House of Commons Hansard #49 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was relationship.
Louise Hardy NDP Yukon, YT
Madam Speaker, the member for Burnaby—Douglas spoke quite personally about a lot of issues. What needs to be brought out a little further is the actual physical danger that gays and homosexuals may face in our country.
In fact, the defence of provocation allows a man to murder another man on the basis of a sexual advance just because it is a man. I would like him to elaborate on that.
Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yukon for the question and for her leadership on the issue of the question of the defence of provocation.
It is true that in some areas of the law there still exists a so-called gay panic defence. Unbelievably some courts have recognized the gay panic defence, which suggests that if a man is so traumatized by having a sexual advance made on him by another man that he takes that other person's life it is defensible. The member for Yukon is quite correct that significant challenges remain with respect to a defence of this nature.
With respect to the ongoing issue of violence and gay-bashing in our community, there are people who are beaten up simply because of their sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation. There are huge concerns about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered youth who still have levels of suicide, attempted suicide and alienation that are devastatingly high.
These are some of the other issues that we clearly must address. This bill is not in a position to address them, but when we speak of full equality we must recognize there is still a lot of work to be done in many of these areas and the whole area of affirmation of our relationships, the diversity of our communities and the education system.
Let us imagine children who are raised in an environment with a parent who has the kind of narrow intolerant views of some of the members on my right, those from the Reform Party. What kind of attitude or signal will that send to them about respect for gay and lesbian people in our communities?
There is still tremendous work to be done on the road to full equality.
Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC
Madam Speaker, the member for Burnaby—Douglas did not answer the question posed to him by the member for Calgary Centre who specifically asked whether this member could embrace the fact that the term conjugal relationship meant two people having a sexual relationship as defined in almost every dictionary that has been printed.
In the question of the member for Calgary Centre the member was asked if he believes that conjugal does not mean necessarily having a sexual relationship. Then why does the minister have such a narrow focus in this bill? Why not open it up so that it includes everyone in a dependent type of relationship whether or not they are having a sexual relationship? Why is this member not arguing with the minister that this is a discriminatory bill in many respects? The member for Burnaby—Douglas is not doing that.
Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Madam Speaker, the hon. member just does not get it. I do not know if the hon. member has brothers or sisters, but if he is suggesting that his relationship with his brother or his sister is qualitatively the same as his relationship with his wife, that is a ludicrous suggestion.
We can look at other relationships of dependency, but the fact of the matter is that they are qualitatively different from the relationship that gay or lesbian people have with their partners.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this piece of very important and timely legislation, one that has obviously raised emotions on all sides of this debate. I congratulate the previous speaker and in fact all speakers who have represented their parties and their country well in this debate.
It is unfortunate in terms of the debate and the time that the legislation was introduced that we are once again put in the position as opposition to rush to judgment on the legislation, to hurry along in our remarks, and to somehow push this issue to one side.
From the tone, the emotion and the very important considerations that are brought forward by the bill and the very important debates that will no doubt take place in our communities, this is not a healthy approach. This is not the way that we should be dealing with issues of such depth.
The bill was tabled in the House on Friday, February 11. We have had the ensuing weekend, and here we are on Tuesday, forced in essence to dissect and discuss in detail hundreds of detailed pages which affect 68 federal statutes that will be amended. There are also the provincial implications and voluminous case law very much encompassed by the legislation.
I for one, as a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, do take great exception to and in fact resent the way in which the government has gone about tabling this issue. I also question the timeliness in terms of its proximity to what is perhaps one of the biggest scandals in the country's history.
There is an obvious attempt to deflect attention away from that, to somehow create an illusion that another issue will come on the agenda and perhaps bury the issue of the mismanagement that has taken place in Human Resources Development Canada, mismanagement that is perhaps systemic in many government departments.
This omnibus legislation will extend benefits and obligations to same sex couples on the same basis as opposite sex couples under the current laws of the land. The bill is entitled the modernization of benefits and obligations. There is an important inclusion of the word obligations in this act.
It is something we cannot gloss over. We cannot forget that with the entitlement aspects of the bill there are also obligations that will flow. In some instances, when we are talking about the tax implications, there are what could be viewed as or deemed negative consequences for homosexual individuals who will now be in a position where they will be paying a greater tax. They will in fact be disentitled by virtue of being deemed as in what is tantamount to a common law situation. That element is there.
The modernization as well is an encapsulation, a title which does represent something that is happening, a social change. It is an acknowledgement in the legislation that there has been a step toward recognizing the social reality that we have same sex couples living in common law situations or what is equivalent to a common law situation, as we speak. Regardless of what the legislation says or seeks to do, this is a social reality that the bill very much attempts to recognize.
The government's reasoning behind the legislation is very much a result of a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in May 1999. I am speaking about the M. v H. case, which made it very clear that governments cannot limit benefits or obligations by discriminating against same sex common law relationships. The legislation is very much an attempt to reflect and codify what the supreme court already said in May of this year.
It goes without saying that previous cases have also moved in this direction in supreme courts across the country. In various provinces there has been a recognition of the obligations and a codification of the fact that there are rights and obligations that stem from a relationship between same sex couples.
It is also very important to point out, and it bears repeating, that the principles of equality enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act are very much a part of this debate, very much a part of the consideration by all courts, most important the Supreme Court of Canada, and I suspect very much at the foundation of what is behind the legislation, an attempt to legislate and put in place the protections that exist in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The government is no stranger to borrowing from the supreme court. We have seen what it has tried to do with the clarity bill. The court has already made a pronouncement in its decision about the status of the situation in Quebec. It refers specifically to the percentage of a majority and the question itself. The government has tried to encapsulate that through Cartesian thinking in legislation that again has been foisted upon parliament and the country at a time when we should be discussing other issues.
That is not to diminish in any way the importance of this type of legislation. If this were a priority, if we take the government at its word and this were truly a priority, why did it not introduce the legislation much sooner in its mandate? Why did it not introduce it back in the fall session when we resumed after the lengthy summer recess the government orchestrated with the late recall? What legislation were we faced with when we returned? It was not legislation that I would suggest reflected the importance of the particular bill. Here we are being forced to deal very quickly with very important legislation in a matter of days.
The bill, as indicated, will affect a great number of statutes, some 68 in total, legislation such as the Criminal Code of Canada and the Income Tax Act. It will have many financial implications for all. The government sat on the legislation for many months and dropped it in our laps at a time when it needed an issue that would deflect attention away from it.
The legislation needs a great deal of examination. It needs a great deal of study which will occur at the justice committee. Unfortunately the justice committee is backlogged at this point with legislation such as the new youth criminal justice act. We have a mandate from this place to deal with organized crime. We have a mandate to deal with changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. However, this legislation is coming and will go to that committee. There will be an opportunity to dissect the legislation in greater detail, which obviously will not occur on the floor of the House.
This is what I would describe as a very technical bill. I know there is a tendency to delve into the moral issues and moral implications that arise from this discussion, but the bill is written in a very calculating way—and I do not say that in a negative way—to reflect a reality on which the courts have pronounced, toward which society has moved, and toward which the provinces are heading.
I give the government credit in the sense that for a change it is trying to be out in front of what the courts are pronouncing. For a change we are seeing an actual proactive attempt to reflect Canadian reality in this place as legislators rather than wait for judge made law to be imposed upon us or foisted upon elected individuals.
The provinces that have already moved in this direction include British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario. They have very much attempted to implement their own legislation, with which this legislation is consistent.
I strongly suggest there have been indications in the private sector that this is reflective of a reality that has occurred. Many companies in the private sector have extended the type of benefits the legislation would also extend. In fact many institutions in the country including churches have accepted and looked at some of the realities the bill will put in place.
Public policy, therefore, is not a sideline issue. It is not the sole purpose or the actual intent of the legislation. The subject of the bill or the reading of it is not about families. It is not about families per se and definitions. It does not speak of the definition of marriage. It does not use the term spouse. It is about fairness and financial equality. It is not about infringing on an individual's moral or personal beliefs.
If there is anything we can learn from this debate that we are undertaking today, it is that we should be very careful in our choice of words. I am very fearful of the rhetoric and the ratcheting up of the rhetoric that can occur because of the emotion and the strong moral beliefs that are felt and held on both sides. If anything, we have to be respectful of both sides of this debate. This is an issue that has been with us for time immemorial. This is not an issue that will be settled by this debate or by the passing of one piece of legislation.
Conjugal relations certainly denote an element of intimacy. However, this legislation is not, I would suggest, about governments making judgments or being intrusive into the bedrooms of the nation. This is about reflecting responsibilities and obligations upon individuals who have entered into a relationship upon which there is a degree of dependency. The bill is about the fiscal responsibility of the state in recognizing this human dynamic, this relationship that exists between both same sex and opposite sex partners.
There has already been, as some would call it, a disintegration of the institution of marriage in the sense that the law now recognizes common law. The legislation, in my view, takes it one step further. It expands the definition of common law to include same sex partners, that is all. It recognizes a reality that is very much in place in this country. There are same sex couples living together in a relationship that is akin to the relationship that occurs between opposite sex couples. This is a legal codification or recognition of the rights and obligations that flow from that human dynamic.
The bounds of matrimonial relations obviously have legal implications in and of themselves. This is not an infringement on those legal obligations. This is more about property, money and pensions. This is about the ability of the state to support individuals who may be in need or entitled to a pension plan for which they have contributed.
The legislation also requires that the same obligations, in terms of the contribution and the eligibility, be met, whether it be by a same sex or opposite sex couple.
There is an element of logic that has to prevail here. I know it is very difficult at times to move the debate from the moral and personal element of this. However, there is a very sterile and reasoned approach that we have to take when examining the issue of legal responsibility and the responsibility of the state to care for people.
The bill does not undermine the morality and the traditional beliefs that individuals have in their definition of family. Let us be very honest and blunt about this; what has been viewed for many centuries as the traditional family is now different for many people. It is different in their views. The family support system has become very different. I need not go further than to mention the example of a single parent, whether they be male or female. That should in no way diminish the degree of dependence and unconditional love that might flow between a parent and a child just because he or she happens to be a single parent.
Economic issues can never be completely devoid of moral implications, but let us not confuse the two. Let us not make a mistake in our characterization of the legislation. This is about extending financial benefits to those who may be in need.
The legislation has only been in our hands for two working days. I again question the priorities and the timing of the government. The Conservative Party members are looking forward to the opportunity to delve into the legislation at the committee level, to hear from witnesses and to see what the broad reaching implications may in fact be.
My initial reading of the legislation is as I indicated at the outset. It is an attempt to codify and put in place a reality that exists, a legal trend through precedent and through case law that has emerged from our courts. I would suggest that this legislation still maintains a clear and distinct designation between married and unmarried relationships. It does not tread on that sacred ground.
The term “spouse” refers and will refer, irrespective of this legislation, to married couples. That term has not been touched, altered or removed from mainstream thought as a result of the bill.
The term “common law partner” does change. It would now be expanded to include both same sex and opposite sex couples. This is different. This is perhaps the major differentiation between the bill and the Ontario legislation in the sense that Ontario designates same sex and opposite sex partners in its legislation. It makes that clear line of distinction.
There will be ample opportunity for all members of the committee and, by virtue of their membership, members of their parties and Canadians whom they represent to make amendments and suggestions as to how the bill might be improved. Some of the improvements may be to remove certain clauses of the bill.
However, it does speak again to both benefits and obligations and the responsibilities that flow therefrom. Same sex couples will have access, by virtue of this type of legislation, to the same level of support, the same pension and the same financial benefits that other Canadian couples of the opposite sex currently have based on social benefits. The important underlying element is, if they are eligible and if they have made sufficient contributions, they will still have to meet that criteria.
The legislation is consistent with what the provinces have been looking at. I believe that many provinces will wait to see how this place and the other place deals with the bill. They are hinging their future plans to encompass this type of legislation in the provinces on what we do.
Let us make no mistake. The federal legislation will have an impact on much of what the provinces do already. It will have an impact on things such as adoption and family maintenance. This is why I think it is important for us to realize that the bill does have very far-reaching ramifications that we should not take lightly. We should not be diverted from looking at the bill in detail as to what it actually does and does not do.
I know there has been a great deal of discussion by some. I would suggest, with the greatest of respect, that there is some veiled attempt to perhaps hide what may be a negative view of the legislation by suggesting that the bill is not broad enough, that it somehow does not include a parental relationship, such as a mother and daughter, a father and son, two sisters or two aunts who may live together. There is obviously a mechanism to deal with that situation and that is again in the committee.
I am led to believe that there will be ample opportunity to look at the possibility of expanding the legislation if that is what some members and some witnesses choose to do. Let us not hide behind the rhetoric. Let us not somehow put forward the position that we wish to make it broader when truly the attempt and the intent is to make it narrower and to undermine and take the bill off the agenda.
I realize that what we are looking at is a bill that has the financial element to it: tax breaks on retirement savings plans, greater access to employment insurance, collector survivor benefits under the Canada pension plan upon the death of a partner, old age security. This is the element of the bill on which we should be focusing.
Homosexual couples who have lived together for at least one year would qualify for those types of benefits, with the same time, the same qualifications and the same elements of accountability that are currently applied to common law couples. The cost is something that has been touched upon. Sources in government indicate that there will be an initial cost associated with this. However, this will be offset by the responsibilities and obligations that are created and the offsetting disentitlement that will be created by this designation of same sex couples.
We in the Conservative Party will reserve our final judgment. We will reserve our position until we have an opportunity to look at this bill in greater detail at committee. I believe this is very forward looking legislation but it is legislation that can be improved. We must go forward with a view to improving this in a reasoned, moderate and tolerant approach.
John McKay Liberal Scarborough East, ON
Madam Speaker, I was very intrigued by the hon. member's speech. I believe it could have been delivered by the justice minister who, I am sure, found himself in something of a strange anomaly in the presentation of his speech.
Does the member regret that this occasion has not been used by the government to articulate the definition of marriage in legislation? As the hon. member well knows, the definition of marriage has been recognized for about 150 years in common law as being between a man and a woman. However, as the member also knows, common law is subject to judicial interpretation and can be changed. One day after the passage of this legislation some justice could change the definition of marriage to something else.
Does the hon. member see that as a difficulty and as something that could have been addressed in this legislation?
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member opposite. I have a great deal of respect for the work that he does both on the justice committee and here in the House. I know he has also examined this bill in great detail.
The definitions in this particular legislation, for whatever reason, steer clear of defining a marriage. They steer clear of the words that would invoke the emotion and the judgment of members and Canadians generally when it comes to defining what marriage really means. There are obviously religious and spiritual connotations. As the member has pointed out, there is a long history that transcends boundaries and cultures when it comes to marriage.
I think this legislation attempts to remove some of the emotional elements and focuses in on other very fundamental elements such as equality, justice and humanity. I believe this is very much the direction in which we should be moving. If we try to mix the two, the purpose of the bill can, unfortunately, be clouded and the objectives of the bill may be lost. I think we should stay away from what is strictly defined as a spouse and trying to define what a family is using words like tradition. The implication being that somehow the bill takes away from those definitions is the danger that is averted by the wording used here.
I take to heart what the member has said and look forward to working with him at committee to improve this bill.
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders
February 15th, 2000 / 1:25 p.m.
Reform
Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB
Madam Speaker, I applaud the member for his speech. As a lawyer, he has done a masterful job of talking for an hour and not taking any firm position on this particular bill. I have listened to him, and at times I thought he was for it and at other times against it. At the end of the day, I do not think anybody knows where he is on the bill.
I would like the member to clarify for the record a couple of points, if possible. Does the member or his party see any legitimate, unique public policy interest in recognizing the institution of marriage? Bill C-23 applies every benefit and obligation, with the exception of the Divorce Act, to what is called a common law partner, which is subject to a conjugality term. We now have every benefit and obligation for marriage applied to these common law partnerships. Is that the way the member wants to go or does he see a unique public policy interest in the institution of marriage?
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member and I will try to be very clear in elucidating my position as to whether I think there is a benefit that can flow from having a definition of family.
I think the definition of family and a person's view and belief of what constitutes a family is very much an individual question for every individual to determine what is his or her family and what benefits and obligations flow from that.
I came from a family of a single parent. If the traditional view of a family were that there would have to be two parents living in a household to be considered a family, my personal view is, that would be wrong.
We have the common law recognition of two people who profoundly care for one another and want to share their lives together exclusive of others. It takes away the element of the ceremony and perhaps the religious or spiritual practices that are involved in the ceremony of marriage, but it does not remove the human elements of caring and sharing, living together and mutual respect.
I am not trying to avoid the question. Do I think there is value in recognizing what is a family? Yes. Do I think there is value in defining family in rigid, exclusive and exclusionary terms? No, I do not. That may be a debate for another time. If this is about giving individuals the ability to have financial freedom and financial entitlement in a broader, more open way, perhaps that is where we should be going.
I reserve the right to look at this legislation in greater detail at the committee. I do not think that any member of the House or any Canadian should be forced to decide this in 48 hours.
Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB
Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on a previous question and ask the hon. member who has just spoken whether he agrees with the petition that he presented in the House on June 12 in which the petitioners asked that parliament enact legislation so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female. He presented that petition. Was he in support of it?
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing forward that issue. As the member knows, when we present petitions on behalf of our constituents, we are instruments of their voices. We are bringing to parliament a certain view.
Do I ascribe to the view that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, and that particular institution, with all that flows from it? Yes, I do. If an individual wants to have that definition placed to one side, recognizing that there are other definitions such as common law and the expanded view of common law that this legislation would bring about, I see no problem with that, as long as it is not exclusionary and as long as it is not used in an intolerant way to say that because we are married we are somehow entitled to something that another is not on a financial basis.
What happens between a couple in what is deemed to be a marriage, I have no difficulty in saying that I personally ascribe to the view that that involves a man and a woman.
Should there be another definition? The Reform Party member's colleague from Edmonton has brought forward a very interesting suggestion that we should have something called registered domestic partnerships, which would create another definition, separate from this view of what is marriage. Perhaps that is something we should look at as well.
The member across has indicated that this is a debate which has been around for centuries. We are not going to cure it in 48 hours, but at least at the committee we will have an opportunity to look at some of the options and try to achieve the largest umbrella that will help the largest number of people, which is, at the end of the day, what we all should strive for.
Sarmite Bulte Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough East.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak in favour of Bill C-23, the modernization of benefits and obligations act. I begin by commending the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for their joint efforts, co-operation and collaboration in enabling the government to table this omnibus legislation.
The purpose of this legislation is straightforward. The bill will amend legislation to recognize the principle of equal treatment for all common law relationships. Same sex partners will be included in the new definition of common law partners. They will be granted the same benefits and obligations as opposite sex common law partners. Same sex spouses who have lived together for at least one year will qualify for benefits, the same length of time as common law spouses.
Bill C-23 will amend 68 federal statutes, affecting 20 federal departments and agencies. The legislation affected covers a wide range of subject matter, from the Bank Act to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, to the criminal code and the Firearms Act, the Indian Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the Trade Unions Act and the War Veterans Allowances Act, just to name a few statutes.
The proposed changes are about fairness. The changes are not about granting special rights; they are about equality before the law. The changes are about fairness, tolerance and non-discrimination. These changes are a reminder to us all that it is not acceptable to discriminate against any person at any time or at any place.
The proposed changes will ensure that our laws reflect the values of Canadians, and Canadian values, values that are enshrined in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
When we speak about the values of Canadians it is not surprising to find that the majority of Canadians believe, as I do, that same sex couples should receive equal treatment. According to an Angus Reid poll taken in September 1999, 67% of Canadians agreed that same sex couples should have the same legal rights and obligations as a man and woman living together as common law partners. Regional support was broken down as follows: in my province of Ontario, 66% of Canadians were in support; in B.C. support was at 68%; and in Atlantic Canada support was at a high of 75%.
While I would like to applaud the federal government for taking bold leadership on this issue, unfortunately I cannot do so. On the day the bill was introduced in the House of Commons the Minister of Justice stated: “Canadians are probably way ahead of legislators on this issue”.
These changes come almost a year after a Supreme Court of Canada decision ruled that same sex common law couples are entitled to the same benefits under family law as heterosexual couples. On Friday the Minister of Justice confirmed that the court gave the government the direction in which it needed to go.
Both federally and provincially there have been many challenges before courts and human rights tribunals regarding the benefits of same sex couples. In its May 1999 ruling in M. v H. the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear that government cannot limit benefits or obligations by discriminating against same sex common law relationships. Denying equal treatment before the law to same sex common law partners is contrary to the principles of equality enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Several provinces have already begun to amend their legislation. Since 1997 B.C. has amended numerous statutes, including six core statutes, to add same sex couples. In June 1999 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 spouses. In October 1999 in Ontario, to comply with the supreme court decision in M. v H., the Harris government passed omnibus legislation to bring 67 statutes into compliance with the ruling.
However, this is not the first time the federal government has passed legislation to extend benefits to same sex partners. In fact parliament passed Bill C-78, which extended survivor's pension benefits to same sex partners of federal public service employees. All three territories and a number of other provinces have also passed similar legislation. These provinces include Manitoba, Quebec, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It should also be noted that Bill C-23 will not have an impact on the private sector. However, it is equally worthy to note that over 200 private sector employers have already extended work related benefits, such as dental care and pension benefits, to same sex partners for their employees, as do most municipalities, hospitals, libraries and community and social service institutions across Canada.
It is incumbent upon the federal government to act now. While some of the provinces have amended their statutes, Canadians must remember that under the Constitution Act, 1867 legislative jurisdiction is divided between the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures. For example, Ontario amended 67 provincial laws that were the exclusive responsibility of the province, most notably the Family Law Act. This omnibus bill tabled by the government will amend only federal statutes.
Let me give some specific examples. Under the Income Tax Act a married person or a common law opposite sex partner may claim a tax credit for a dependent spouse or partner. The changes would provide that a same sex partner may also now claim the tax credit for a dependent partner.
Under the Old Age Security Act a married person or a common law opposite sex partner may claim an income supplement depending on the combined income of both partners. The changes that were tabled today would provide an income supplement claim for a same sex partner, but it would also be based on combined income.
We can see from the two examples I have used that the bill strikes a balance by extending both benefits and obligations to committed same sex couples.
I would like to give another example to illustrate the point I have just made about this balance. A household's income is one of the criteria used to determine a common law couple's eligibility for the GST or the HST tax credit. Because our laws do not presently recognize committed same sex relationships, individuals in such relationships can claim eligibility for these tax credits based on their personal income. Under the proposed legislation their eligibility would be calculated based on combined income, representing, in total, some savings for the government. On the other hand, we estimate that awarding survivor's benefits to surviving partners of committed same sex partners will represent a modest cost to the CPP. However, overall we estimate that the fiscal impact of these amendments will be minimal, if at all.
Recent court rulings have confirmed for legislatures the need to address the constitutionality of certain laws that discriminate against same sex couples.
As parliamentarians it is our responsibility to amend these statutes to ensure they conform with the charter. In the absence of legislative action the courts will continue to address cases in a piecemeal fashion. The status quo is not an option. It promises confusion, unfairness, and continuing and costly litigation. Equally important, it risks making the courts the arbiters of social policy.
Our proposed bill affirms parliament's primary responsibility for social policy. It provides a responsible, balanced and legally sound framework within which to address recent court decisions and, most importantly, to ensure that same sex couples receive fair and equal treatment under the law.
John McKay Liberal Scarborough East, ON
Madam Speaker, I find myself in somewhat of an unusual position, being opposed to this bill while being on the government side.
The bill is fairly simple. It really could be written in one line: common law heterosexual relationships are the legal equivalent to common law homosexual relationships. Therein lies the entire issue.
Regardless of what any of us think, the face of the Canadian family is changing. It is really quite revolutionary. In the course of my lifetime the divorce rate, for instance, has gone quite high. Something in the order 40% to 45% of marriages fail over the course of the lifetime of a marriage. I dare say that in the House the rate is even higher. The cost of marriage breakup is pretty difficult to quantify. My own view of it is that frankly the children pay the price for marriage breakup, which is a very regrettable fact in our lives.
The bill turns common law homosexual relationships into the legal equivalent of common law heterosexual relationships, which for many purposes is equivalent to marriage. However no one seems to get into the issue of equivalency and whether it should be treated as such. To say that marriages break up over the course of a lifetime at a rate of about 40% or 45% is and of itself a regrettable statistic, but common law relationships break up something in the order of 60% to 65% over the course of five years. From what I understand, gay and lesbian relationships break up at the rate of about 90% over the course of one year.
For public policy purposes one has to question whether they should be treated as equivalencies in law. Statistically the relationships are clearly not equivalent. My view for public policy purposes is that they should not be treated as the same before all purposes of public policy. However the bill does precisely that. I will not argue the point that common law relationships, be they homosexual or heterosexual, are not as committed, as loving or as whatever as any other relationship, but I do not think that frankly is the point.
We should not be basing public policies on some dubious notions, shall we say, of commitment and care for each other. Rather we should be basing public policy on the basis of the encouragement of what works and the treatment of other relationships as not offensive to equality.
I do not think there is anyone in this debate who argues with the basic point of equality and treating relationships in so far as possible on a basis of equality, but it seems that the government of the day, regardless of political stripe, needs to encourage the relationships that form the bedrock of our society.
The arguments that support the passage of the bill are as follows. The first argument is that the courts made us do it. That is what I call the bunker Mike Harris argument. Mike Harris thought that the best way to deal with a difficult political policy issue was to empty the legislature and have first, second and third readings all on the same day. Then he simply hoped that the fallout would be minimal.
This has been cited by some as a way to handle a difficult issue, and I quite agree that this is a difficult issue. It is not overly democratic, but what the heck. We get through it and get on with other things. It is called political expediency.
What disappoints me most is the unwillingness and the inability of our government to give serious consideration to the dependency model legislation. Not only does that dependency model legislation enjoy significant support in the caucus, but in my view it would enjoy significant support in the House. It was a great opportunity, to turn a phrase of Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, to get the nation out of the bedrooms of the nation and to remodel public policy based upon need or dependency rather than upon one's sex life.
By choosing this route the government has exacerbated the divisions both within caucus and within the House rather than leading members to points of reconciliation and harmonization of views. The government has bought into the bunker Mike Harris mentality without every having read the cases.
Any fair minded reading of the lead case in the area of M. v H. shows that the courts are more than willing to defer to parliament. In fact, they have given four and a half or almost five years for parliament to debate the issue and deal with it. Now we are told that we will have about two weeks in which to put the legislation through the House.
The management or control of this issue is well on its way to achieving that which it tried to studiously avoid. I believe the House could have come together on a dependency model and that parliamentarians could have articulated the views to and for Canadians, but instead in the haste to control government has made the issue divisive. I am perfectly prepared to concede that the issue is complex and fraught with difficulties, but the bill in my view is the refuge of the intellectually bankrupt and is the least that can be done under the circumstances.
This is not leadership in the field. It is frankly leadership by doing the minimum. Canadians have every right to wonder why together, whatever one's sexual persuasion, is the legal equivalent of marriage. For those of us who hold a high view of marriage, this is an amendment that is irksome and may well be damaging to the overall health of society. One year is frankly just like getting socks and underwear in the drawer. To make it the legal equivalent of marriage is something that needs to be thought about.
The government recognizes that having socks and underwear in a drawer is the legal equivalent of marriage and in fact prefers that relationship over the commitment by a son or a daughter to look after an infirm or disabled parent or child. When we put it in that phrasing we realize that we are going down a path of public policy which many Canadians may well not wish to go down.
There is something not quite right here. The bill will not enjoy my support. One of the sales points of the bill is that the government would leave the definition of marriage alone. Instead of articulating the definition of marriage in the bill the government has chosen to say nothing.
Of course one day after the passage of the bill there is nothing to stop a justice of any court saying that in his or her view the definition of marriage is old, antiquated, out of date and should be modernized. Then once again we will be going through this dance of the dialectic in the courts. We will be complaining about judicial activism and that parliamentarians will not have any say in the issue. Instead of dealing with the issue at this opportune moment, we are not dealing with the issue at this opportune moment.
Once again Canadians will not have their say in what they believe to be the essence of marriage and all the resolutions passed in the House will not matter at all, which is quite regrettable. A court will once again decide social policy, which is probably one of the last places one should deal with social policy. Then the justice minister of the day will introduce a bill amending the Marriage Act, arguing that he or she had really no choice but to follow the wishes of the court.
This is not a criticism of judicial activism. Rather it is a criticism of parliamentary inactivism. Canadians do not have a say through their elected representatives because the elected representatives do not insist on having their say.
There is a multitude of good reasons to oppose the bill, but the most significant one is that the government could have done so much more and has chosen to do so little. It did not define marriage and it could have. It could have got out of the bedrooms of the nation and it did not. It could have adopted a dependency model legislation and it did not. It could have reflected the changing face of Canadian families in our society.
Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB
Madam Speaker, I applaud the hon. member across the way. It is sometimes hard for people to stand alone in the House but the hon. member has done so. In spite of pressure in his own caucus he has brought a thoughtful and balanced perspective to this piece of legislation that is definitely needed. I encourage him in his analytical and well reasoned approach to the bill.
He and I personally are on side on a number of the issues, on the weaknesses of the bill. I was just wondering, if there was one thing that could be changed, what would be the number one thing in its number of weaknesses we could do to improve the bill? What does he think that would be?
John McKay Liberal Scarborough East, ON
Madam Speaker, I would have preferred the bill to reflect the resolution of the House last May or June that the definition of marriage be put in legislative form. To my mind that would have put to rest one of the most significant arguments. It would have allowed all of us to deal in a policy atmosphere which I think is fairer, more equitable and recognizes that the face of the Canadian family is changing.
One only needs to think of the attempt to deal with the Canada pension legislation. When the Canada pension legislation was introduced 30 years ago there were eight workers for every dependant. Presently there are five workers for every dependant. When other baby boomers and I reach the dependency stage there will be three workers for every dependant. That will put enormous pressure on our system of caring for Canadians. That reflects in a profound measure how the face of Canadian society will change.
John Reynolds Reform West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
Madam Speaker, I also congratulate the member for Scarborough East on a very well thought out speech. I do not think he will be the only member on his side with that point of view by the time we get through this debate. I agree with him that the bill is intellectually bankrupt. I will be the next member to speak for our party and will say more about that when I give my speech.
Would the member agree with me that it would be good if we just put the bill aside for a while and had a committee tour the country to talk about the dependency model? Literally tens of thousands of people will be discriminated against. It will not be too long before the bill goes before the supreme court because someone does not fall under the category of having conjugal sex. Then we will have to come back with some other kind of bill.
Would we not be saving the country a lot of money and a lot of effort if we had a committee tour the country and listened to all the different models? In her speech this morning the minister said that we had to start looking at these models. Why is there a big rush to put the bill through today? Why do we not do it right and when it comes to the House the next time it will be done properly for everyone who is dependent on someone in Canada and not just certain groups of society specified by conjugal sex?
John McKay Liberal Scarborough East, ON
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the overall principle that we should be looking at other dependency models. The face of the Canadian family is changing and is changing quite dramatically.
I cannot buy the argument for the issue of haste in terms of this bill. We have had something in the order of four and a half or five years since the lead decision from the supreme court. To my mind we have wasted those four or five years while we have let courts and activists decide the issues. In my view it is time for the Canadian people to be heard. If there was a fair hearing on the issue of dependency, I think Canadians would speak very vociferously on that issue.
Gurbax Malhi Liberal Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON
Mr. Speaker, November 15 is National Flag of Canada Day. This year's theme is “Take pride in Canada, the place to be in the 21st century”. It is a time for Canadians to take pride in being citizens of a nation that the UN has ranked six years in a row as the best place in the world in which to live. It is a country built on values common to all Canadians, including openness, compassion, tolerance and respect.
Each year on flag day we reaffirm our pride in the Canadian flag. It is a symbol of the bright future of our youth as well as our hopes and dreams as a nation. On this occasion my colleagues in the House of Commons and I should remind ourselves that it is important to integrate new Canadian citizens in the country. Establishing connections between old and new Canadians helps us to build a stronger Canada.
Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, the hepatitis C victims of tainted blood continue to wait. Even the lucky few who were promised help by the Liberals if they were sick have not received a cent, and it has been two years.
There were $1.1 billion promised, and nothing received. To make it worse the victims lawyers are in court asking for more money, and guess who for. It is for themselves.
The health minister is the architect of this mess. He persists in thinking lawyer thoughts of confrontation, litigation and send a bigger bill. If he had agreed to a no fault compensation program similar to the one which HIV victims received, these poor victims would have received help long ago.
Where is the $1.1 billion? Come to think of it, HRDC mishandled about $1 billion last year. Calamity Jane could have easily found a way to spend it all.
Hepatitis CStatements By Members
The Speaker
I ask hon. members to stay away from adding names to our members' names.
Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, a delegation from Manitoba is in Ottawa this week to meet with federal leaders to discuss what the federal government plans to offer farming communities in southwestern Manitoba that suffered through a disastrous flood last spring.
The delegation is made up of farmers, agribusiness, provincial and municipal politicians. All they are asking for is fair, equitable and consistent compensation for a natural disaster that was beyond their control. The flooding in southwestern Manitoba did not have the drama of the Red River Valley flood or the ice storm but it was nonetheless just as devastating.
I stood in the House exactly 10 months ago to make the government aware of the situation that was developing. I have also questioned the government a number of times asking it to address the issue. I am still waiting for a resolution.
Many Liberal members of the House have stated that they support the compensation package. Money was made available for the ice storm and the Red River Valley flood. I urge the members opposite to please make money and compensation available for an equally devastating flood.
Aileen Carroll Liberal Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON
Mr. Speaker, last Sunday one of Canada's most distinguished women's charitable associations, the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire, celebrated its 100th anniversary. In my riding members of the Barrie Kempenfelt chapter paid tribute at Central United Church to the IODE's accomplishments and its future initiatives.
The IODE was founded on February 13, 1900 and worked on behalf of Canadian families and children and supported Canada's efforts in wartime among many other accomplishments.
The Barrie Kempenfelt chapter contributes to a broad range of organizations in my community. This chapter has a particular interest in children with special needs.
I ask the House to join me in congratulating the IODE and wishing all members continuing success in the next 100 years.
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Mr. Speaker, during this 10th provincial suicide prevention week we must express a wish for greater involvement by society as a whole on this issue.
Governments have an important role to play in preventing despair and the resort to unfortunate actions by a large number of people. A heightened awareness of this serious problem, which is a trait of modern societies, reminds each of us that we share a certain amount of the responsibility toward those who are suffering profound distress.
The causes of suicide are many and they are highly complex. Our individual and collective involvement is essential if we are to attenuate this misfortune which strikes too many families. Sometimes just lending an ear is sufficient to help put someone on the path toward a solution and prevent him or her from undertaking some desperate act.
As a government, as individuals, let us increase our awareness of our responsibility toward those who need our help.
Maurice Vellacott Reform Wanuskewin, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to draw attention to the arrival of farmers from Saskatchewan who will be in the gallery during question period. They moved their protest from the provincial legislature to the House of Commons.
I extend a warm welcome to Arlynn and Lillian Kurtz of Stockholm, Saskatchewan. Lillian, whom I have had the privilege to know in my former life, is on a hunger strike to draw attention to the plight of farmers in western Canada and their desperate need for some equalization payments sooner than later.
For four months the Reform Party of Canada has sponsored about 60 meetings in western Canada known as Action for Struggling Agricultural Producers or ASAP. Over 5,000 farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia have attended these meetings and voiced their concerns about failed government programs, frustrating bureaucratic roadblocks and political ignorance and neglect.
The Liberals opposite have responded in their typical fashion. To this day dollars from the ill-fated AIDA program, supposedly in the hands of farmers by Christmas 1999, remain missing in action. The government found money for those impacted by the Red River flood, by the ice storm and those affected by the maritime—