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.
Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we should stick to this bill.
I would just say to the member that he did not see the regulations that we saw which would have made the changes. That member knows with his experience that not all the changes have to appear in that regard.
Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised that nobody on the other side has been willing to admit or has even drawn the House's attention to the fact that this rather incomplete bill has been brought forward primarily in a pathetic attempt to draw the attention of opposition members and the press away from the scandal in the Department of Human Resources Development. It is pretty easy to see.
I am also a little surprised in that I noticed the member seems to agree with Pierre Elliott Trudeau that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, but most of the people who have spoken over there most emphatically seem to believe that the state should be in the bedrooms of the nation. I would rather subscribe to the notions of Mrs. Patrick Campbell when she said, “I do not really care what people do as long as they do not do it in the street and frighten the horses”.
Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON
Well, thank the Lord that in Mississauga the horses are not in the street, at least not at the moment.
Mr. Speaker, you might be interested to know that the city of Mississauga has made changes to all of their laws to allow for same sex benefits for same sex couples, as has Victoria, Burnaby, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg, Barrie, Kanata, Montreal, Ottawa, Kingston, Toronto and Halifax. The provinces of Quebec, B.C. and Ontario have done so, as have the companies of Canada Post, Bell, IBM, Canadian Airlines, Air Canada, Bank of Montreal, TD Bank, General Motors, General Electric, and the list goes on. They are ahead of the government on this. It is time we brought all of our laws into line with what most Canadians believe is fair.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-23, an act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations.
This morning, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve participated very intensively in the debate, giving it more than his all. We know how involved our colleague is with respect to the recognition of same sex spouses, and I believe that the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has succeeded not only in stating the Bloc Quebecois position on this issue, but also very certainly in influencing the positions of certain other parties in the House.
This 166 page document, which I recently examined, is an important bill, as all omnibus bills are, let there be no mistake.
It is a bill that has a major impact, because it amends 68 federal statutes to include same sex spouse in the definition of common law partner.
The importance of this bill becomes evident when we look at the number of ministers sponsoring it. I looked into this and identified five such ministers, from the Department of Human Resources Development, to the Department of Finance, Treasury Board's human resources directorate, the Department of Justice and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
These are major changes involving over 20 departments and agencies. Basically, this bill has one purpose: to restore equity. This equity will make it possible to modernize certain regimes by introducing equality in the law for common law couples but also for same sex or opposite sex couples, in accordance with a May 1999 supreme court decision.
I will take a few moments to review this important decision pronounced on May 22, 1999. This lengthy decision boils down to this: A couple is a couple, regardless of sexual orientation.
In addition, it strikes down a section of the Ontario Family Law Act which makes a distinction between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples with respect to the entitlement to maintenance upon the break-up of a union, whether it be a marriage or a common law relationship.
The immediate consequence of this judgment was that it rendered that section of the act inoperative in Ontario. In fact, this supreme court decision marked the end of the legal debate. From that moment on a new debate ensued, one which became political, parliamentary, and inevitably involved the day to day administration of the government.
The government therefore had no choice but to come up with Bill C-23 in order to comply with the May 22, 1999 decision.
I will give a chronology of the events of the various changes that have occurred, as well as of the facts. It is important to point out that, as far back as 1977, the Government of Quebec was the first to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
As far back as 1979, the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to include sexual orientation. This recommendation is contained in each of the commission's annual reports, up to and including 1995.
Another date that must be recalled is 1982, when the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was incorporated into the Canadian constitution.
In 1985, section 15 of the charter came into effect, the section on the right to equality. The report by the parliamentary Sub-committee on Equality Rights, “Equality for All”, called for the banning of all discrimination based on sexual orientation by the Canadian Human Rights Act.
In 1992, the Ontario appeal court found that the Canadian Human Rights Act needed to be interpreted as forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. As well, during the same year the Canadian Forces announced that they were terminating the restrictions on enlistment and promotion on grounds of sexual orientation.
Bills S-15 and C-108, whose aim was to add sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act, were introduced in the Senate and the House of Commons respectively. They both died on the order paper in September 1993.
In 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the allegation that “family situation” included same sex couples. In 1994, the Government of Ontario introduced Bill 167, which was intended to expand the definition of conjugal relations in Ontario legislation to include homosexual couples. It was rejected at second reading by a vote of 68 to 59.
In 1995, the Supreme Court of Canada gave its first decision under the terms of section 15 of the charter on sexual orientation and the awarding of benefits to same sex spouses. The nine members of the court decided that sexual orientation is an analogous ground for the purposes of section 15, and a majority of the justices decided that the definition of spouse in the Old Age Security Act as a person of the opposite sex contravened section 15. However, a majority felt that the contravention was justified under section 1 of the charter.
I will also point out, as I mentioned in the first part of my remarks, that on May 20, 1999, in an eight to one decision, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the definition of spouse as in part III of the Ontario Family Law Act, which prevented same sex partners from seeking support at the breakup of a relationship, contravened section 15 of the charter and was unjustified under section 1. The court ordered this provision repealed, but suspended reparations for six months to enable the legislators in Ontario to correct the contravention of the charter.
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Rosemont. I would like to know whether the member intends to share the time allotted him.
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
You therefore have 11 minutes left.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont, QC
Mr. Speaker, I had not indicated when I began that I would be sharing my time, because I intended to use my full allotted time, that is, 20 minutes.
On May 25, the House of Commons passed Bill C-78. This important pension reform bill included amendments to replace the provisions authorizing the payment of survivor benefits to unmarried opposite sex spouses with provisions authorizing the payment of benefits to spouses without distinction as to sex. Bill C-78 is the first federal statute to explicitly provide for benefits to same sex spouses.
On June 10, Quebec's national assembly unanimously passed a bill to amend various legislative provisions concerning common law couples. This omnibus bill amended the definition of common law spouse in 28 statutes and 11 regulations so as to include homosexual couples, giving them the same status, rights and obligations as unmarried heterosexual couples.
The amended legislation has to do primarily with compensation for accidents in the workplace, health and security in the workplace, labour standards, pension benefits, public sector pension plans and social assistance.
In October, Ontario passed an omnibus bill amending 67 statutes to bring them into line with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Clearly, the government had to follow suit. Unfortunately, the government has once again waited for certain decisions of the courts, including, of course, the supreme court, before introducing this omnibus bill, which will amend a certain number of statutes.
It is also important to point out that the proposed amendments do not all go one way. In effect, they offer new benefits to same sex couples, but they also impose new obligations.
The proposed legislative amendments will preserve the fundamental importance of marriage in our society, in that the definition of marriage will remain unchanged. I mention this to reassure those Liberal members or members of the opposition who are rather conservative, and we know a number of them.
The fact that members of homosexual couples have been denied spousal allowances has generated criticism, as we are well aware, but this criticism was often basically a matter of principle. Gay rights advocates argue that homosexual couples who pay taxes are unfairly denied social benefits and do not receive anything in return for their direct contribution to certain plans, and that they in fact fund the plans of heterosexual couples.
Others contend that the state should continue to not recognize homosexual couples, because granting rights to these couples threatens family values. Also, some gay and lesbian couples refuse to accept the legal obligations and benefits that result from this situation.
The public also expressed its opinion on the issue on a number of occasions. Several public opinion polls were conducted and the results were released. I should point out that the Angus Reid poll conducted for the Department of Justice in the fall of 1998 clearly shows that this bill reflects the will of Canadians.
Indeed, according to that poll, 74% of the respondents agreed with granting federal benefits to gay couples, while 67% felt that same sex couples should get the same benefits and face the same obligations as common law couples. Moreover, 84% of the respondents felt that gays and lesbians should be protected from discrimination. Finally, 59% were of the opinion that homosexual couples should be included in the definition of spouse.
As members can see, we have a number of elements, but several arguments show that Canada is lagging behind on this issue. If we consider, among other things, the omnibus bill introduced by the Quebec government, the ruling issued by the supreme court on May 22, and the action taken by the Ontario government on this issue, it is clear that the changes proposed in Bill C-23, which, as I said before, will impact on 68 federal acts, are necessary.
I will be very pleased to support this bill.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Dennis Gruending NDP Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about the World Trade Organization, agriculture and the plight of our farmers.
The World Trade Organization talks broke down in Seattle last year and it is a good thing they did. This hiatus gives us some time to reflect upon the Liberal government's blind pursuit of a trade agenda that has been destructive to our farmers. They are hostages of the government's cult-like adherence to the ideology of free trade at any cost.
It is true the government's friends at the Business Council on National Issues repeat the mantra with zeal “free trade, free trade, free trade” and our so-called national newspapers sing the same hymn “globalize, globalize, globalize”. Our trade minister, our agriculture minister, our Prime Minister are all choirboys in the same chorus.
People in my part of the country are asking interesting questions. They are saying that if this free trade is such a wonderful thing, then why are we, the grain farmers, in such dire straits today?
Agriculture exports have increased by 65% over the past five years and farm receipts have increased by more than 43% over the last 10 years. Why is it in these circumstances that farmers' net income has actually dropped by 11%? Why are the very people whose hard work provides the statistics the government uses to promote its trade agenda losing their farms?
During the Christmas break I visited some of the farm communities in my riding. I was told that one small community had lost four families since last fall and the prediction was that it would lose at least that many again before spring seeding. I have spoken with farmers, with their family members, with regional municipality councillors and reeves. Believe me, there is a very crucial need for some support and reinvestment in rural Canada, especially in western Canada.
It is time for the government to come out of its trance and to realize that farmers in western Canada are paying the price for a warped trade agenda. They are paying with their farms, with the break-up of their families and some tragically with their lives as they are unable to bear the stress any longer.
Canadian farmers, in particular those who grow grains, are facing the worst situation since the Great Depression. The government's own income statistics and forecasts tell us that the next five years will not be any easier for the thousands of families that put bread on our tables. For farmers in my province of Saskatchewan the news is grim. Incomes for 2001, 2002 and 2003 will be below zero in the negative range.
If the Seattle talks had gone as the faceless WTO bureaucrats had wanted, our farmers would have been even more vulnerable to the cold winds of international trade. Since 1993 our federal government has cut its support for grain farmers by 60% all in the name of liberalized trade.
My colleagues in the New Democratic Party and I have been calling for the government to set aside $1 billion from the $100 billion forecast surplus for the next five years, a mere 1% of that, to pay for some support to farm families who need it terribly badly.
Canadian farmers represent a mere 3% of our population. Through their hard work they support about 14% of our jobs and one-quarter of our trade surplus, but they are asking why they do not benefit from it. We are saying that it is the government's responsibility to see that they do benefit from it rather than being left to twist in the wind.
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActAdjournment Proceedings
Algoma—Manitoulin Ontario
Liberal
Brent St. Denis LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member to the House. We congratulate him on his byelection win in Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
I will deal with the points he has raised and the general and severe challenges being faced by the farm sector.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the government clearly recognize the very serious nature of the financial situation many Canadian farmers are currently facing. Our government is taking the broadest possible approach to this situation.
The WTO agriculture negotiations are an important opportunity to seek greater disciplines in the use of production and trade distorting subsidies. Canada's initial position in these trade negotiations, which was developed through two years of extensive consultations with Canadians, makes it clear that we will seek the complete elimination of agricultural export subsidies and maximum reductions in production and trade distorting domestic support programs, including an overall limit of all sorts and all types of domestic support programs.
The close co-operation between the government and the Canadian agriculture and agri-food industry that characterizes the development of Canada's initial agriculture negotiating position was also fully present at the Seattle WTO ministerial conference held at the beginning of December 1999. The continuation of this team Canada approach as the negotiations progress will ensure that Canada will achieve the very best results possible for farmers right across Canada. While I recognize that the negotiations will take time and they likely cannot make the situation better in the next year or two, they are the only way to solve the problem of subsidies distorting agricultural markets once and for all.
In response to an industry request on January 13 of this year, the Government of Canada made a new commitment of up to $1 billion for the next two years to design a new disaster program to assist those producers most in need. Also a new spring advance payment program will provide assistance quickly before spring crops are planted. Individual farmers will be able to access up to $20,000 in interest free loans to help get their crops in the ground. Applications should be available in the coming weeks.
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActAdjournment Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.)