliamentarians to fulfil their obligations.

I am very pleased, first of all because there are pioneers in this House who have paved the way. In that regard, I believe we must pay tribute to the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas. Once the way was paved, a movement started to emerge.

Let us ask ourselves the question. For the second time in less than a decade, parliamentarians will be voting on the recognition of same sex spouses. The previous time was in 1995. Yours truly, who was still very green as a member of parliament, having been elected in 1993, had asked his parliamentary colleagues to pass a motion asking that the government and the House recognize same sex spouses.

At the time, no more than 55 parliamentarians voted in favour of the motion. All members of the NDP voted in favour, as did 85% of the members of the Bloc. What is significant—and I do not mean this to be a breach of our rules, I mention it strictly for information purposes—is that, except for the Minister of Canadian Heritage, there were no cabinet members in the House when the vote took place.

I mention this for information purposes, to show the incredible progress made, resulting in the Minister of Justice, and she is to be commended for that, coming before the House today with a commitment from cabinet and asking us to support an act recognizing same sex spouses.

The Minister of Justice is able today to table a bill like this one because of a change brought about by people speaking out.

Yesterday morning, I took part in a press conference held in Montreal, in the gay village, by the Coalition pour la reconnaissance des conjoints du même sexe. I said to these people “Same sex partners will be recognized, and parliamentarians will take this profoundly significant step because individuals and groups in society have spoken out and said they were involved in same sex relationships, they were living true love with all of its heights and its depths, with its obligations and its benefits, and demanded to be given full consideration”.

When we come to this debate, when we vote and when we consider this bill in parliamentary committee, I would like all parliamentarians, especially the Reform members, to ask themselves the following question: Can we decently, in all knowledge, argue in this House that two men or two women who love each other feel love differently from a man and woman who love each other?

There is no difference in the feeling of love. There is no difference in the way couples live. A man in love with another man feels the same range of emotions, experiences the same feelings. An individual living in society pays the same taxes, is governed by the same laws and participates in the same civil society. This must be the focus of our concerns.

Non-recognition of same sex partners is a matter of discrimination. It cannot be a matter of religion. We cannot, as parliamentarians, take a religious or moral stand on this issue, which does not mean that we are not people of principle.

As an individual, I have my principles. I have my values. My colleagues have their principles and their values. But when one is passing a bill, when one is a lawmaker, it cannot be issues of morality that guide us, because, in politics, such issues are the most likely to suffer from the passage of time.

Let us consider what would have happened if those who passed the Divorce Act had allowed themselves to become hung up on moral considerations and had decided not to pass the legislation because the predominant moral stance thirty years ago did not approve of people being able to dissolve their marriage through a legal mechanism.

One principle alone must guide us as lawmakers and that is equality between individuals. This is how the Minister of Justice started off her speech. We cannot agree on constitutional issues and, as members know, we are unhappy about Bill C-20. We cannot reach agreement with respect to the economy. We do not see eye to eye on economic policy, but it is impossible that we, as parliamentarians, cannot agree on what should motivate our actions, what should be at the heart of our concerns, and that is the equality of all individuals.

This principle is so important, so deserving of our attention, that the lawmakers, acting as a constituent body in 1981-82, enshrined it in the legislation.

So that this is clear for those listening, the principle of recognizing same sex spouses flows not just from extremely noble sentiments between individuals, that is reciprocal love, but from the recognition enshrined in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Given its importance, I am going to quote it to you, if I may. What does section 15 say? It reads as follows:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

That is the text that existed in 1982. I would point out as an aside that, at the time of the constitutional conferences as far back as 1982, some people were grouping together. Who was the Minister of Justice at that time? The present Prime Minister and member for Shawinagan.

As far back as 1982, people were lobbying to have sexual orientation included in the illegal grounds for discrimination. This was not done, but I will not go into that any further. In 1995 there was a cause célèbre, probably one of the most important cases in Canadian law: Nesbitt-Egan. This concerned a British Columbia couple—British Columbia being one of the most interesting places to live in Canada—who had been living together for more than 40 years. Not many couples have been together more than 40 years.

This was a homosexual union, a couple who had been living together for more than 40 years. One of them challenged the constitutionality of one of the sections of the Old Age Security Act dealing with the spouses' allowance, claiming that it was unconstitutional under section 15, which I have just quoted.

The supreme court unanimously—all nine justices—acknowledged that indeed, in future, section 15 of the 1982 Charter of Human Rights had to be read as including sexual orientation among the illegal grounds for discrimination.

That is how the supreme court came to acknowledge that it was no longer possible for the lawmakers to discriminate, on the basis of section 15. This was a very great moment in the annals of legal history.

Today as parliamentarians we must, naturally, with the distance that must accompany our deliberations and in the direction the supreme court has indicated, tell our fellow citizens that we will not tolerate discrimination.

Let us be clear. It is never easy to acknowledge one is different from others. It is never easy to belong to a minority, and it is no easier belonging to a sexual minority. I am 37. I know I look very young. I regularly have to show proof of age at clubs, but nevertheless, I am 37.

When I told my parents at age 18 that I was a homosexual it was not easy for me and it was not easy for my parents either. Let us go back in time. My parents had raised children in the early 1960s. I turned 18 in the early 1980s, and I do not think that my parents in their ideals of raising family and having children in the 1950s, 1960s or 1970s had wanted a homosexual son, because it was a period in which society rejected homosexuals. Homosexuality was considered an illness. People made fun of homosexuals.

That did not prevent my parents from moving on and understanding that homosexual relationships may be extremely gratifying and that we are full citizens.

This is the whole thrust of the debate today. Every member rising in this House to vote against Bill C-23 will send a negative message to Canadians and Quebecers, who will think that when one is gay, one does not deserve full protection in every piece of legislation passed by parliament.

This is the message that these members will send when they vote against this bill. Let us not forget that even in optimum conditions, when one discovers that one is gay, at age 13, 14 or 15, it cannot be easy. It is in our interest as lawmakers to contribute to a better acceptance of each other, to help people accept each other for who they are, to see that people reach their full potential. This is why the legal framework defined by us lawmakers must promote the development of individuals.

Again, this, in my opinion, is the thrust of the debate. As parliamentarians, do we accept the view that people engaged in homosexual relationships with same sex partners must be recognized as full fledged members of society? Make no mistake about it. This is not a financial issue, not a monetary issue. Of course, the benefits to be provided by the act will have a financial impact, since the Canada Pension Plan Act will be amended.

So will the Income Tax Act, to make it possible for a same sex spouse to get a spousal allowance, to receive compensation. This will become possible and it will also be possible to claim a deduction for a dependent spouse.

However, the bill's financial impact is not its main feature. Those who may be tempted to vote against it cannot argue, if they are properly informed, that this bill will have a major impact on the treasury.

Let us never forget that, in a number of cases, same sex spouses who will be granted benefits are already paying for these benefits as taxpayers.

In 1998, at the time of the Rosenberg case, when the Department of Finance was asked to evaluate the financial impact of recognizing same sex spouses, what did it say? First, there is obviously no one right now who can give a precise evaluation of what it would cost Canadian taxpayers to recognize same sex couples.

It is not possible because no one has a clear idea of the number of homosexual couples in Canadian society. It does not exist in the census and it is not something one declares in one's tax return.

On the basis of evaluations done by the Department of Finance on the consumer habits of Canadians, it is estimated that, if between 2% and 6% of Canadians took advantage of the various tax deductions that could apply to same sex couples, the cost would range between $4 million and $12 million.

So this is not primarily a financial or monetary issue, because we are talking about an amount between $4 million and $12 million, according to the figures filed with the Ontario Court of Appeal in the Rosenberg case.

I also wish to give a bit of background so that people are clear about what we are discussing. The term homosexual itself goes back to 1869. The word originated in Germany, apparently.

More recently, in 1948, a sexologist and sociologist by the name of Kinsey published a report in which he said that something like 10% of the population might have engaged in homosexual relations.

In 1969, the government amended Canada's Criminal Code, decriminalizing homosexual acts between consenting individuals over the age of 21.

These historical landmarks are important to a proper understanding of how this all came about and of how long ago the recognition we are now preparing to give to same sex couples began, how deeply it has been rooted in history, and how long.

Imagine, Canada had its first gay demonstration on Parliament Hill as far back as 1971. In 1973—just to show what a tenacious prejudice this has been—the American Psychology Association removed homosexuality from its list of definitions of abnormal behaviour.

From the early 1950s until the mid-1970s, when the medical profession dealt with homosexuality, it considered it pathological. Today, who could argue that homosexuality is pathological?

As hon. members are aware, I myself am of homosexual orientation, and I do not believe that I have ever presented any sign of dysfunctional behaviour, unless it is to sometimes be a bit long-winded, but I do not think anyone would fault me for that.

In 1977, Quebec amended its legislation, its human rights charter, in order to include sexual orientation among the forbidden grounds of discrimination.

In 1979, the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended in its annual report that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to include sexual orientation. And that is interesting. It must be kept in mind that the Canadian Human Rights Commission played a fundamental role in obtaining more rights for the homosexual community.

This leads me to point out that the Haig case in the early 1990s was really because of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and section 10 of that legislation was struck down because it did not put an end to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

It must be pointed out that, at the time, it was Kim Campbell who was the Minister of Justice. She decided that a decision that could have applied only to Ontario would be binding throughout Canada. We must be grateful to Kim Campbell for being open-minded.

We know of course what happened in 1982. In 1985, section 15 came into force but, unfortunately, it did not include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

In 1986, Ontario became the second province, after Quebec, to amend its human rights code, which is the equivalent of Quebec's charter of human rights, and to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

In 1988, a breath of fresh air came from the church. The United Church of Canada, which represents the largest Protestant community in Canada, voted in favour of ordaining homosexuals.

This is how a society changes. It is truly the joint forces of the judiciary, the church, the political institutions and society that contribute to the shaping of mentalities.

In 1989, a court recognized for the first time that sexual orientation was a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In 1991, Ontario extended its social benefits, with the exception of surviving spouse benefits, to same sex spouses for the whole provincial public service.

At the same time, the Supreme Court of British Columbia decided that the interpretation of “spouse” as defined in the Medical Service Act, which denied same sex partners the benefits provided, was an infringement of section 15.

One year later, in 1992, a commission of inquiry established under the authority of the Ontario Human Rights Code held that the refusal to give survivor benefits to same sex partners contravened the charter.

This is how the issue of sexual orientation gradually worked its way through the annals of law and into the charter.

In 1995, there was the Nesbit-Egan decision. This is not an insignificant decision, and I would like to cite it. I remind the hon. members that this decision arose from action taken by a British Columbia couple who had lived together for over 40 years. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you, a model of fidelity, have not yet reached so many years.

The supreme court found that sexual orientation ought to be included in section 15 as prohibited grounds for discrimination. It is because the supreme court included sexual orientation as prohibited grounds for discrimination that—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to interrupt my colleague's most excellent speech, but I would ask for unanimous consent to adopt private member's Motion No. 308 at this time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette has requested the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope my time has not been shortened and that you stopped the clock when our colleague rose. He has put me a bit off track, but I will resume my remarks.

Another very famous decision in the annals of law advanced the cause of the gays.

That was the decision in the case of Rosenberg v Canada. On April 23, 1998, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that the definition of “spouse” in the Income Tax Act was unconstitutional as it applied to registered pension plans.

The words “of the opposite sex” in the definition as it existed in the Income Tax Act prevented the Canadian Union of Public Employees from extending the application of its registered pension plans to the surviving spouses of gay or lesbian employees.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees therefore relied on section 15 in challenging the discrimination which had taken place, the result of which was that the Department of National Revenue, which administers the Income Tax Act, refused to recognize same sex employees' registered pension plans, thus denying them the corresponding deduction and the plans legal recognition. Once again, the courts enlightened matters.

More recently, another extremely important decision was handed down in the case of M. v H. On May 20, 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled eight to one in favour. This was an extremely strong show of support. The judges were not divided. This was not a decision with a slim majority, but an extremely solid one, almost unanimous, one of only a few supreme court decisions, with eight justices out of nine ruling that the definition of “spouse” in the Ontario Family Law Act contravened section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights.

What was involved here? Two lesbians had been living as a couple for several years, since the early 1980s. They broke up. It should be pointed out that, during their life together, wealth had been accumulated, and one of the two had acquired a business for which the other worked. Therefore, support payments were demanded at the time they broke up. Obviously, the Ontario legislation known as the Family Law Act, at section 29 if I remember correctly, did not recognize same sex partners, and so, despite having lived with a same sex partner for some years and having contributed to the wealth of the couple, the woman had no recourse.

It is interesting that this went all the way to the supreme court. Why am I taking the time to refer to the decision in M. v H.? Because, for the first time, the supreme court acknowledged that homosexual relationships should be considered as spousal relationships. And it was recognized that, ultimately, it would be possible for support payments to be obtained in the case of same sex couples.

However, the supreme court showed some reservations, as the provincial court had earlier in the Nesbit-Egan case, and refused to invalidate the act completely, or to require the Government of Ontario to amend all of its legislation. It made a declaratory judgment limited to section 29 for a 90-day period. Hon. members will see that the court was exhibiting wisdom.

M. v H. is an important decision because it makes it clear to the homosexual community that justice is aptly represented by a scale with two sides, since it involves both obligations and benefits.

We must know as parliamentarians, and the homosexual community must know, that if this bill is passed, it will also lead to obligations. When a couple's total income is taken into account, there may be advantages and disadvantages arising from considering the total income, for example.

M. v H. is a case involving support. When an individual enters a homosexual relationship, consideration must be given to what may arise should the relationship break up after a period of time. There are a number of responsibilities.

I would like to return to the heart of the debate. Once again, I believe that we would be mistaken as parliamentarians if we failed to recognize that the issue here is to put an end to discrimination once and for all. We know that the ten major cities, including Halifax, Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto and Moncton, have recognized same sex partners at the municipal level.

Many private firms recognize same sex partners. The situation would be paradoxical to say the least if same sex partners were recognized by lower level authorities, at the municipal level for example, but not by us here, in the federal government, in the Parliament of Canada.

More recently, last year, the National Assembly, with the government of Lucien Bouchard, one of the best governments to have occupied the government benches, gave full recognition to same sex partners. It amended 28 laws of Quebec, including the act respecting income security and the automobile insurance act. Major pieces of legislation were amended in order to recognize same sex partners.

Obviously the process is not complete, since the civil code remains to be changed. I cannot wait for that, and I am eager to get Mr. Bouchard's government moving on to the next step, that of amending the Civil Code of Quebec. As hon. members are aware, we have two separate legal systems: one based on common law, which governs English Canada; one governing Quebec, the civil code. This code is a law, but it does not recognize heterosexual partners, and so obviously it does not recognize homosexual partners.

I am anxious to convince the Quebec government to jump on the band wagon and amend the civil code. Again, this is not about family or marriage. Earlier, I listened to what the Reform Party members were saying, and I think some serious soul-searching is in order, because one cannot promote law and order as they do and not want to respect the charter. That is not possible.

Yesterday at a press conference the Canadian Coalition for the Recognition of Same Sex Spouses stressed how untimely and inappropriate it would be for parliamentarians to vote against this bill. By voting against this bill, parliamentarians will in fact be indicating that they think they are above the Canadian charter. This means they do not recognize a value that is fundamental, regardless of where one lives in Canada, of one's profession, of one's age and of one's judicial record. There is a principle that must be adhered to, and that is equality for all.

It can never be overstated that this bill enshrines the recognition of full, total and uncompromising equality for all. I cannot imagine the Reformers, who will very soon opt for the united alternative, sending the gay people in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia the message that, as parliamentarians, they do not recognize them as full-fledged citizens.

I believe there will be an extremely heavy price to pay in terms of the implications. I believe that voters will be very critical of members who rise in this House and do not recognize that the principle of equality between individuals applies to all citizens and that this equality should be the focus of our concerns.

The Bloc Quebecois will do everything it can to have this bill passed quickly, because recognition of same sex spouses has been too long in coming. We will examine the issue seriously in committee. We will hear from witnesses.

All those who believe in equality must do something that is extremely important in democracy and that is to speak up. We must rise up and engage in dialogue at every opportunity. We must go to see the Reform Party members and all parliamentarians who are not convinced that the bill has merit. We must engage in dialogue in order to convince them that this has nothing to do with marriage and the family, but that it is a matter of equality.

In the coming days, that is what I will be doing. That is what all parliamentarians should be doing. I am convinced that together we can change things, shape thinking and work for greater equality for all our fellow citizens.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is with a sense of pride that I rise in my place today to congratulate the government in introducing this legislation.

The road to full equality for gay and lesbian people has been long, frequently difficult and turbulent. We are not there yet, but this bill advances significantly the gay and lesbian community on the road to full equality.

In achieving this important milestone I want to acknowledge the contribution of many Canadians.

I congratulate the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who has just spoken. He is an excellent MP, who has long fought for recognition for same sex spouses and who has introduced a number of bills to that effect.

I acknowledge the contribution of a deputy who is not here today, Shaughnessy Cohen, who tragically died in the House just after signing a letter to the Minister of Justice urging that the government move ahead to recognize the relationships of gay and lesbian people.

I acknowledge the work done by the labour movement, unions such as the CAW, CUPE, the Public Service Alliance, la CSN au Quebec, CUPW, the Canadian Labour Congress, and in particular my friend Nancy Rich.

There are those who have lived their lives openly and proudly, often defying the ostracism of people in their communities who rejected their relationships. They are the unsung heroes and those who we honour as our leaders. They include people like Jane Rule and her partner Helen Sonthoff, who just died, and Jim Egan and his partner Jack Nesbitt, who took to the Supreme Court of Canada the issue of the recognition of gay and lesbian relationships, who have celebrated their lives together for over 40 years, and who won a landmark victory in affirming the inclusion of sexual orientation in our charter of rights.

Others who have taken their fight to the courts include Nancy Rosenberg and her partner; Margaret Evans and her partner; Stanley Moore and his partner, Pierre Soucy; Dale Akerstrom and his partner, Alexander; Chris Vogel in Manitoba; Jim Bigney in Nova Scotia; and Delwin Vriend.

I could go on and on with the stories of heroes and those who have fought this courageous fight for full equality.

I want to acknowledge as well a former colleague from the House. I first raised this issue over 20 years ago when I was first elected as a young member of the House. One of my earliest allies was a Conservative member of parliament, Pat Carney. I want to acknowledge her work.

There are some who ask why the government is doing this. The government is doing this because we as parliamentarians and provincial legislators gave the courts the duty and the responsibility of interpreting the charter of rights. They did not seize that; we gave them that responsibility. Indeed, the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of Canada, has ruled that section 15 of our charter prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and, as well, that that discrimination includes discrimination in the relationships of gay and lesbian people.

EGALE, the national lobby group, the Campaign for Equal Families and other groups have advanced this cause before the courts, and legislatures in a number of provinces and jurisdictions have moved forward.

The Government of Quebec recently introduced an omnibus bill, and I wish to congratulate MNA André Boulerice in particular on his tireless efforts in this regard.

The Government of British Columbia has been one of the leaders in advancing the cause of equality, in particular attorney general Ujjal Dosanjh.

In Ontario former attorney general Marion Boyd brought forward Bill 167.

The legislation is a recognition by the government that it must move forward. It could fight every case in the courts, case by case, or it could do the right thing, the honourable thing, the just thing and say that yes, it recognizes that the courts have ruled. The courts have ruled that where benefits are extended to heterosexual common law couples, those benefits must as well be extended to those involved in committed, loving, same sex relationships.

As Justice Iacobucci noted in the case of Delwin Vriend v the Supreme Court of Canada:

In my opinion, groups that have historically been the target of discrimination cannot be expected to wait patiently for the protection of their human dignity and equal rights while governments move toward reform one step at a time. If the infringement of the rights and freedoms of these groups is permitted to persist while governments fail to pursue equality diligently, then the guarantees of the Charter will be reduced to little more than empty words.

That is what we are achieving today. It is a recognition that the guarantees of the charter must be made reality by changes in law, changes that involve both rights and responsibilities.

I am very proud to stand here today on behalf of my New Democrat colleagues to say that this caucus has supported from the very beginning, certainly over the full 20 years that I have had the privilege of serving here, full equality for gay and lesbian people.

The leader of my party, the member for Halifax, has been in the forefront of this struggle, both as a provincial member in Nova Scotia and now as leader of the party, and each and every one of my colleagues has worked for full equality for gay and lesbian people.

I stand here today not just as the member of parliament for Burnaby—Douglas, not just as a gay man, but also on behalf of my colleagues to say that we recognize and salute the government for this important contribution toward full equality.

I want to say a couple words about what this bill is not about. This bill is not about special rights for anyone. It is about fairness and equal rights. It is a recognition that gay and lesbian people pay into benefit plans and, up until very recently, have been denied the benefits that should flow. Indeed, outside the House stands a man with a sign saying “No special rights for homosexuals—Repeal Bill C-23”. Again, I emphasize, this is not about special rights.

This is also not about money. If anything, Reformers should be supporting the bill because it will help to reduce the federal deficit and debt. According to a study that was tabled in the Rosenberg case, an affidavit that was signed by a senior tax policy officer in the Department of Finance said:

—extending spousal tax treatment to same-sex couples would result in an overall cost savings to the federal government of about $10 million per year.

Those are the facts from the Department of Finance. It does not cost money to extend equality because in this particular legislation we are recognizing both rights and responsibilities.

In M. v H. it was recognized that one lesbian partner had financial responsibilities to her former partner which flowed from that relationship. It is clear that, to the extent those responsibilities are recognized, that will reduce the financial burden on the state as well. I would have thought that would have been something the Reform Party would have welcomed and supported.

This is not about special rights. It is not about extra money. Most offensively, in the Reform Party's characterization the member for Calgary Centre said “This is benefits for sex”. Let me say how demeaning, how dishonest and how offensive that characterization of the bill really is for the Reform Party to say it is benefits for sex.

Let us look at this for a minute. The member for Calgary Centre said “How do we prove they are actually partners? How do we prove they have actually been involved in a sexual relationship? What if they are trying to scam the system?” I remind the House that for some years now common law heterosexual relationships have been recognized. I have not heard the Reformers say “No, no, do not recognize those relationships because we cannot prove that the man and woman are involved in a sexual relationship. We cannot prove that they are really committed to one another”. No, they have been silent about common law heterosexual relationships because they know that many Canadians are involved in those relationships and they are not challenging those relationships.

The Reformers do not have the intellectual integrity to recognize the complete bankruptcy of their argument when they say “How do we prove this?”

Then the member for Calgary Centre said “All you have to do is shack up with somebody for a year, have sex with that person and you will be recognized”. That is a totally false argument because the Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Court of Appeal have both talked about what a conjugal relationship means. Does it just mean living with somebody and having sex occasionally? No, it does not. Some conjugal relationships involve no sexual relationship at all. They are very clear about that. Some heterosexual couples are actually in loving, committed relationships and they do not have sexual relations. I know the member for Calgary Centre might find that an incredible revelation. That is amazing, is it not? Yet, those are conjugal relationships according to the courts.

The suggestion that benefits for sex is what this is all about trivializes and diminishes the quality of gay and lesbian relationships. My relationship with my partner, Max, is not just about living together and having sexual relations. Of course that is important, but it is much deeper and much more profound than that, and that is what makes, ultimately, a conjugal relationship. We share our lives, the good times and the bad, in sickness and in health. We share the ownership of our home. We have a joint bank account. We are beneficiaries in one another's wills.

There is a deep emotional commitment in that relationship which is trivialized and demeaned and denied by the kind of suggestions by the member for Calgary Centre. We are saying that these relationships should be recognized and affirmed and celebrated in this country and not denied any longer.

I would note as well that each and every one of those members of parliament who is now speaking out against this bill is saying that they should oppose this bill because it does not go far enough, it does not recognize other dependent relationships like two sisters living together or two elderly gentlemen sharing a home. Without exception each and every one of those members has spoken against basic equality for gay and lesbian people. That is their agenda. They do not believe in it.

Every member of the Reform Party in the House today who was in this House during the vote on the Canadian Human Rights Act amendments, Bill C-33, voted against that bill. They do not believe in equality and let no one be fooled into suggesting otherwise. That is their agenda.

Of course it is true that there is still not full equality. There is still much to be done. This bill does not deal with the immigration law for example. There are Canadians who fall in love with other Canadians and there are some who fall in love with citizens of other countries. I appeal to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to move forward quickly to recognize the relationships of gay and lesbian people in the new immigration act which will be tabled shortly. We must look seriously at the provisions of the criminal code with respect to hate literature as well.

And yes, dare I say it, we must also recognize that couples who wish to involve themselves in committed loving relationships and have those affirmed by the state in marriage. That too is part of equality.

There are members on all sides of the House who say that no, marriage cannot be extended to gay and lesbian people as this would be the death of marriage, the downfall of the moral fabric of society. Is marriage really that fragile? How on earth would it threaten the marriage of the member for Calgary Centre or the marriage of the member from Ontario to recognize and affirm the relationships of gay and lesbian people who choose to marry? That will come as part of full equality. In the Netherlands the government has recently tabled a bill to extend those rights as well.

I want to close by reading from a letter from a woman who speaks far more eloquently than I, with far more power and passion about what it has meant in her life to have her relationship denied full equality and why this bill is so important. I am proud to say that her name is Donna Wilson. She wrote a letter in 1996 to the Prime Minister saying this:

Dear Prime Minister:

On October 30, 1995 my life partner of more than 13 years died. She was diagnosed with ovarian cancer less than seven months prior to her death. Before that she was an active, healthy 48 year old woman.

We shared everything as life partners. We were emotionally and financially interdependent. Every aspect of our lives was connected, inter-related. We celebrated our lives together and were embraced by family, friends and many diverse communities.

We shared in the parenting of two children. I continue to care for them and support them as a co-parent myself and also on behalf of their mother who has died.

Our relationship was rendered invisible time and time again by the laws in our country. We lived without the supports and benefits available to the vast majority of Canadians. There were no tax credits or benefits available to assist us as a couple or a family. There was no recognition of the value of our relationship, our family and our contributions to Canadian society.

Even now I'm not considered a widow or survivor and I'm not eligible to receive my partner's pension. I know the same devastating grief as every other widow and I share the same financial fears and insecurities as many who survive the death of a spouse or life partner.

After my partner died I contacted the office of the Canadian pension plan. With great pain I explained my circumstance. The woman at the other end of the phone expressed no condolences, no compassion. Instead, she stated that I wasn't eligible to receive pension benefits since “there was no surviving spouse”. When I restated that I was the surviving spouse she asked for my name and “the name of the deceased”. Two women's names confirmed it. “There was no surviving spouse”.

Our 13 plus years together in a committed relationship meant nothing. My partner's wishes meant nothing. My needs as a survivor meant nothing.

Throughout her life my partner was committed to employment that contributed to the lives of others. She paid into the Canadian pension plan. She wanted her pension contributions to be available for me, to assist me with recovering from care giving and to heal from grieving. She wanted to provide for my well-being as we had done for one another and our children throughout our relationship. She didn't want me to have to worry about moving right away and all the other things that many survivors/widows need to consider.

Prior to my partner's death we discovered that her RRSP could not be rolled over into mine even though we were life partners and I was the designated beneficiary. My partner was very distraught to learn that upon her death our retirement savings would be deregistered and taxed at a high rate. She was angry that our retirement savings could not remain as such whereas a heterosexual couple, even a common law couple after only one year, would be able to roll over RRSPs from one spouse to the other.

My partner's outrage, sadness and concern motivated her to file a human rights complaint....

I am currently preparing my partner's income tax return.

She points out that she will be responsible for paying taxes on almost half of her RRSP. It is a painful process in the midst of grieving. She said:

We hear so much these days about the need to take personal responsibility for ourselves in preparing for retirement. My partner and I were doing just that. Instead of being assisted by the government to prepare for later years it has now been made more difficult.

Under the law all Canadians pay taxes. We contribute to pension plans. We contribute to the welfare of others. Under the law lesbian and gay Canadians are denied the benefits and assistance associated with these contributions. And, under the law, our taxes and pension contributions assist and subsidize the privileged majority.

Madam Speaker, I wonder if I might seek the consent of the House for one more minute just to finish reading this letter.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

There are about 10 seconds left in the hon. member's time. Is there consent to extend it by one minute?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues. In conclusion, Donna Wilson asked:

When is the government going to recognize that lesbians and gay men have a right to the same benefits and assistance available to all other tax paying citizens? When is the government going to be honest with all Canadians and let them know that the rights of lesbians and gay men have already been recognized in the courts? When is the government going to put a stop to fear tactics and lies about financial resources being depleted if benefits and tax credits are extended to lesbians and gay men?

This isn't a matter of “special” rights or privileges. It's about recognizing the fullness of diversity within our communities and facing the fact that Canadian laws need to change in order to reflect current realities and the equality of all citizens. It's about putting an end to homophobia and heterosexism. It is about action, not lip service.

It's time for the government to act and to end all forms of discrimination against lesbian and gay Canadians.

Donna speaks with eloquence and passion for gay and lesbian people across this land. They join with me today in commending the government and urging that the bill be adopted at the earliest possible time so that we can finally achieve much fuller equality for gay and lesbian people.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech very much. He made a number of very good points.

There is one thing I would like to learn more about from the hon. member. I know he has researched this subject in great detail. What is the status of a brother and a sister who share a home and a relationship and who may want to extend benefits one to the other when one passes away? Under the current law would they be able to undertake something like that?

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. This whole issue of looking at other relationships of dependency, economic dependency and emotional dependency, is one that I certainly have no objection to parliament examining carefully. Indeed, an argument can be made that there are relationships which should have benefits extended to them. I am pleased that the Minister of Justice has recognized this and I understand she is referring this issue to a committee for further study.

The case of a brother and sister who have lived together for many years and who are involved in a situation of economic dependence is something we can examine. In fact many of us are asking why benefits necessarily have to be extended on the basis of a relationship to another person at all. Many of us want to know whether we should look at another means of achieving the extension of benefits, whether they be health, dental or other benefits.

It is important to acknowledge what this bill does. It responds to the Supreme Court of Canada particularly in the M. v H. decision and the earlier decision in Miron v Trudel. It recognizes that where benefits are extended and where there are obligations for common law heterosexual partners, that justice and equality means that those same benefits should be extended to same sex partners. That is what this bill is addressing. The other issues in terms of other relationships will be addressed by committee and I look forward to that discussion.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member made reference in his speech that the requirement for a conjugal relationship in Bill C-23 in order to qualify for benefits was inclusive of people who did not have a sexual relationship. His definition of conjugality, which he quoted from some particular document, would not require that there be a sexual relationship.

Is it his understanding of Bill C-23 that there does not need to be a sexual relationship in order for two people to qualify for benefits? That certainly is not spelled out anywhere in the bill. I suggest that conjugality does require a sexual relationship.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, first of all let us look at this question logically.

There are heterosexual common law partners who have lived together for many years in a deeply committed loving relationship. Is the hon. member for Calgary Centre and the Reform Party seriously suggesting that if for whatever reason that couple does not still have a sexual relationship that somehow that relationship is not a genuine common law relationship? That is absolutely ludicrous.

In fact the Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Court of Appeal have talked about what is involved in a conjugal relationship and what are the generally acceptable characteristics of a conjugal relationship. This is from Justice Cory in M. v H. They include shared shelter, sexual and personal behaviour, services, social activities, economic support and children, as well as the societal perception of the couple. However, these elements may be present in varying degrees and not all are necessary for the relationship to be found to be conjugal.

The court said:

Certainly an opposite sex couple may, after many years together, be considered to be in a conjugal relationship although they have neither children nor sexual relations. Obviously the weight to be accorded the various elements or factors to be considered in determining whether an opposite sex couple is in a conjugal relationship will vary widely and almost infinitely. The same must hold true of same sex couples. Courts have wisely determined that the approach to determining whether a relationship is conjugal must be flexible....There is nothing to suggest that same sex couples do not meet the legal definition of conjugal.

That is what the courts have ruled. Frankly it is disingenuous of the member for Calgary Centre to suddenly raise these concerns about how we can establish the legitimacy of conjugal relationships and common law relationships when Reform did not ask one question when it was just about common law heterosexual relationships.

They were not asking at that point how to prove they had a sexual relationship or how to prove they were really living together in an intimate relationship. They did not care about that then. They certainly did not raise questions then about other dependent relationships when they extended this to common law relationships.

What Reformers really care about is that we are actually recognizing that the relationships of gay and lesbian people should be treated with equality, dignity and respect. That is what Reformers do not believe in because not one of them voted for equality even in the Canadian Human Rights Act.