Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the debate on Bill C-23.
The purpose of this bill is to make adjustments to reflect our changing society, and to acknowledge advantages and obligations for same sex couples on the same basis as those conferred upon common law couples of the opposite sex.
Before going any further in this debate, I must make it clear that I am speaking for myself, since the Progressive Conservative Party has chosen to allow its members to vote freely on this matter.
It is a sign of the times that this is at least the second occasion in two years on which the members of this House have had the opportunity to debate this matter. We can therefore say that this is definitely the reflection of a new reality.
In my opinion, this demonstrates how the thinking of Canadians has evolved, as they are now prepared to accept a certain degree of recognition of same sex partners. That is what the government's bill proposes, nothing more.
In fact, Bill C-23 proposes an updating of some 68 federal statutes in order to reflect numerous decisions by the courts of this country, the most recent of these being the May 1999 Supreme Court of Canada decision in M. v H., to which several of my colleagues have already referred. At the very most, this is a technical bill aimed at correcting a discriminatory definition of the expression common-law spouses, which has until now been limited to heterosexual couples.
Must this bill be considered a threat to the institution of marriage? Or are we to consider it legitimate recognition of a social situation in Canada and the simple adjustment of federal laws in effect? Members will have understood that I am in the latter camp, since marriage is a whole other matter for debate.
I beg the House's indulgence to make an aside in order to add my voice to the arguments by my colleagues who are criticizing the limited time afforded this House to study the scope of this bill. Clearly, as we have realized with the bill on clarity, the government is pushing us for time. The government's propensity to push things lends credence to the disillusionment of a number of our fellow citizens at the role elected representatives play in the legislative process.
Furthermore, the courts in this country have reached many decisions that would indicate the legislator is being dragged along by the judges' decisions. It is the job of elected officials and not of the judges to consider and vote on the laws in this country.
In the matter before us, there are innumerable decisions decrying in one way or another discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The polls indicate clearly that most Canadians consider it appropriate to give some sort of legal recognition to same sex partnerships. Even if parliament were to reject the present bill, it would face this issue once again in a relatively short time. I would be surprised if the courts were to change their minds and public opinion were to change completely.
Elected officials will therefore be, as we are today, pressed to change the laws to put an end to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. By rejecting the bill, we could send Canadians the message that we are not in tune with their concerns. Rather, we must show Canadians that the government is aware that things change and it is keeping an open mind. A number of provinces have passed or are about to pass legislation to correct the situation.
The federal government too must adjust its legislation before it becomes totally obsolete. We, as elected representatives, must not merely react to social pressure, but anticipate it and act accordingly. The public expects the government to be proactive, because that is its role. If passed, Bill C-23 will put Canada alongside the most progressive countries regarding this issue.
I agree with my colleagues and fellow citizens who feel that the bill before us today relates closely to fairness and human rights. Canada is constantly cited as an example of a tolerant country that respects human rights.
Not so long ago, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, said that several countries were constantly calling on his expertise in interpreting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to develop their own laws. I personally care a great deal about the principles of fairness and tolerance, which are the foundations of Canadian society. However, I wonder why discriminatory provisions can still be found in our legislation.
Why is the Canadian parliament hesitating to take a step that many companies in the private sector have already taken? The private sector is hardly known for its social convictions. I am concerned that the prejudices associated with sexual orientation are winning out over respect for human rights as understood in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if not in the letter, then at least in the spirit.
If there had not been legislation to abolish discrimination based on sex, race, language or religion, Canada would not be the model of tolerance it is today.
Bill C-23 has the advantage of clarifying various pieces of legislation in a manner consistent with the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and without prejudice to the institution of marriage, which a majority of us, myself included, wish to protect.
The government has deliberately chosen to maintain a clear distinction between partner or spouse, which refers to legally married couples, and common law partner, which refers to couples living in a common law relationship, a conjugal relationship different from marriage. The spirit of this important distinction is the same as that in similar legislation passed in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. It is only logical that the definition of common law partners include same sex partners.
We would be sticking our heads in the sand to think that there are no moral implications to this bill. However, I think that this kind of definition corresponds to the evolution in what is acceptable to Canadians. That is what our society is prepared to accept. I do not believe that the majority of the population wants a debate on the definition of marriage. The government has the right angle on this matter and I congratulate it on that.
Some of my colleagues would like to see a debate on marriage or on the institution of the family as it has been understood for generations. I am not rejecting such a debate, but I do feel it is inopportune within the context of the bill being debated today.
As I did in the debate on Bill C-309, introduced by the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve in 1998, I support Bill C-23, and for the same reasons.
This parliament must recognize, once and for all, that the definition of common law spouse contained in federal legislation is discriminatory. This flaw must be corrected promptly, in a country claiming tolerance and fairness.
Like the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, I would call upon the members of this House to set aside personal or partisan considerations in order to reach a neutral and rational judgment on this matter.
Canada has always played a lead role in issues relating to the recognition of human rights, and must continue to do so.