Mr. Speaker, I hope my time has not been shortened and that you stopped the clock when our colleague rose. He has put me a bit off track, but I will resume my remarks.
Another very famous decision in the annals of law advanced the cause of the gays.
That was the decision in the case of Rosenberg v Canada. On April 23, 1998, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that the definition of “spouse” in the Income Tax Act was unconstitutional as it applied to registered pension plans.
The words “of the opposite sex” in the definition as it existed in the Income Tax Act prevented the Canadian Union of Public Employees from extending the application of its registered pension plans to the surviving spouses of gay or lesbian employees.
The Canadian Union of Public Employees therefore relied on section 15 in challenging the discrimination which had taken place, the result of which was that the Department of National Revenue, which administers the Income Tax Act, refused to recognize same sex employees' registered pension plans, thus denying them the corresponding deduction and the plans legal recognition. Once again, the courts enlightened matters.
More recently, another extremely important decision was handed down in the case of M. v H. On May 20, 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled eight to one in favour. This was an extremely strong show of support. The judges were not divided. This was not a decision with a slim majority, but an extremely solid one, almost unanimous, one of only a few supreme court decisions, with eight justices out of nine ruling that the definition of “spouse” in the Ontario Family Law Act contravened section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights.
What was involved here? Two lesbians had been living as a couple for several years, since the early 1980s. They broke up. It should be pointed out that, during their life together, wealth had been accumulated, and one of the two had acquired a business for which the other worked. Therefore, support payments were demanded at the time they broke up. Obviously, the Ontario legislation known as the Family Law Act, at section 29 if I remember correctly, did not recognize same sex partners, and so, despite having lived with a same sex partner for some years and having contributed to the wealth of the couple, the woman had no recourse.
It is interesting that this went all the way to the supreme court. Why am I taking the time to refer to the decision in M. v H.? Because, for the first time, the supreme court acknowledged that homosexual relationships should be considered as spousal relationships. And it was recognized that, ultimately, it would be possible for support payments to be obtained in the case of same sex couples.
However, the supreme court showed some reservations, as the provincial court had earlier in the Nesbit-Egan case, and refused to invalidate the act completely, or to require the Government of Ontario to amend all of its legislation. It made a declaratory judgment limited to section 29 for a 90-day period. Hon. members will see that the court was exhibiting wisdom.
M. v H. is an important decision because it makes it clear to the homosexual community that justice is aptly represented by a scale with two sides, since it involves both obligations and benefits.
We must know as parliamentarians, and the homosexual community must know, that if this bill is passed, it will also lead to obligations. When a couple's total income is taken into account, there may be advantages and disadvantages arising from considering the total income, for example.
M. v H. is a case involving support. When an individual enters a homosexual relationship, consideration must be given to what may arise should the relationship break up after a period of time. There are a number of responsibilities.
I would like to return to the heart of the debate. Once again, I believe that we would be mistaken as parliamentarians if we failed to recognize that the issue here is to put an end to discrimination once and for all. We know that the ten major cities, including Halifax, Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto and Moncton, have recognized same sex partners at the municipal level.
Many private firms recognize same sex partners. The situation would be paradoxical to say the least if same sex partners were recognized by lower level authorities, at the municipal level for example, but not by us here, in the federal government, in the Parliament of Canada.
More recently, last year, the National Assembly, with the government of Lucien Bouchard, one of the best governments to have occupied the government benches, gave full recognition to same sex partners. It amended 28 laws of Quebec, including the act respecting income security and the automobile insurance act. Major pieces of legislation were amended in order to recognize same sex partners.
Obviously the process is not complete, since the civil code remains to be changed. I cannot wait for that, and I am eager to get Mr. Bouchard's government moving on to the next step, that of amending the Civil Code of Quebec. As hon. members are aware, we have two separate legal systems: one based on common law, which governs English Canada; one governing Quebec, the civil code. This code is a law, but it does not recognize heterosexual partners, and so obviously it does not recognize homosexual partners.
I am anxious to convince the Quebec government to jump on the band wagon and amend the civil code. Again, this is not about family or marriage. Earlier, I listened to what the Reform Party members were saying, and I think some serious soul-searching is in order, because one cannot promote law and order as they do and not want to respect the charter. That is not possible.
Yesterday at a press conference the Canadian Coalition for the Recognition of Same Sex Spouses stressed how untimely and inappropriate it would be for parliamentarians to vote against this bill. By voting against this bill, parliamentarians will in fact be indicating that they think they are above the Canadian charter. This means they do not recognize a value that is fundamental, regardless of where one lives in Canada, of one's profession, of one's age and of one's judicial record. There is a principle that must be adhered to, and that is equality for all.
It can never be overstated that this bill enshrines the recognition of full, total and uncompromising equality for all. I cannot imagine the Reformers, who will very soon opt for the united alternative, sending the gay people in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia the message that, as parliamentarians, they do not recognize them as full-fledged citizens.
I believe there will be an extremely heavy price to pay in terms of the implications. I believe that voters will be very critical of members who rise in this House and do not recognize that the principle of equality between individuals applies to all citizens and that this equality should be the focus of our concerns.
The Bloc Quebecois will do everything it can to have this bill passed quickly, because recognition of same sex spouses has been too long in coming. We will examine the issue seriously in committee. We will hear from witnesses.
All those who believe in equality must do something that is extremely important in democracy and that is to speak up. We must rise up and engage in dialogue at every opportunity. We must go to see the Reform Party members and all parliamentarians who are not convinced that the bill has merit. We must engage in dialogue in order to convince them that this has nothing to do with marriage and the family, but that it is a matter of equality.
In the coming days, that is what I will be doing. That is what all parliamentarians should be doing. I am convinced that together we can change things, shape thinking and work for greater equality for all our fellow citizens.