Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to this bill, and I hasten to congratulate the government on finally taking action to respect human rights.
Throughout the debate that is beginning today, many speakers, particularly from this side of the House, from among the Reform Party members, will try to persuade us that this is a bill that undermines the rights of the family, that undermines the institution of marriage, and that it is therefore an unacceptable bill.
I believe that one would have to be of singularly bad faith not to recognize that the bill before us today is a bill relating to human rights. It states that, in future, parliament, the lawmakers, this lofty decision-making centre that is the House of Commons, will not accept any form of discrimination whatsoever toward same sex partners.
That is what we are speaking of here. The purpose of the bill we have before us is to amend 68 pieces of legislation in all sectors of life in Canada and in Quebec, whether the Criminal Code, the Citizenship Act, pension plans, banks, all sectors of society, anywhere there is a “heterosexist” definition of spouse, so that in future, if this bill goes through, there will be a “homosexist” definition.
I respectfully submit that this has nothing to do with the family, nothing to do with marriage. That does not mean that one day down the road we will not have to debate that as parliamentarians. I do not hesitate to state that, in my opinion, parenting ability has nothing to do with sexual orientation. They are two completely different things.
However, that is not what we are dealing with today. I believe it is very important to be extremely clear about this, for the benefit of our fellow citizens. There is, however, one point on which I am forced to agree with our Reform Party colleagues: it was high time for the legal activism that started back in the early 1990s to come to an end, and high time for us to assume our responsibilities as parliamentarians.
In all the judgments pronounced in recent years, be it in the Haig case, the Nesbit-Egan case in 1995, the Rosenberg case or, more recently, the M. v H. case, the various courts of justice, and often the supreme court, have told parliamentarians to fulfil their obligations.
I am very pleased, first of all because there are pioneers in this House who have paved the way. In that regard, I believe we must pay tribute to the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas. Once the way was paved, a movement started to emerge.
Let us ask ourselves the question. For the second time in less than a decade, parliamentarians will be voting on the recognition of same sex spouses. The previous time was in 1995. Yours truly, who was still very green as a member of parliament, having been elected in 1993, had asked his parliamentary colleagues to pass a motion asking that the government and the House recognize same sex spouses.
At the time, no more than 55 parliamentarians voted in favour of the motion. All members of the NDP voted in favour, as did 85% of the members of the Bloc. What is significant—and I do not mean this to be a breach of our rules, I mention it strictly for information purposes—is that, except for the Minister of Canadian Heritage, there were no cabinet members in the House when the vote took place.
I mention this for information purposes, to show the incredible progress made, resulting in the Minister of Justice, and she is to be commended for that, coming before the House today with a commitment from cabinet and asking us to support an act recognizing same sex spouses.
The Minister of Justice is able today to table a bill like this one because of a change brought about by people speaking out.
Yesterday morning, I took part in a press conference held in Montreal, in the gay village, by the Coalition pour la reconnaissance des conjoints du même sexe. I said to these people “Same sex partners will be recognized, and parliamentarians will take this profoundly significant step because individuals and groups in society have spoken out and said they were involved in same sex relationships, they were living true love with all of its heights and its depths, with its obligations and its benefits, and demanded to be given full consideration”.
When we come to this debate, when we vote and when we consider this bill in parliamentary committee, I would like all parliamentarians, especially the Reform members, to ask themselves the following question: Can we decently, in all knowledge, argue in this House that two men or two women who love each other feel love differently from a man and woman who love each other?
There is no difference in the feeling of love. There is no difference in the way couples live. A man in love with another man feels the same range of emotions, experiences the same feelings. An individual living in society pays the same taxes, is governed by the same laws and participates in the same civil society. This must be the focus of our concerns.
Non-recognition of same sex partners is a matter of discrimination. It cannot be a matter of religion. We cannot, as parliamentarians, take a religious or moral stand on this issue, which does not mean that we are not people of principle.
As an individual, I have my principles. I have my values. My colleagues have their principles and their values. But when one is passing a bill, when one is a lawmaker, it cannot be issues of morality that guide us, because, in politics, such issues are the most likely to suffer from the passage of time.
Let us consider what would have happened if those who passed the Divorce Act had allowed themselves to become hung up on moral considerations and had decided not to pass the legislation because the predominant moral stance thirty years ago did not approve of people being able to dissolve their marriage through a legal mechanism.
One principle alone must guide us as lawmakers and that is equality between individuals. This is how the Minister of Justice started off her speech. We cannot agree on constitutional issues and, as members know, we are unhappy about Bill C-20. We cannot reach agreement with respect to the economy. We do not see eye to eye on economic policy, but it is impossible that we, as parliamentarians, cannot agree on what should motivate our actions, what should be at the heart of our concerns, and that is the equality of all individuals.
This principle is so important, so deserving of our attention, that the lawmakers, acting as a constituent body in 1981-82, enshrined it in the legislation.
So that this is clear for those listening, the principle of recognizing same sex spouses flows not just from extremely noble sentiments between individuals, that is reciprocal love, but from the recognition enshrined in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Given its importance, I am going to quote it to you, if I may. What does section 15 say? It reads as follows:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
That is the text that existed in 1982. I would point out as an aside that, at the time of the constitutional conferences as far back as 1982, some people were grouping together. Who was the Minister of Justice at that time? The present Prime Minister and member for Shawinagan.
As far back as 1982, people were lobbying to have sexual orientation included in the illegal grounds for discrimination. This was not done, but I will not go into that any further. In 1995 there was a cause célèbre, probably one of the most important cases in Canadian law: Nesbitt-Egan. This concerned a British Columbia couple—British Columbia being one of the most interesting places to live in Canada—who had been living together for more than 40 years. Not many couples have been together more than 40 years.
This was a homosexual union, a couple who had been living together for more than 40 years. One of them challenged the constitutionality of one of the sections of the Old Age Security Act dealing with the spouses' allowance, claiming that it was unconstitutional under section 15, which I have just quoted.
The supreme court unanimously—all nine justices—acknowledged that indeed, in future, section 15 of the 1982 Charter of Human Rights had to be read as including sexual orientation among the illegal grounds for discrimination.
That is how the supreme court came to acknowledge that it was no longer possible for the lawmakers to discriminate, on the basis of section 15. This was a very great moment in the annals of legal history.
Today as parliamentarians we must, naturally, with the distance that must accompany our deliberations and in the direction the supreme court has indicated, tell our fellow citizens that we will not tolerate discrimination.
Let us be clear. It is never easy to acknowledge one is different from others. It is never easy to belong to a minority, and it is no easier belonging to a sexual minority. I am 37. I know I look very young. I regularly have to show proof of age at clubs, but nevertheless, I am 37.
When I told my parents at age 18 that I was a homosexual it was not easy for me and it was not easy for my parents either. Let us go back in time. My parents had raised children in the early 1960s. I turned 18 in the early 1980s, and I do not think that my parents in their ideals of raising family and having children in the 1950s, 1960s or 1970s had wanted a homosexual son, because it was a period in which society rejected homosexuals. Homosexuality was considered an illness. People made fun of homosexuals.
That did not prevent my parents from moving on and understanding that homosexual relationships may be extremely gratifying and that we are full citizens.
This is the whole thrust of the debate today. Every member rising in this House to vote against Bill C-23 will send a negative message to Canadians and Quebecers, who will think that when one is gay, one does not deserve full protection in every piece of legislation passed by parliament.
This is the message that these members will send when they vote against this bill. Let us not forget that even in optimum conditions, when one discovers that one is gay, at age 13, 14 or 15, it cannot be easy. It is in our interest as lawmakers to contribute to a better acceptance of each other, to help people accept each other for who they are, to see that people reach their full potential. This is why the legal framework defined by us lawmakers must promote the development of individuals.
Again, this, in my opinion, is the thrust of the debate. As parliamentarians, do we accept the view that people engaged in homosexual relationships with same sex partners must be recognized as full fledged members of society? Make no mistake about it. This is not a financial issue, not a monetary issue. Of course, the benefits to be provided by the act will have a financial impact, since the Canada Pension Plan Act will be amended.
So will the Income Tax Act, to make it possible for a same sex spouse to get a spousal allowance, to receive compensation. This will become possible and it will also be possible to claim a deduction for a dependent spouse.
However, the bill's financial impact is not its main feature. Those who may be tempted to vote against it cannot argue, if they are properly informed, that this bill will have a major impact on the treasury.
Let us never forget that, in a number of cases, same sex spouses who will be granted benefits are already paying for these benefits as taxpayers.
In 1998, at the time of the Rosenberg case, when the Department of Finance was asked to evaluate the financial impact of recognizing same sex spouses, what did it say? First, there is obviously no one right now who can give a precise evaluation of what it would cost Canadian taxpayers to recognize same sex couples.
It is not possible because no one has a clear idea of the number of homosexual couples in Canadian society. It does not exist in the census and it is not something one declares in one's tax return.
On the basis of evaluations done by the Department of Finance on the consumer habits of Canadians, it is estimated that, if between 2% and 6% of Canadians took advantage of the various tax deductions that could apply to same sex couples, the cost would range between $4 million and $12 million.
So this is not primarily a financial or monetary issue, because we are talking about an amount between $4 million and $12 million, according to the figures filed with the Ontario Court of Appeal in the Rosenberg case.
I also wish to give a bit of background so that people are clear about what we are discussing. The term homosexual itself goes back to 1869. The word originated in Germany, apparently.
More recently, in 1948, a sexologist and sociologist by the name of Kinsey published a report in which he said that something like 10% of the population might have engaged in homosexual relations.
In 1969, the government amended Canada's Criminal Code, decriminalizing homosexual acts between consenting individuals over the age of 21.
These historical landmarks are important to a proper understanding of how this all came about and of how long ago the recognition we are now preparing to give to same sex couples began, how deeply it has been rooted in history, and how long.
Imagine, Canada had its first gay demonstration on Parliament Hill as far back as 1971. In 1973—just to show what a tenacious prejudice this has been—the American Psychology Association removed homosexuality from its list of definitions of abnormal behaviour.
From the early 1950s until the mid-1970s, when the medical profession dealt with homosexuality, it considered it pathological. Today, who could argue that homosexuality is pathological?
As hon. members are aware, I myself am of homosexual orientation, and I do not believe that I have ever presented any sign of dysfunctional behaviour, unless it is to sometimes be a bit long-winded, but I do not think anyone would fault me for that.
In 1977, Quebec amended its legislation, its human rights charter, in order to include sexual orientation among the forbidden grounds of discrimination.
In 1979, the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended in its annual report that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to include sexual orientation. And that is interesting. It must be kept in mind that the Canadian Human Rights Commission played a fundamental role in obtaining more rights for the homosexual community.
This leads me to point out that the Haig case in the early 1990s was really because of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and section 10 of that legislation was struck down because it did not put an end to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
It must be pointed out that, at the time, it was Kim Campbell who was the Minister of Justice. She decided that a decision that could have applied only to Ontario would be binding throughout Canada. We must be grateful to Kim Campbell for being open-minded.
We know of course what happened in 1982. In 1985, section 15 came into force but, unfortunately, it did not include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
In 1986, Ontario became the second province, after Quebec, to amend its human rights code, which is the equivalent of Quebec's charter of human rights, and to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
In 1988, a breath of fresh air came from the church. The United Church of Canada, which represents the largest Protestant community in Canada, voted in favour of ordaining homosexuals.
This is how a society changes. It is truly the joint forces of the judiciary, the church, the political institutions and society that contribute to the shaping of mentalities.
In 1989, a court recognized for the first time that sexual orientation was a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In 1991, Ontario extended its social benefits, with the exception of surviving spouse benefits, to same sex spouses for the whole provincial public service.
At the same time, the Supreme Court of British Columbia decided that the interpretation of “spouse” as defined in the Medical Service Act, which denied same sex partners the benefits provided, was an infringement of section 15.
One year later, in 1992, a commission of inquiry established under the authority of the Ontario Human Rights Code held that the refusal to give survivor benefits to same sex partners contravened the charter.
This is how the issue of sexual orientation gradually worked its way through the annals of law and into the charter.
In 1995, there was the Nesbit-Egan decision. This is not an insignificant decision, and I would like to cite it. I remind the hon. members that this decision arose from action taken by a British Columbia couple who had lived together for over 40 years. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you, a model of fidelity, have not yet reached so many years.
The supreme court found that sexual orientation ought to be included in section 15 as prohibited grounds for discrimination. It is because the supreme court included sexual orientation as prohibited grounds for discrimination that—
