Debates of Feb. 15th, 2000

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I would ask members to address each other through the Chair.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the hon. member recently said. I think the point is simple. To date, there has been recognition of conjugal relationships. Those relationships have been marriage and common law relationships for heterosexual persons who have been living together for a year or more.

The supreme court has told us that we have discriminated against other conjugal relationships that are not heterosexual. We are bringing this to a level playing field. It is about fairness. It is about equality. It is about human rights.

Why does the member bring up a red herring about dependent relationships when he knows full well that the minister has said that the issue of other dependent relationships will be brought up in the future, but that it entails federal and provincial jurisdictions and will need a great deal of work? Was the member not listening to the minister when she spoke? Can he answer me that?

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to answer that question. The minister did say that this morning. She did say that this bill is not complete and that we should be helping people with other dependencies. Our answer from this side of the House is that it should have been done with this bill. Why do we have to wait? Because they have to talk to the provinces? My God, they talk to each other every day at this level. I have been in provincial government and we talked to the federal government.

The member from Vancouver is the one using a red herring because her government has a bill which discriminates.

The member asked me if I listened to the minister. It is this minister who will do nothing about pornography. She has done nothing about drunk driving. She talks and talks about the Young Offenders Act. The government delays bills in the House.

I would be happy to debate with those members the fact that this bill discriminates against people in Canada, and it is not fair to many thousands of Canadians.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite. I know he has had a long and I would like to say distinguished career because I understand he was first elected when he was in his twenties. Through opportunities he has made some changes over the years, in terms of to which party he has belonged and such, but I would have thought that given that long career he would have known the kind of process that we in Canada deal with when it comes to governing.

I would have thought, for example, he would know that parliament sets the rules and makes the laws. I would have thought he would know that the role of the civil service is to carry out those laws. I would have thought he would know that the role of the judiciary is to interpret those laws. Yet, again we hear from him, as we often do from Reform members opposite, judiciary bashing.

I spent 10 years on the Waterloo regional police force and as chairman I dealt not only with police, young offenders, pornography, drunk driving and all the things he was talking about, I also interacted with the judiciary. I want to ask the member what purpose he and his party have in repeatedly bashing one of the finest judiciaries in the world? People from around the world look to Canada for—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry, but I must interrupt, as there is only one minute left.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to answer a question from somebody who really has the wrong premise.

I have been in politics since I was 30. I have seen how government operates. I have no trouble attacking the judiciary if they are not doing their job properly. That is not shameful. I am doing my job as a member of parliament.

However, I have more fun attacking the Liberals because they make the laws. The member was in the House this morning, but he was obviously not listening when the minister admitted that we have to add these other people. It is only fair that they should be in this bill. Why are they not doing it now?

This government has had lots of time to look at the bill. It has had lots of time to defend these other people who have dependencies. The Liberals can do all the talking and insulting they want, but the fact is that this is a poor bill because it does not represent all Canadians and it should represent all Canadians. That is why we are here.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the eloquent member for Mississauga West.

When I rose to make my maiden speech in the House in 1994, I pointed out that my riding contains the largest gay and lesbian population in Canada. They bring a sense of diversity to our city and enrich many areas of our community, including the artistic and cultural life of our city. These citizens, fellow citizens of ours, look to the government to fulfil long unkept promises of many previous governments to ensure that discrimination in their lives and in their employment will cease so that they may play their full role in society. It is their right to live in a world with a level playing field and we owe that to them. That is what I said in my maiden speech.

Later that year, on the occasion of World Human Rights Day, I said that, “As Canadians, we can be proud of our contribution to the international community on the issue of human rights and on the development of international standards to which we adhere”.

This said, we must also be ever vigilant that our human rights respect international standards and ensure the right of all Canadians to live free from discrimination in this country.

A recent decision of the United Nations human rights committee ruled that sexual orientation is protected by the equality guarantees of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a document which Canada helped prepare and which binds us.

Let us, in remembering World Human Rights Day, recognize that it is our duty to ensure that our laws in this country are amended to eliminate all forms of discrimination, including any based on sexual orientation.

Today the House has an opportunity to fulfil that duty and with it to achieve one of the most important tasks for which we are elected: the implementation of laws which guarantee that all our citizens may live in equality and dignity. In so doing we as Canadians know that all of society will benefit as we have so often found in this great country where our tradition of tolerance and acceptance of diversity has enabled us to create a nation which is the envy of the world.

I have news for the member from West Vancouver. This is not a diversionary tactic for my constituents. This is the process of fulfilling long overdue longstanding obligations of the most fundamental kind. This is a priority for real people who are living with real problems. They merit our attention and they do not deserve to be denigrated by the words such as were used by the member who last spoke in the House.

The path to this moment has not been easy. The need to take these steps was recognized by governments long before ours, but I am proud to say our government has had the political courage to deliver on something that many had recognized was the right thing to do.

I was proud to be part of the government elected in 1993 which recognized the need for these measures and implemented them. We started with Bill C-41, the sentencing act. We then passed Bill C-33 to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. We then adopted Bill C-78 which extended pension benefits to same sex federal employees.

All of this legislation had the support of such associations as the National Association of Women and the Law, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress, B'Nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Foundation of University Women, and the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies, for the very good reason that they represent basic Canadian values.

For a good number of these important institutions, these are important measures, contrary to what the Reform member who has just spoken said.

They also had the support and encouragement of our courts which in a series of charter cases such as Egan, M. and H. and Rosenberg recognized that our charter of rights and freedoms required total equal treatment for gay and lesbian couples. There is no justification in a free and democratic society, to employ the language of the charter, to discriminate against them in the manner in which our laws recognize the rights of those who live in a conjugal relationship and contribute to society together.

Today this measure completes and complements the reasoning of our courts. It enables us as legislators to voice our views on this issue and to complete the work we started when we adopted the landmark changes to our human rights act, changes which foresaw and necessitated the measures being considered by the House today.

I heard what was said by our colleagues opposite about this measure. They spoke about its irrelevancy, its lack of relevance and pertinence to the life that takes place in Canada today; but we already debated the appropriateness of the measures before the House when we debated the changes to the human rights act some years ago. We decided then by a free vote in the House, supported by 75% of the members voting, that the basic values of our Canadian society require that we eliminate all forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

At that time we knew our view was shared by the vast majority of the Canadian population, that some 70% of our fellow citizens across the country were in favour of that measure. That was then and the same 70% is in favour of these measures now for the same reasons.

What does the legislation do? Quite simply, where there is discrimination it eliminates it. It guarantees that throughout our laws there will be equal treatment for all common law relationships in relation to benefits and obligations. As pointed out by the member from Mississauga, this is not a matter that changes anything. This is extending to common law relationships the same rules and regulations. That is the essence of the discrimination that is being eliminated.

It does not go as far as some of my constituents would have liked. For example, there are those who might have wanted to see crafted some form of matrimonial relationship for couples of the same sex; but those who would have preferred that solution know the complexity of this issue as was referred to by my colleague, the minister from Vancouver. This issue requires political co-operation between the provinces as do all matters dealing with marriage.

I am sure they agree with me that what we needed to do today was to address the inequality of treatment in our statutes and to eliminate it wherever it is found. The bill accomplishes that. In so doing we have dealt with such issues as those addressed in Rosenberg. I am sorry my colleague who spoke about the courts and denigrated them earlier is not here to hear what the court in Rosenberg stated:

Differences in cohabitation and gender preferences are a reality to be equitably acknowledged, not an indulgence to be economically penalized. There is less to fear from acknowledging conjugal diversity than from tolerating exclusionary prejudice. As L'Heureux-Dubé J. said in Canada (Attorney General) v Mossop...“Given the range of human preferences and possibilities, it is not unreasonable to conclude that families may take many forms. It is important to recognize that there are differences which separate as well as commonalities which bind. The differences should not be ignored, but neither should they be used to delegitimize those families that are thought to be different”—

I agree with the formulation of the court and I respect the formulation of the court. I say to members of the House that when our courts speak this way they are speaking forcefully. They are speaking with the voice of the majority of the Canadian population which accepts that we live in a society of tolerance and respect for others, and not with the voice of those who say that we should sweep away the courts which speak for no one, sweep away the Constitution of Canada, get rid of the whole idea of the charter of rights and freedoms which is one of the fundamental notions of what this country is all about, sweep it all away and we will somehow live in a world where we can apply all our discriminatory views and all our worst views of one another and impose them on ourselves and on one another.

We chose to have a charter in this country. We chose to give our courts authority to interpret our laws. I respect the decisions of those courts because I think they have fundamentally followed their requirements under the constitution. I am pleased to say that I think my constituents support the decisions of the courts too. They support this statute because it is important to gay and lesbian communities that discrimination be eliminated so they can contribute fully to society. It is important to send a signal to everyone that discrimination is not a part of our social fabric. It is also important for society in general.

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, many institutions in Canada like universities and important companies wish to hire the best people possible. They want the Income Tax Act changed so that they are not discriminated against when they enable their finest employees to work for them in a non-discriminatory manner. This is why these measures have been adopted by many other jurisdictions, provinces and countries.

I will complete my speech by saying I am proud to speak in favour of this measure. I am proud of my fellow members from all parties who support it. I am proud of our government and I am particularly proud of the many Canadians who have forced this on the House and whose indefatigable work in favour of justice and equity brought us to this historic moment in our life as a modern, diverse and equitable society.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite gave an impassioned speech, particularly near the end. I would like to get some clarity from him because I think Bill C-23 lacks much clarity and that is what is causing some of the confusion.

When we read the bill the sole criterion for extending to same sex couples access to every benefit that we have previously given to married couples and families is a term referred to as conjugality. There needs to be a requirement of a conjugal relationship.

We have heard some pros and cons. The member is on the government side. Would he say if there were no sexual relations between two people that they would still qualify for the full suite of benefits offered under Bill C-23? Some are arguing that they would or would not. I would suggest that if they would not qualify then the very thing he is concerned about, discrimination, is a key factor in the bill.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the member has insisted on the term clarity in the House at this time. It perhaps might evoke reaction from other parties of the House that have trouble with that concept, but I will leave that aside.

The member is obscuring something here. This is not that complicated. The member knows, as does everyone who knows anything about the way in which society has evolved recently, that at one time the only way in which one got benefits under pensions or many other statutes was if one were married. We moved away from that concept to one where we recognized common law relationships. This was in the law of the provinces. It was recognized that men and women could live together in a relationship that was not blessed by holy matrimony.

All the bill does is assimilate relationships between people who are living together in similar circumstances to that of a heterosexual common law relationship and same sex couples who are living in the same relationship. That is all it does.

The whole business of sex police and everything is some sort of myth. Are there sex police going around now knocking on the doors of heterosexual couples and asking “Are you really sleeping together? You made a declaration that you are common law”.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member opposite just said prompts me to ask a question which has bothered me as I listened to everyone talk.

I am a married man. Therefore my marriage is registered. I wonder if with CPP, Revenue Canada, life insurance, accident insurance and spousal benefits it is not absolutely imperative that these these relationships will have to be registered relationships.

It is inconceivable to me that one could change partners without deregulating it somehow in the same way as if I divorced my wife. None of that is in the act. If we do not have this term in the act, who will register these people? Will it be the provinces? Who will do it? It is not in the act. Unless we have some kind of registry this whole thing will be awry all over the country.

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

Has the member ever heard of a common law relationship?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, somehow we are getting the debate going over there.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Let us give the member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale a chance to answer the question, shall the member for we?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they can duke it out over there if they want to. It is kind of fun.

The member from Burnaby put his finger on it. The problem existed in the country that there were many heterosexual people who were living in relationships that were not protected by the law. They were not married and the courts and we as legislators both in the provinces and the federal government said this was not fair. Women were being discriminated against. We assimilated a common law relationship to that of a matrimonial relationship.

I am a married person in the province of Ontario. The whole of the Family Law Reform Act was introduced after my wife and I had been married for 20 years. It completely changed the nature of family law as it applied to us as couples, our children and everything else. That is what we did in our society. All this is doing is moving couples of the same sex into the exact same category.

What they want to do is turn back the clock. They want to say that we cannot have any common law relationship because they are not registered. They have the same problem that the member raises.

If it is not a problem for common law relations, it cannot be a problem for the bill. If it is a problem for the bill then it is a problem for common law relationships. I suggest that the member and his party go to the Canadian public and say that they intend to turn back the clock 25 years and get rid of all forms of common law relationships.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that some hon. members have been doing some homework and research. I admit this issue has followed me around somewhat in my political career. I never saw more acrimony and concern than when I sat in opposition in the province of Ontario when Bob Rae and the New Democrats brought in a bill. It was almost violent. The legislature was taken over by a mob. It could be described as nothing else. The majority of members of the provincial Liberal Party voted against the NDP legislation.

Let me explain that I too voted against it at that time because nobody should either receive rights or lose rights based on their sexual preference. It is very important that we quote both. I could not accept the changing of the definition of marriage, which is what Bob Rae and his government put forward. The bill does not do that. That is the fundamental difference.

I am going to come out of the closet and tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I am hopelessly heterosexual. My wife would tell you that the operative word is hopelessly, but I do not think that has a darn thing to do with any of this. It should not matter or enter into the debate.

In my view what we are seeing is hopeless homophobia on the part of certain members who are colouring their positions or changing them. They are totally off base and off issue. They do not want to come right out and say that they are against the bill because they are against homosexuality and gays and lesbians. In my view that is position of many of the speakers, not all to be fair, who put forward arguments on behalf of the Reform Party.

We have heard comments about the Toronto police chief making speeches to the Conservative caucus that met in Niagara Falls. Interestingly enough it was the same Conservative caucus and Conservative government in the province of Ontario that are held up as the great example of how to run a government. This is the same government, Mike Harris and his people, that passed an ominbus bill which does exactly what this bill would do. It passed it in 24 hours with no debate. It brought in what these people always cry about, closure. It brought down the hammer and adopted legislation to ensure that amendments take place that will bring justice and fairness to all Canadians.

Can we ever satisfy those who are homophobic? Can we ever satisfy those who call us? I had a call the other day from someone who introduced himself to me as a reverend. I will not mention his name. He was a part time evangelical minister and I wish him well in his endeavours. He has made up his mind. He believes that only God can make this decision. He uses words like sodomy and says that the whole act of homosexuality is unnatural. He goes on and on. There is no possible way that I could ever explain any of the details in the bill to that individual.

Just about every day we see someone outside this building who has that same attitude. Is there any point trying to put across the fact that there is a certain group of Canadians who are clearly being discriminated against for a reason that is irrelevant to the issues of benefits and obligations: their sexual preference. I do not care what it is.

I agree that we do not need to be in the bedrooms of the nation. This idea of a sex police is just laughable. Earlier today I heard one speaker in this place say that people would take advantage, that people would claim they were living in a conjugal relationship so that they could access some form of benefit. When I thought about that I said that it was preposterous.

Does anyone here know any heterosexual male who would stand up in public or in front of his family and claim to be gay so that he could access a dental plan? Are we serious about this? Would he then go on to explain to his buddies in the hockey dressing room and to his mom and dad that he really is not gay, he just had a cavity? I use the example perhaps in the extreme, but it is such utter nonsense to think that someone would claim to be gay just to access some form of benefits. If a person is heterosexual, the last thing in the world he wants is to be accused of is being gay for any reason. It is just not reality.

What does the bill do? The members opposite talk about what the judiciary is doing in terms of making laws. That is absolute nonsense. I heard the member for Vancouver West stand in his place and say that parliament makes the laws, the government enforces the laws and the courts interpret the laws. That is exactly right. Would we want it any other way? Would we want the courts not to have the ability to interpret the laws?

What saves this vote for me and what makes it so fundamentally different from the one in the province of Ontario that took place under the leadership of Premier Bob Ray is the fact that the definition of marriage has not been touched.

My colleague for Scarborough East, for whom I have a lot of respect, said that it should be put in a statute. Why? Why should it not remain where it has always been? It is in common law.

I want to share something that reinforces this fact. In one of her speeches, I believe on June 8, the minister said:

The Ontario court, general division recently upheld in Layland and Beaulne the definition of marriage. In that decision a majority of the court stated the following:

—unions of persons of the same sex are not “marriages”, because of the definition of marriage. The applicants are, in effect, seeking to use s.15 of the Charter to bring about a change in the definition of marriage. I do not think the Charter has that effect.

The court said that this was fundamentally important for all Canadians who are concerned about the deprivation of the institution of marriage or concerned that somehow the hordes of homosexuals, as a result of getting access to justice and to benefits, were going to somehow infiltrate all of our institutions and our schools and poison our minds.

We liked that decision by the court. Maybe there are some other interpretations or decisions that we do not particularly like, but the courts are not there to please us. The courts are there to interpret the laws that are put forward by the duly elected parliamentarians. They have a responsibility that is different from ours. Because we like the one that says that this is the definition and therefore the sanctity of marriage, but we do not like another one, we get in a dither and say “We should invoke the notwithstanding clause”. The reality is that we do have a judicial system that has its warts, but it is a system that is free and independent. We do not elect judges like the Reform Party would likely do if it was given the opportunity, or as they do in the United States where Boss Hog rules the day. We do not subject the public to making decisions like that.

Members of our judiciary are appointed through a system. They are educated. They learn the system. By and large, the Supreme Court of Canada is one of the most outstanding institutions in the world.

From time to time there will be provincial supreme courts and others that will issue decisions with which we will disagree. Child pornography is one, and we, the government, are at the supreme court fighting that decision. I want to hear what the members say if the supreme court rules against the court decision in B.C.

This is homophobia. This is nonsense. The bill should be passed to provide fairness and equity for all Canadians.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to offer the following motion to see if there would be consent:

That the House continue to sit until 8 p.m. this day to consider Bill C-23 and that after 6.30 p.m. the Chair shall not receive any dilatory motions, quorum calls or requests for unanimous consent.

This would allow other members to speak in this debate. This would not end the debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The government House leader has asked for unanimous consent to move a motion. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member a very different question from what his speech was all about, which was just a bunch of rhetoric about homophobia. I am tired of hearing about that. My question deals with the justice department, which has brought forward this legislation.

When the polls announced what issues concerned Canadians across the country, more than anything else, the issue contained in this particular bill appeared in the 1% to 2% range, while other major issues, such as high taxes and justice in general, were quite high.

Could the member explain why we waited six years to deal with the young offenders legislation, which has not done a thing? Why are we allowing 11, 12 and 13 year old children to be exploited by pimps on the streets of our cities and we are not doing anything about it? Why have we not brought in legislation to deal with gangs that are exploiting our youth all across the country and violence is getting out of hand?.

Why in the world do we deal so vehemently with legislation that apparently the public is not really interested in when they are really concerned about these—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The member for Mississauga West.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some of the issues the Reform Party raises are legitimate issues and some, frankly, are fearmongering.

When I heard the Toronto chief of police stand up at that convention and say what he said, I wondered if there was any chance that he was lobbying for an increase in the upcoming budget that he might have to fight for from the Toronto city council.

When people say we are a haven, I do not think most Canadians believe that.

The facts are that there are some problems with youth justice in this country. The member knows full well that we have made changes. We have lowered the age. We have allowed for youth who are accused of violent crimes to be tried in adult court. We are allowing for their names to be—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Okay, we are going to get to Burnaby—Douglas then we will get to Cypress Hills—Grasslands. Keep them short please.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question will be very brief.

I appreciate the support of the hon. member for this legislation, but I did want to give him the opportunity to set the record straight with respect to one comment that he made. That is with respect to the issue of Bill 167 in Ontario.

I have a copy of that bill. Surely the member will recognize that nowhere in that bill, nowhere, was there any reference to the definition of marriage whatsoever. I have the bill here. The Liberal Party in Ontario did oppose that legislation. It later flip-flopped. It has been back and forth but I think it supports it now.

I challenge the hon. member. Does he not acknowledge that nowhere in that bill, not one line, was there any reference whatsoever to marriage?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Very quickly, we are going to be relevant. We are on Bill C-23.