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.