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.