Debates of Feb. 21st, 2000

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, perseverance pays off.

I have trouble figuring out the member's position. I must congratulate the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who guessed the member is going to support the bill.

The member started by saying that it was both a bad and a good bill, that he was against it, but that he would support it. He was against same sex couples being married, but he is willing to accept their staying together and being recognized. I really have trouble understanding the member, and people who are listening to us probably have the same problem as I have.

If the House recognizes same sex couples, it must give them the same benefits and obligations as heterosexual couples. If we give them the same benefits and obligations, are we ready to recognize that a homosexual couple, a gay or a lesbian couple, can have a family and adopt children? What will happen when a homosexual couple applies for an international adoption? We know that heterosexual couples, a man and a woman, can adopt children internationally.

For example, a homosexual couple, two men, applies to China to adopt a little girl. The investigation will show they are both men, they have been living together for several years, they are working, they own a house, and have a good income. But will foreign countries be willing to give children up for adoption to homosexual couples?

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am quite prepared to say that homosexual couples could make good parents and that there are heterosexual couples who make bad parents. The difference between the common law relationship for same sex couples is that they still will not be able to adopt, in my view, but they will be subject to the discretion of the authorities.

However, married couples in my view should have the right to adopt. The danger with giving same sex couples the privilege of marriage is that in getting the legal status of marriage they might get the right to adopt children. I am not prepared to give them that right because if we give rights to one group we take rights from another. I am not sure that children, all things being equal, are better off under same sex parents as opposed to heterosexual parents.

However, nothing in this legislation so far as I can see, and I am not a specialist, precludes same sex couples from having the opportunity to adopt. The only difference is that the various authorities that carry out adoption procedures will have a certain amount of discretion that they might not ordinarily have with married couples.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Huron—Bruce, Elections Canada and the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Agriculture.

I must advise the hon. members that from now on speeches will be 10 minutes and will not be followed by questions or comments.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to state a very interesting position on which I would have liked my colleagues to have the opportunity to question me, but I will leave it for third reading or for another life maybe, where I would be reincarnated as an homosexual. This is not the case for now, but I have absolutely no problem with the idea of two men or two women living together. I think that we should not confuse things.

The only thing I noticed in reading the documents provided to me by the research staff of the Bloc Quebecois or the House is that a new definition of common law couples was being proposed, which would include same sex partners. This is an omnibus bill of a sort, which is designed to amend 68 acts.

I was listening to my colleagues who mentioned earlier the various forces and balances in our society. There are three recognized branches of government: the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch. Everybody knows that. I have often been among those who accused the Liberal federal government of lacking courage and letting others dictate its legislation, philosophy and parliamentary strategies. I often criticized it for modeling its policies on court decisions. But these things happen in society.

There are courts that can have a certain influence on this House. The executive branch always has the power to decide, and so does the legislative branch. The 301 members of the House are part of the legislative branch and will be able to express their views and vote on this issue.

There are also various organized groups, like the labour unions I belonged to for 20 years, which have a certain influence. Gay and lesbian groups too have a certain influence in this debate. That is only natural, since are directly affected by this issue.

I am one of those who feel that the time has now come to recognize those rights. Moreover, once again, broadminded Quebec has jumped the gun on the feds. Last year, Mrs. Goupil, the Quebec Minister of Justice, brought in amendments to 28 Quebec statutes in order to recognize this.

Returning to my union experience—20 years of it—I was a grievance officer. I negotiated public sector collective agreements. We were governed by certain laws and certain collective agreements. I was always greatly disturbed when contacted by gays or lesbians saying “I have lived with my partner for a number of years, but when I die, I cannot leave that partner any part of what I have earned here, working day in and day out, in this institution”.

I did not find that right. We tried to get the collective agreement changed, but we kept coming up against the statutes. When it came down to it, all these statutes told us that a common law spouse was not a same sex partner. I found that profoundly unfair.

This demands a certain openmindedness as well. I am no reactionary, not one to say that society is in a terrible way, that it will be all over within a hundred years because same sex unions are permitted. That is not what I think. A certain percentage of the population is this way, and I respect their point of view. I think the time has come to correct that.

Seventy-three per cent of the people share the same reasoning, which is not insignificant. We are all in politics here, and I am just as happy to be on the side of the 73% as against them. Mathematical and especially political reasoning hold that agreeing with the majority, and a very strong majority at that, offers a greater likelihood of popularity than if the reverse were true.

I am not saying that just in political terms. I was open to that and was totally in support of having same sex couples recognized as common law partners.

I will now speak to you as the Indian affairs critic. Since last week, native people have contacted me on a number of occasions. In the 68 laws that will be amended, there is the Indian Act and the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act. This act led to the James Bay agreement.

As usual, the people were not consulted. This is not the first time this has happened. From the first day the Europeans arrived in America, the native peoples were not consulted.

When the two founding peoples decided to draw up a Constitution—in 1867—the native peoples were left to their own devices. And yet these people were here and had rights.

Unfortunately they were not consulted and they should have been. I do not begrudge the official responsible for that a whole lot. The official is asked by the Department of Justice to make amendments and add new definitions to all the laws. He takes all the legislation he has before him and makes an amendment each time there is something to amend, in line with the desired policy.

I cannot blame the public servant, but the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should have known that this affected native peoples under his jurisdiction. Different concepts are involved. I have risen in the House on many occasions to make this point.

A white person will tend to mark boundaries and draw up deeds. It is not like that on the reserves. The reserves are often communal lands belonging to no one person; they belong to everyone. This can have repercussions for them.

Once again, the native peoples have not been consulted, just as they were not consulted about very important bills passed in this House even before our time.

In 1985, the government passed Bill C-31, which allowed aboriginal women to reclaim their status. Again, status is at issue. Prior to 1985, native women who married whites lost their status, as did all their offspring. However, a native man who married a white did not lose his rights.

The government saw that there was a problem and said that it would do something about it. But it did not consult any aboriginals, with the result that, when these negotiations were taking place, aboriginals warned that the budgets being considered would soon be inadequate if all the native women whose status was going to be recognized returned to the reserves. The government said that, first, it did not think that there would be many women who would go after their new status and, second, if they did, the budgets would be adjusted accordingly. Neither scenario materialized.

That is what happened. Many women returned to the reserve with their offspring, the budgets were not adjusted, and the aboriginal people found themselves with problems.

This is a change to the Indian Act and I might remind hon. members that the former incumbent, Ron Irwin, tried here in this House to bring in many changes to the Indian Act and was rebuffed. The aboriginal people did not want them. We need to understand why. It may be an old statute, but it is all that aboriginals on the reserve have. It is therefore important for them to be consulted before touching it. They are greatly concerned about this.

I will quote, in closing, Grand Chief Phil Fontaine, who said the following in a recent press release about his feelings on this bill “The federal government is unilaterally announcing changes to the Indian Act that will affect all our citizens in Canada. First nations governments had not received any advance notice as to the extent of the changes, their impact on our communities and the resources required to effect these changes”. This refers directly, by way of example, to what I have mentioned about Bill C-31.

Chief Fontaine concluded by saying “I am disappointed that neither the Minister of Indian Affairs or the Minister of Justice would give us the courtesy of a call to inform us of this legislative change, except for a notification letter, which contained no details sent to my office late in the day Thursday. I hope this is not the government's new approach to first nations participation”.

I think we will have to listen to the native peoples. It is not too late, we are only at second reading of the bill, which will be referred to committee. I think that the native peoples have told me they wish to be heard. This will have to be given special attention.

With respect to the bill before us as a whole, I reiterate that I have no objection and that I will support it this evening, that I will try to have amendments made to reflect the very specific aspect of the aboriginal element, and that at third reading I will support this bill. Obviously, it will be a free vote this evening for us. I can say right off that I will support this bill. I think the time has come.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to add my voice in support of Bill C-23.

As the Minister of Justice has already explained, there are powerful reasons to endorse the bill. Of all the arguments, I believe none is more compelling than the fact that ensuring equal treatment under the law should be a basic standard of a fair and just society.

Canadians have an unwavering faith in the values enshrined in our charter of rights and freedoms. We believe heart and soul that there should be no discrepancy between our words and our deeds. We are determined that our constitutionally guaranteed rights should be a daily fact of life for every woman and man in Canada. Equality before the law is the very foundation of our nation.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is certainly an excellent speech, one that I wish I could understand. Unfortunately, there is some problem with simultaneous interpretation.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That has probably filled the hon. member for Burlington full of confidence, because I thought her English was really good. We will give the interpreter a couple of seconds. The hon. member for Burlington will start where she left off.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to the bill. This country has a long and enviable history of commitment to human rights, dignity and equal opportunity. This is not rhetoric; it is a reality of which every Canadian can be very proud.

The lives of gay and lesbian Canadians and the core values all Canadians hold dear are at stake if we continue to allow discrimination to exclude any group of Canadians. Bill C-23 reflects the Government of Canada's commitment to ensure that federal policies, social programs and laws reflect societal values and realities. This responsible, measured and practical legislation recognizes the indisputable fact that same sex common law couples in Canada are entitled to fair and equal treatment under the law.

In recognition of this reality, Bill C-23 will amend all relevant statutes to extend to same sex couples the same benefits and obligations that are available to common law opposite sex partners. This legislation is the most responsible way to meet our constitutional obligations. It is also in keeping with the majority opinion in Canada. Public polling consistently finds that Canadians endorse the position that same sex partners should be accorded the same legal treatment as opposite sex common law couples.

In June 1999 Angus Reid found that 63% of Canadians believed that same sex couples should be entitled to the same benefits and obligations as unmarried common law couples. In another survey conducted a year earlier, 84% of Canadians agreed that same sex couples should be protected from discrimination. These numbers tell us that Canadians are far ahead of their elected representatives in recognizing the moral and legal necessity of amending federal laws.

As others have already pointed out, hundreds of businesses across the country already extend same sex benefits to their employees as does the federal government. Over 200 leading businesses in Canada, such as Bell Canada, Sears, IBM, the Toronto-Dominion Bank, the Bank of Montreal, Air Canada and Canadian Airlines, all consider it good policy to extend benefits to the same sex partners of their employees and they have done so for years. So too have 30 municipalities, 35 universities, countless hospitals, libraries and community and social service organizations.

Likewise, all but three provinces provide social benefits to same sex and opposite sex common law couples in their workforces. The three largest provinces, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, have recently introduced or have already implemented the necessary changes to bring their laws and policies and practices into line with today's social reality.

Canadians, courts and companies have acted to bring fairness to all citizens. Members of parliament must do the same. We have an opportunity to bring federal laws into line with Canadian values as reflected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and interpreted by the supreme court. We have an obligation to correct the shortcomings in our statutes, a duty to ensure they are constitutional and a responsibility to ensure fairness for all Canadians.

Much has been said in this House and during this debate about changes to the definition of marriage. Let me be very clear. There will be no change in the definition of marriage. A motion passed in this very House last year confirmed that marriage is the union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. This will not change.

Importantly, the changes we are bringing forward confer benefits and obligations on same sex couples. For example, currently in married and common law relationships, the combined income of the man and woman are used to determine eligibility for the GST-HST credit. Same sex partners currently apply for the credit as unrelated individuals and perhaps in some instances even gain financially by doing so. In the interest of fairness, Bill C-23 will impose the same obligations on same sex partners as those of opposite sex common law partners.

Clearly, this is thoughtful, responsible legislation. It recognizes and reconciles our legal and moral obligations to ensure fairness and equality for all Canadians. It outlines obligations and benefits. Perhaps most important, Bill C-23 makes it clear that Canadians will no longer tolerate discrimination on any ground, including sexual orientation. It reaffirms our profound commitment to fairness and justice. This bill is truly a cause for celebration.

At the beginning of the 21st century all Canadians can put behind them the idea that gay and lesbian Canadians are less than equal citizens. With the passage of this legislation we can write a new chapter in the evolving story of this great nation, a story of equality and respect for all which our children and grandchildren will be proud to retell.

Generations of Canadians have worked hard to build a country where people of different beliefs, religions and race and ways of viewing the world can coexist and thrive together. Men and women across the country in communities from Gander to Victoria to Resolute Bay have come to recognize our diversity as a source of national strength, inspiration and pride. This legislation reflects those values and I hope all hon. members will support the bill.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member. I too would like to enter the debate on Bill C-23 to speak out on behalf of a minority group in the country, that group being Christians.

All of us must remember that every morning we start with a prayer in this place. The laws we have developed in this place are also developed because of our Christian heritage. I speak out on behalf of the traditions, society and foundations we have in Canada.

Bill C-23 was introduced in the House about 10 days ago. A number of people have phoned my office or written in by e-mail, by letter or have faxed me. I have letters from two well-known organizations, Focus on the Family and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada which has several thousand members in Canada. They deserve to be heard in this debate because they believe, as I do, that the union of a man and a woman is something sacred in this country.

That is why the Parliament of Canada extended benefits in the first place. If we look back at the family allowance program, an old program which is no longer with us, the Government of Canada and Parliament of Canada developed that program because the union of a man and a woman is very special. They procreate; they have children. The Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada extended benefits to the family because there is a special status for that family and it is appropriate.

The recent booklet by Human Resources Development Canada, “Social Security in Canada: Background Facts”, answers some questions. It states that our social safety net was intended to meet the needs of the traditional married family. The booklet states: “Much of our social security structure and our work arrangements were developed to meet the needs of the average Canadian household as it existed”. It goes on to state that households consisted of two parents with two children. This was back in the fifties and sixties.

The intent of parliament when designing social benefits like the former family allowance program and current child tax benefit was to encourage and to protect the union of a man and a woman, and their children. Marriage was the key to that union.

Families are facing difficult times. Crippling taxation has been foisted on them by the last six or seven years of federal Liberal government mismanagement. Both parents are being forced to go out to work. Day care and child care expenses are escalating. There is a tremendous amount of pressure on the traditional family.

What has not changed is that marriage, the union of a heterosexual couple, is the backbone of Canadian society and the cornerstone of public policy because it is the only union that can procreate with the intent of caring for and raising children over the long term. It is not an institution that should be unilaterally changed by the courts, bureaucrats or the federal Liberal government.

As many of us know, effectively raising children requires a sustained expenditure of resources. It is to the benefit of all society that the next generation of children grows into healthy adults. Given the fact of married couples who are dedicated to raising children, the next generation requires continued support by parliament, by the 301 members of parliament to meet those children's needs.

Last June parliament directed the Liberal government to affirm the definition of marriage in legislation with wide support of the Reform Party motion. By introducing Bill C-23, however, the Liberals once again are ignoring the will of the Canadian people. Bill C-23 strips the institution of marriage of its unique public policy recognition. Not only does Bill C-23 fail to affirm the definition of marriage. It actually repeals the definition of marriage while it redefines terms such as related person and family. In many instances the term spouse is being replaced by the word survivor.

Bill C-23 introduces a new concept of common law partner which is defined as a person cohabiting with another person in a conjugal relationship for a year. The legislation fails to precisely define conjugal but alludes to the fact that it is referring to sexual activity.

Our social benefits were created to support and sustain the unique institution of marriage and the rearing of children. Extending the benefits of a traditional married family to two people who happen to live together in a conjugal relationship for one year is unfair and creates inequality. Why? It is unfair because the Liberals have chosen to extend benefits based solely on the presence of sexual activity while completely ignoring the unique role of marriage and child rearing.

Bill C-23 creates inequality because it blatantly discriminates against other important relationships of dependency where no sexual activity occurs whatsoever. It is not uncommon for elderly siblings, for instance, to live together or a parent with adult children. In fact poll respondents who indicate acceptance of benefits going to same sex couples show a stronger degree of support for benefits going to any relationship of economic dependence.

The Liberal government has missed the mark on Bill C-23. Many Canadians are clearly telling the government that economic dependence, not sexual activity, should determine the benefits and entitlements. The Liberal government should be required to demonstrate a clear and compelling public interest for extending benefits based on one's sexual activity and not economic dependency. The Liberals cannot because there are no compelling reasons.

Bill C-23 is legislation that is being driven by the courts and not by the economic needs of individual Canadians. In fact I would argue that the Liberals do not care about the economic needs of Canadians one bit. Since 1993 the Liberals have increased taxes every year through bracket creep. They have cut transfer payments to the provinces. They have cut employment insurance. They have increased payroll taxes. They have refused to index income tax rates with inflation.

Because sexual activity is the sole criterion for determining who receives benefits and who does not, Canadian taxpayers are wondering how the government will know whether a couple is truly having a conjugal relationship. For the past month Canadians have witnessed how the Liberals have bungled the whole scheme of grants. Granting benefits based on something difficult to prove will create more havoc and abuse than Human Resources Development Canada or any other department.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

What about a heterosexual couple?

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member from British Columbia is loud and proud. He is interrupting my speech, but I believe a homosexual couple would be far more interested in seeing broad based tax cuts delivered by the government than the benefits that we are talking about today in Bill C-23.

I will wrap up my speech this afternoon by saying again that I speak today on behalf of a minority group, that minority group being Christians who feel that the legislature of the country has a responsibility to set aside and make laws based on the uniqueness of the marriage between a man and woman and extending benefits to make sure that family unit is protected and looked after by the federal government.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the 10 minutes I am allotted I begin my remarks by acknowledging and thanking my government, the House leader and in particular the chief government whip for permitting me the opportunity to speak today. It is well known to them at least that I do not support the legislation as written and I am glad to have the opportunity to explain why.

I recognize that in the House most if not all members of parliament including myself have made up their minds. Most if not all the media has made up its mind on the issue and the courts appear to be making up their minds, so my remarks are addressed to my constituents.

I intend to reproduce these remarks in my spring householder. I want my constituents to know that I stand here today to represent their views as they have communicated them directly to me over the 11 years I have been a member of parliament.

I also speak today to those ordinary Canadians who may be listening and who have not yet made up their minds. I ask them to continue to listen to the debate carefully and objectively. I hope to some degree that I am speaking to future generations who may review these debates for historical or other reasons.

I cannot support the bill as written and therefore I cannot support it in principle. I will be moving amendments at report stage. If they do not pass I cannot support the bill at report stage or at third reading.

Why not? When I was discussing this issue with my colleagues, in particular with cabinet colleagues, I asked for three things before I could consider extending benefits beyond the benefits currently granted by the House. First, I asked for a definition of marriage to be enshrined in statute so as to protect it from judicial attack. I asked to extend the benefits based not on sexuality and sexual behaviour but on economic dependency. I also asked that there be full and complete debate in parliament including not invoking time allocation or closure.

There is no definition of marriage in Bill C-23. There is no extension of benefits based on economic dependency and there is a stifling of debate by invoking time allocation.

In my view the bill is fatally flawed for the following reasons. It uses the term conjugal to include same sex relationships. This is, quite simply, incorrect. The ordinary meaning of the word conjugal in the English language is as follows: “Of marriage; the right of sexual intercourse with a spouse; of the mutual relation of husband and wife”. To the question “why the word conjugal has been used to describe same sex couples” the justice department answers that the term conjugal has a meaning in law that is different from that in dictionaries. This also is simply incorrect.

What is the legal meaning of conjugal? It is:

Of or belonging to marriage or the married state; suitable or appropriate to the married state or to married persons; matrimonial; connubial.

The source of that definition is Black's Law Dictionary. As anyone who is listening will recognize, it has the same meaning as the definition in the English dictionary.

The justice department goes on to say that the term conjugal has been used for 40 years to refer to common law relationships. This is only half true. It has always, until very recently, referred solely to heterosexual partners in a common law marriage.

The meaning is now being expanded, first by activist judges such as those in the Court of Appeal of Ontario in the case of Rosenberg and in the Supreme Court of Canada in M v H, completely ignoring the contrary view stated by the very same Supreme Court of Canada in Egan and Nesbit. Therefore in my judgment and in my analysis there is a hidden agenda, namely to allow these same activist judges to eventually declare the current prohibition of marriages between same sex people to be unconstitutional.

On June 8, 1999, we passed a resolution in the House supported by the vast majority of my Liberal colleagues. I will only quote part of it, that parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition. What definition? The definition of marriage.

I suggest this is a perfect opportunity to do what parliament has already voted on, that is to preserve the definition of marriage. How could it be done? Very simply by taking this omnibus bill which deals with 68 other statutes, adding the Marriage Act and including in the definition of marriage which the House agreed to in June 1999. According to the Minister of Justice there is no need to do this. If there is no need to do this then there is no harm in doing it, so why not put it in? On June 8, 1999, the Minister of Justice said in her speech:

The definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada comes from an 1866 British case which holds that marriage is “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. That case and that definition are considered clear law by ordinary Canadians, by academics and by the courts.

That is simply not correct. She goes on to say that the Ontario Court, General Division, recently upheld in Layland and Beaulne the definition of marriage. That was a majority decision of the court. If the definition is as clear in law as the justice minister says, why was it not a unanimous decision of the Ontario court? In fact it was not. It was, as she states, a majority decision, a majority of two to one. Why? It was because one of the judges said that it was perfectly acceptable to have marriage between same sex partners.

If the law is as clear as the justice minister says, why was that decision two to one? Why were there academics who supported that position in the Ontario court if, as the justice minister says, all academics in Canada agree with that definition? In fact this is not the case and the definition of marriage is being challenged on a daily basis.

Why not put it in this statute to stifle any further question and to ensure that the will of the House as stated on June 8, 1999, is dealt with? It is because there is a hidden agenda to permit the courts to attack it.

I see I have one minute left. That does not give me nearly enough opportunity to discuss the other points, but I do want to mention the questionable poll the government is using. I say questionable because it is only mentioning parts of it. I have the poll here. Let me read the final question that was put forward.

It has been suggested that benefits and obligations should not depend on relationships like spouses but on any relationship of economic dependency where people are living together, such as elderly siblings living together or a parent and adult child living together, et cetera. Do you agree or disagree with this view?

Seventy-one per cent of Canadians agreed that benefits should be given on the basis of economic dependency in the government's own poll, not on the basis of whom a person is having sex with.

I say on behalf of my constituents, 86% of whom have clearly told me that they dispute and do not agree with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in M v H, that we should protect the definition of marriage. If we are to extend benefits, let us extend them to everyone in a position of economic dependency and not on the basis of what they do in the bedroom.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, the House of Commons deals with very many important issues that are fundamental to the lives of every citizen in Canada. There is no issue more important than the very basis of our society, our family and our family units. Any society in the world is no stronger than its smallest unit. Unfortunately legislation frequently chips away at the ability of Canadians to organize themselves in a way to enhance their family unit.

Bill C-23, an act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations, would amend 68 federal laws, affecting key departments and agencies. The bill creates a new term called common law partner, defined as a person cohabiting with another person of either sex in a conjugal relationship for a year. Probably the most massive flaw with this legislation is that the word conjugal is undefined.

The government wants us to believe that this bill merely gives same sex couples the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples. Mainstream news media parrot the same line. The definitions of spouse and marriage have been under aggressive attack for many years. The courts have asked politicians, elected by Canadians, to express the opinions of Canadians in law. In 1995, one member of the Supreme Court Canada, Mr. Justice La Forest, said:

The heterosexual relationship is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate. Most children are the products of these relationships, and they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual. It would be possible to legally define marriage to include homosexual couples, but this would not change the biological and social realities that underline the traditional marriage.

In June 1998, in the wake of court actions chipping away at the definition of marriage, members of parliament voted 216 to 55 in support of a motion which stated that “marriage is and should remain the union of a man and one woman to the exclusion of all others and that parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada”. Bill C-23 violates both the letter and the spirit of that motion, in spite of the fact that it was passed overwhelmingly by members of parliament.

The justice minister stated during the debate: “We on this side of the House of Commons agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. Indeed, worldwide it plays an important part in all society, second only to the fundamental importance of family”.

As noted by the justice minister, every society in the world, whether based on religious or non-religious standards, holds the uniqueness of the heterosexual relationship and the family unit in a unique and special position. There are social benefits extended by every nation relating to the traditional family unit.

Going into the 21st century it must be recognized that there are many single parent families, sometimes based on choice, sometimes based on uncontrolled events. This is why Canadian society had decided, along with the rest of the world's nations, to extend special benefits to people in relationships that are similar to heterosexual traditional family units. Rightfully, those benefits are extended to single parents along with family units related by blood, marriage and adoption.

The justice minister has stated that she is proceeding with the legislation because the courts made her do it. Yet in 1995 Justice Gonthier said:

The courts must therefore be wary of second-guessing legislative social policy choices relating to the status, rights and obligations of marriage, a basic institution of our society and intimately related to its fundamental values.

The supreme court has not demanded or even hinted that it wants this widespread, sweeping power which eliminates the special status for heterosexual couples in marriage.

In the last eight years there has been an amazing erosion of legislative support for traditional marriage, and this in spite of the fact that there is overwhelming evidence showing the benefits of traditional marriage to children, adults and society. The government has eliminated any incentive under family law to marry. The erosion has been led by certain politicians.

For example, in 1994, when the member for Mississauga West was a provincial MPP in Ontario, he said this about similar Ontario legislation:

Some of us who are opposed to this bill find it difficult to accept the lecturing that seems to go that if you are opposed to the bill you are somehow opposed to democracy. I have just had it up to here with being called a racist or a bigot because I cannot accept the fact that the spouse is a member of the same sex. That is my right, indeed my responsibility. I have an obligation on the part of the people I represent and on the part of my family, from (the) heart, (to) speak my mind on this issue. I reject any attempt to try and muzzle people or try to intimidate us to try and paint this as some kind of human rights issue.

In a spectacular flip-flop the hon. member for Mississauga West this month stood in his place and made what amounted to a full retreat, wherein he labelled myself and other members of the Reform Party as he had been labelled six years ago. He attacks us in the way he had been attacked. What monumental hypocrisy.

The Liberal House leader, who is ramming this legislation through the House today, in 1994 said:

I object to any suggestion that would have homosexual couples treated the same way as heterosexual couples. Although I will fight against any form of discrimination whether it is on the basis of race, sex, religion or other, I do not believe homosexuals should be treated as families.

This was the government House leader speaking six years ago. He continued:

My wife Maryanne and I do not claim we are homosexual. Why should homosexuals pretend they form a family?

Five and a half years later, as House leader, he is the enforcer of the Prime Minister's iron fist to all Liberal backbenchers that they support this motion.

Specifically to the case of benefits, when the current health minister was Minister of Justice in 1996 he said:

—that in the year since March 1994 the Supreme Court of Canada decided the case of Egan and Nesbit. It decided that notwithstanding that sexual orientation is a ground within section 15 of the charter on which discrimination is prohibited, the benefits do not automatically flow; so much for logic and that is the law.

Four years ago the Liberal Government of Canada clearly stated that it did not support an extension to same sex partners of pension benefits and other benefits, yet here we are today with the government speeding legislation through the House of Commons which will do exactly that.

The protection of the traditional family unit is so important to our society that the definition of marriage must be protected by legislation. The spectacular flip-flops of Liberal cabinet ministers and backbenchers now that they are in power cries out for consistent legislation and specific direction for our courts.

This is fundamental to the lives of every citizen in Canada. In spite of the feel good, fuzzy reasoning by Liberal backbenchers today, the effect of this bill is to depreciate the unique value and special meaning of marriage in Canada. Any society in the world is no stronger than its smallest unit, the family. Bill C-23 not only undercuts marriage and the family, it is just plain bad law.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)]

Madam Speaker, this omnibus bill is a major step toward equality, since it seeks to correct the inequalities based on sexual orientation.

This omnibus bill to modernize benefits and obligations is legislation whose time has come. It is legislation that speaks very clearly to the issue of equality.

Within our country the issue of equality is carried forth in our charter of rights and freedoms. It is brought forward in our Canadian Human Rights Act. It is served by issues such as employment equity, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, citizenship and immigration. There are many acts and pieces of legislation in this country which deal with the issue of inequality.

We have identified over the years that there are very different ways in which inequality can occur. There are many barriers. People say it is due to various reasons, most of which are about differences. We have shown very clearly, the courts have shown very clearly and we have seen through the knowledge of people, communities and the manner in which they live that there is in fact inequality in this country based on sexual orientation.

I was a physician for 23 years. In practising medicine I saw firsthand the destruction and damage that discrimination causes, especially to persons whose sexual orientation is different from the mainstream. The simple right to call themselves a family we have heard over and over again being denigrated by Reform members across the way.

I have heard Reformers say that benefits and obligations have to do only with family and that has to do only with children. I am here to tell the Reform Party that there are gay and lesbian couples who actually have children. I know it is a shock to members across the way, but they actually have children from previous marriages or children whom they have adopted.

The issue of children and families has to do with a unit, as the last member who spoke said; a unit that is loving and supportive, a unit that cares for and raises children. We know that gay and lesbian couples do this. If it is about children, then the bill is doing exactly the right thing, ensuring that persons with children have equal benefits and obligations.

I have also heard Reform members suggest that this is not about children at all, that this is really about sex and who has sex, and that the term conjugal means sex and only sex. The term conjugal in the dictionary is about sex. Under the law there are many criteria which are used to define a conjugal relationship. Sex is only one of them.

I am told that by bringing forward the bill we will suddenly be going into the bedrooms of the nation. We never have before concerning the issue of married couples. I do not know if all married couples have sex. Should we be questioning them and then deny them benefits and obligations based on their ability to have or wish to have sex? We have not done that.

Forty years ago when we brought heterosexual common law couples into legislation we did not ask a question about sex. Why do we suddenly have to ask a question about sex now? Are we not applying a very different set of rules? Is applying a very different set of rules and a very different set of criteria not exactly what discrimination is about? How is it that this issue becomes one of importance?

On the issue of rights and obligations, we are able to ensure that homosexual couples who have lived together and have told the world so by the way they behave toward each other enjoy the same benefits as heterosexual common law couples. They have bought homes together. They have lived together as faithful couples for many years. Are we saying that because of differences, because they are the same sex and not heterosexual, they do not deserve the rights and obligations of others when they have committed to each other in a relationship?

This omnibus legislation is not only about rights; it also speaks to obligation. When a couple commits to a conjugal relationship that couple takes on the obligation to support each other. If the couple separates, there is a mechanism and a process by which the individuals can continue to support each other, whether financially or through the division of property. This speaks to the obligation of people who have made a commitment to each other.

Members of the opposition have brought in the red herring of other dependent relationships, saying that if two sisters live together this should be so, and if a parent and a child live together this should be so.

One member said that we do not know if the people involved in those relationships wish to accept the obligation. If they should separate, if the child should leave the parent, will the child be legally responsible to that parent later on, to support the parent or divide assets or whatever? We do not know enough about those kinds of relationships to decide whether we can apply the same legislation to them. There is time to do that. There is time to discuss it. Many of these issues involve provincial jurisdiction. We will talk with the provinces. We will look at the impact. We will look at whether people in other relationships wish to have the obligations as well as the benefits.

The truth is that we have discriminated against couples who have identified themselves as living in conjugal relationships purely and simply because of one reason: they are not heterosexual.

The government has gone a great distance since it came to power in 1993. It has moved the equality agenda forward by amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to add sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds for discrimination. It has added sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. It has moved for Treasury Board to apply health benefits and dental benefits to same sex couples. It has moved forward recently in a Treasury Board bill to ensure pensions for same sex couples. This is just a logical extension. Regardless, the supreme court and various human rights commissions across the country have told us very clearly that we have discriminated, in fact and in law, against same sex couples. We have moved to change that. It is not only that the supreme court has told us that. It is that this is a progression of things we started in 1993.

This is about equality and about fairness. With my hat as Secretary of State for the Status of Women, equality and fairness is what I am bound to try to achieve for all women in Canada, whether they be women of colour, whether they be women of different religions, whether they be lesbians. There have been enough surveys done in my department that show there has been a great deal of discrimination against lesbians.

It is easy to stand across the way and say that one speaks on behalf of various minorities. One has to live in a minority to understand what it means to be discriminated against. There are same sex couples who, when they apply for a job, have had to hide the fact that they are in a same sex relationship. Persons have had to hide the fact that they were gay or lesbian because they would not be allowed to work as teachers, or nurses, or in various areas where they would have to come into contact with the public.

That is discrimination. It affects where they work, which is a fundamental human right, where they play, whom they love, how they love and where they love.

These are the kinds of things that we are bound to achieve in this government. We are committed to defending the human rights, les droits de la personne. We are committed to ensuring that all Canadians, whether they look like the majority, whether they sound like the majority because of linguistic differences or whether they love like the majority, will not be discriminated against. This is very clearly what this is about. It is not some sort of hidden agenda. It is very clear.

For anyone who wishes to look at human rights, who espouses the dignity of the individual and the right of children and families to grow up together regardless of the colour, race, religion and sexual orientation of their parents, know that everyone must have the right to bind together as a unit in society.

I have heard no one across the way asking if it was appropriate for gays and lesbians to pay taxes or to pay into the various premium plans we have to pay into to get the benefits that they do not get. They have been allowed to pay. They are considered to be equal in payment. Let us now allow them to be equal in achieving the benefits that we all have.

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-23, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, which I fully support.

This omnibus bill, introduced on February 11, 2000, essentially seeks, for reasons of equity, to modernize certain benefit and obligation plans. The bill guarantees that common law partners, whether same sex or opposite sex, will be treated equally before the law.

As my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas mentioned, the road to full equality for gays and lesbians has been long and often hard and chaotic, as I am sure the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve will agree.

The proposed changes will ensure, in accordance with the May 1999 supreme court decision in M v H, that same sex common law couples have the same benefits and obligations as opposite sex common law couples, and the same access to social benefit programs they have contributed to as other Canadian couples.

Co-sponsored by the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the bill involves 20 departments and agencies. The Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Criminal Code, and the Old Age Security Act, among others, will be amended.

It was in 1979 that the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended for the first time that sexual orientation become a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In August 1992, the impact of the charter on the Canadian Human Rights Act was confirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Haig v Canada.

The Ontario Court of Appeal maintained the lower court's decision that the absence of sexual orientation from the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in section 3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was in violation of section 15 of the charter.

Quebec was the first province to include sexual orientation in the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination when it amended its Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms in 1977. I would also like to mention the work of the national organization for equal rights called Egale—Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere—that was very pleased with the introduction of Bill C-23 in the House of Commons.

Kim Vance and John Fisher, both leaders of the national group Egale, thought it was a historic day for their community. In fact, I was guest speaker at the group's last convention and I encouraged the members to continue their work to eliminate all forms of discrimination against gays and lesbians.

I also want to quote an article by Murray Maltais published in Le Droit on February 17, 2000. He wrote “This is an issue of law, not of morals”. I might add that this is not an issue of religion either.

In another article published in Le Devoir , on February 16, 2000, Alain-Robert Nadeau had this to say about Bill C-23:

This is why this legislative measure by parliament, like that of the Quebec National Assembly, seems to go against the tradition of openness and tolerance which characterizes Canadian society. Even in the United States, where liberalism is definitely not a main trait of society, some presidential candidates—namely John McCain—feel that Americans would be ready to elect a homosexual president.

We need to remember that interracial marriages were illegal until the United States Supreme Court brought down its decision in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. In Canada, until the positive intervention of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, homosexuality constituted a criminal act. In this case, let us render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.

What is more, the states of California and Hawaii also give partial recognition to unions between persons of the same sex.

Every year, complaints are filed with human rights commissions on the federal or provincial level concerning discrimination toward homosexuals relating to hiring, firing and treatment in the workplace. This and other evidence points to discrimination against homosexuals. Sexual orientation is, unfortunately, a rarely mentioned factor in suicide.

Studies reveal that young people, both male and female, who are homosexual are two to three times more likely than other young people to commit suicide. More than three-quarters of these give as the main reason for their suicide attempt the conflicts arising out of their sexual orientation. This is a clear demonstration of the negative environment in which homosexuals have to live and grow up.

In conclusion, I wish to repeat what I said in the beginning about the committed contribution by the hon. members for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve and Burnaby—Douglas to defending the gay and lesbian minority and I call upon the hon. members of this House to show their support to Bill C-23.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity, albeit at the very last moment given the motion of closure on the part of the government, to participate in the discussion on Bill C-23.

It is interesting that in the time I have been listening to the debate there has been a lot of discussion about sex and marriage. It seems to me that is not really the main essence of the bill we have before us today. I am probably speaking on behalf of most colleagues in the House here today when I say that we are probably the last people in Canada who should be talking with any kind of authority about sex and marriage.

Goodness knows, we are in Ottawa all week and our partners are back in the riding. We get home after a crazy week and are pursued by a 101 constituents. Some of us have kids who want to see us. Who has time for sex?

The point of my introduction is to simply draw us back to the purpose of the bill. It is not about sex and marriage. The bill deals with a very fundamental question: the pursuit of full equality for all people in our society today regardless of sexual orientation.

Let us not be detracted by some of the comments made by the Reform Party and some of the misgivings of the Liberal backbenchers about what is at hand here.

I am pleased to join my colleagues in the New Democratic Party in supporting Bill C-23. I add my congratulations to the Liberal government for finally bringing in legislation that was long overdue and will meet our obligations as a country.

I pay a special tribute to the member for Burnaby—Douglas who has probably done more than anyone in the history of the country to pursue the goal of full equality for gay and lesbian people and to ensure that the values of Canadians around full equality, justice and fairness were fully enshrined in the laws of this land. There are many people to whom I could pay tribute, but I wanted to single out the unswerving and dedicated work of the member for Burnaby—Douglas.

The bill is about equality, justice and fairness. It is about meeting our obligations. It is a long overdue measure to make operational the principle of equality for all people regardless of sexual orientation as articulated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, in numerous provincial statutes, in various court decisions and particularly by the Supreme Court of Canada in the spring of 1999, the highest court in the land, which ruled on this very issue.

As we said earlier today, this is a housekeeping bill. It brings us up to date with the laws of the land. It puts into practice the values of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The legislation represents a basic democratic right of Canadians. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It takes us a step closer to the goal of full equality for all gay and lesbian people.

In reference to some of the comments I heard today from Reform members, the bill captures the true meaning of family, not as some artificial construct based on some idyllic view of the past that never was, based on some norms of a previous society, based on various interpretations in the Bible or based on cultural conditioning that has permeated every aspect of our society today, but a definition of family that keeps pace with society, that captures the very fundamental issues that we are dealing with: loving relationships, safe and nurturing environments and a commitment to ensure the well-being of all members of the family unit.

I was taken aback by the comments of the Reform Party today. Many times when we have had these debates the Reform members have shown their feelings on this issue in a rather veiled attempt, focusing on the intricacies of a bill rather than exposing their feelings on sexual orientation. What we have heard today from the Reform Party and some Liberal backbenchers is just how far we must go as a society in recognizing equality of all people regardless of sexual orientation.

I could not help but go back to some of the writings of the Vanier Institute of the Family. It has written so many articles and has spoken so well about the family. I want to put on record a quotation from an article by Suanne Kelman from the winter 1999 edition of Transition . She said, “I think what we can learn from the past is that we should ignore the hysteria many critics bring to the discussion of family life today. We are not going to find perfect answers for every family but that fact should not stop us from grappling with the realities facing us. If we can recognize the impossibility of returning to a past we never had, we can get going, cheerfully, intelligently and compassionately on improving the future”.

That is what we are doing today. We are clearly moving forward intelligently and compassionately on a notion of family that is rooted in the fundamentals of companionship and friendship, love and nurturing, caring and concern. That is the essence of this bill. That is why it is important we move forward and recognize the need to ensure that those values are enshrined in every law of the land.

Today it is clear to me more than ever that there are those who fundamentally oppose the notion of recognizing people who are homosexual. I appreciate there are differences that we still have to address. I hope that the Reform Party does not try to take us back to an age when people are not recognized for their individual talents and contributions which they can make to our society today.

The debate we are having today in many ways reminds me of the debate we had in the spring of 1998. The Reform Party brought in its motion pertaining to the Rosenberg decision in the Ontario court and presented us with what we all considered to be a most regrettable situation. It was clearly seen to be a thinly veiled attempt to promote and endorse discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That is being repeated today and I am very worried about it.

I would hope that on entering this millennium we would be looking at some very fundamental values that have to be upheld and supported in every law over which we have authority and every practice and program that we are responsible for. I hope we can move forward with a clear understanding of what this bill is all about and why it is so important for the fabric of Canadian society.

I will conclude my remarks by quoting from an article written by Helen Fallding which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on February 16. In her article, “A Valentine for the Minister”, Helen congratulated the government for bringing forward this legislation and recognizing the reality in terms of this legislation.

I will not quote the article directly because that would mean mentioning the minister's name. Helen said that if the Minister of Justice “manages to sneak the new bill passed Liberal backbenchers and Reform Party opponents, Lisa”—her partner—“and I will receive the same treatment from federal government departments as common law couples”. She went on to say, “Each year when I make my RRSP contribution, I pray that the federal government will stop its discriminatory practices before one of us dies. If I died tomorrow, Lisa would have to pay taxes on my RRSP savings, instead of having them roll over into her account as they do for heterosexual widows”. She concluded by saying that this “is not really about money for me. It is about finally getting to feel like a Canadian citizen. It is about having my country acknowledge the mutual support and commitment partners like Lisa and I offer each other. Ultimately it is about love”.

I hope we will all support this bill and get on with the important work ahead of us.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House to support the government initiative. It is the right initiative and has been introduced at the right time. We should not have had to wait until the supreme court told us to do what we have done but the mere fact that we have done it is to be commended. This showed leadership on the part of the government and on the part of the minister in moving forward with this issue.

Some of my colleagues wonder about the pros and cons of this bill. The bottom line is that we are not the first ones to come out of the gate. A number of provinces have already introduced legislation to extend benefits to same sex partners or opposite sex partners who live in common law relationships. In excess of 200 private sector companies already have measures, laws or directives on their books that extend benefits to those who live in common law relationships or same sex relationships.

I have received a number of letters from those who are for and those who are opposed. Concerning those who are opposed, there is much misinformation coming out. One of the key concerns those opposed seem to have is that this legislation will destroy the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. In fairness, this bill does not do that at all. The institution remains as it stands now, which is a relationship or a contract between a man and a woman.

This legislation merely moves forward what has been a fact for a long time in our society. It also sets the beginning of a long process for the government and for society to address many of the issues that have been on people's minds for a very long time.

I like the commitment the government has shown in addressing the whole notion of what a dependant is. This is to be commended because the issue deserves further study. For example, should a woman or a man identify his or her mother or father as a dependant if the two live in the same environment? For a father and a son, or a father and a daughter who live under the same roof, should the law recognize and provide benefits the same as this legislation does? On the surface, I would say of course. A single person who supports a family member whether it is a brother, sister, mother or child, should be allowed to designate that person as a dependant and therefore benefits should be given to that person.

When we talk about extending benefits, extending rights, we also have to talk about extending obligations. In legislation every time we extend or advance one issue, there are all of the good things that go with it in terms of benefits, but other things go along with it as well which are the obligations. That is exactly what this bill does. It provides people who live in common law relationships or in same sex relationships similar benefits and obligations as those provided to others who live in the same sort of circumstances.

It is unequivocally clear that Canadians wanted the government to act on this issue. A 1998 poll by Angus Reid showed that the majority of Canadians, more than two to one, in every region of Canada favoured legislation that introduced benefits to those who live in common law or same sex relationships.

The court itself has told us as a society and as a government that it is time to put in law what has been a fact of life for many years. It already has been implemented by many people in the private sector, as well as some provincial governments.

Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario have changed their legislation or they are in the process of reviewing their laws to extend those benefits. We are not alone. We are moving collectively with other governments to ensure that we put into law what should have been put in place quite some time ago.

There are those who are concerned about adoption by people in same sex relationships and also the whole issue of immigration and so on. The legislation does not change anything. Canadian law will remain the same on those issues.

Government must take a leadership role. Sometimes it has to take leadership on tough issues. In this situation not only is the government doing what is right, but it is doing what the people want it to do and what the courts have told the government to do.

This should be a non-partisan issue. Members on both sides of the House should be applauding. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides every citizen with equal rights and a chance to access justice.

We recommend that our colleagues on the other side of the House applaud the government and move on with the legislation. At the same time our government has already made a commitment to study further the issue of extending benefits to people who have dependants who rely on them, whether it is a mother, a brother, a sister, a father and so on.

I have a personal interest in the bill and I would like to see it pass quickly. I have a daughter and I am not married. My daughter is dependent on me. I am very interested in the Government of Canada studying this situation further. Possibly it will be feasible and acceptable at some point in time to address the whole notion of allowing an individual to declare another individual as a dependant should that be the case. To say that I have to block any movement by the government until such a time as this whole issue is addressed would be foolish and not responsible.

We have to take what we already have as a consensus in society, implement it and entrench it in law. The next phase would be to study the other issues of dependency. People like myself, many of my colleagues and others in society would have a chance to make their case before the government, a committee of the House of Commons or their members of parliament. Surely if the economic situation in Canada continues to improve further, we would come to a point where we would not even need to discuss those issues. It would be irrelevant because we would be able to afford to do what everyone wanted us to do.

To that extent, I support the bill. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the House will support it.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23, the modernization of benefits and obligations act. I support this piece of legislation and I am happy that as a member of parliament I have the opportunity to outline my reasons, although it is just under the wire with closure.

The bill is not attempting to change anyone's beliefs. It is not trying to impose a moral structure on society. This piece of legislation is striving to address a financial inequality in Canada. Federal benefits and obligations for same sex couples will be on equal footing with those of heterosexual common law couples. As the courts have ruled, they should be.

The courts have said that it is unconstitutional for same sex couples to be treated differently than heterosexual ones when it comes to benefits and obligations. Since 1995 sexual orientation has fallen under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bill has that very much in mind and will ensure justice and fairness for same sex couples.

Marriage will not change after the bill is given royal assent. Marriage has traditionally been the union of one man and one woman. That remains unchanged in the bill. Further, the bill is non-religious and does not attempt to change or alter anyone's beliefs.

I do not have a problem with the bill per se, but I do have reservations, several for that matter. My reservations have to do with the timing of the legislation. The fact that it was tabled on February 11 was no accident. The timing is part of an orchestrated plan of the Liberals. Allow me to explain.

The Prime Minister and other members of cabinet stand in the House on a regular basis and vent about how strong the economy is. The unemployment rate is at its lowest rate in years, they say. The deficit is eliminated, so we are told. Interest rates are low. Inflation is a thing of the past. Parts of the economy are thriving, not because of Liberal policies but due to policies of the previous government.

In any case, not all is well in our glorious land. Health care is sorely underfunded. Our refugee and immigration systems are broken and in need of repair. We hear daily about the problems at HRDC. Any government would want the public to forget about a billion dollar boondoggle.

The Prime Minister was first elected to the House in 1963. He was present in the House when gay rights were debated and he knows full well the ire, emotion and controversy that such a discussion entails among Canadians. He was present in the House, for example, in 1969 when homosexual acts between consenting adults were decriminalized.

The legislation is introduced at this time not because of a genuine desire for fairness and equality by the Liberals, not because of a desire to uphold a supreme court ruling, but rather to deflect public scrutiny from other governmental issues. What better way to do that than to introduce legislation guaranteeing rights for gays and lesbians?

We live in a liberal democracy where the rights of everyone are respected and upheld. That is the purpose of the bill, but it is shameful that the government is introducing it now when there are other pressing issues like HRDC, health care, education, immigration and national defence. It is sad that the government uses such an important issue as equality to deflect attention from government controversies. It is also sad that the government again uses time allocation to stifle debate.

Many hon. members have talked about marriage and spouse. The bill has no reference to marriage or spouse. It is a technical bill dealing with economic and legal rights. I agree with other hon. members that the bill should have been clearer about the definitions of marriage and spouse, the union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

Another issue that is not dealt with is economic dependency. We are missing the boat. We all know family members or friends who have to live together to survive. Why were these items not dealt with? What was the rush?

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-23. I agree with my hon. Tory colleague who just spoke when he asked what was the rush. We have missed an opportunity to do a couple of things the government neglected to do.

First and foremost, on June 8, 1999, parliament passed a motion that we should affirm the definition of marriage in legislation. There is not a more perfect opportunity to do that than right now. Whether in this bill or in another, this is when it should have been done.

I have heard members of the NDP, including the member for Winnipeg North Centre, mention the Reform Party. It was almost every 10th word in her speech. I state on the record right now that my colleagues and I are not opposed to making sure that people are treated equally and fairly, including people of co-dependence, heterosexual and homosexual. That is what we want to try to do. They should be getting benefits but the bill does not do that.

The bill is based on sexuality. All the way through it, it says that relationships must be conjugal. How is that defined? What does it mean? One of the two biggest issues with the bill is the definition of marriage. Parliament sent a very clear signal, as did Canadians, that marriage needs to be defined in legislation. The federal government has been remiss. That has been completely overlooked. The bill is being rammed through for a whole host of reasons. People try to paint us as being against equality, that we do not support it. That is absolute nonsense.

The member for Edmonton Southwest put forward a very good solution in registered domestic partnerships. It may need fine-tuning but I applaud him for it. Not everyone in my caucus would completely agree with him but he had a lot of support. He put forward a solution wherein we could define marriage and benefits could have been paid out but not on the basis of sex as the bill does. Let us not make any mistake or have any illusions about what it is.

The member for Miramichi said on June 2, the the days leading up to the definition of marriage, that anything based upon sex was the poorest way to define a relationship whether it be the same sex or the other sex. I could not agree more. That is my frustration. Some people are trying to suggest that we do not want to see equality. That is not true at all.

There are many things the government should have done but it did not. It missed the most fundamental task that parliament directed it to do. That is what frustrates me. I absolutely believe in no uncertain terms that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is not between two men as some people would like to suggest and have argued for. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and that is all it can be. A very clear signal could have been sent by defining that in legislation, but the government did not do it.

I am not so sure I have confidence in the government when it obviously leaves something out that was so easy to include. What is its underlining motive? I ask that after being a member of parliament since 1997 and watching what goes on in the House.

There are many more important issues that need to be dealt with right now. We have seen what is going on in HRDC, which is absolutely scandalous and is throughout many other departments. What does that have to do with this legislation? It is very important. It deals with the money of all taxpayers. I have not seen one word of legislation to deal with the problem that arose last fall.

There are problems in justice and in immigration. We saw the problem with migrants. We are hurting genuine immigrants who are applying to come here through proper channels and refugees who have a legitimate claim to come to here like people from Kosovo, East Timor and such places who are absolutely blocked. Have we seen any legislation to deal with those problems? We are on the eve of another season of migrants coming in and there is not one word in legislation. The Minister of Justice tabled Bill C-23 when there are many other pressing issues for Canadians.

We have backlogs in the courts. Things could be done to speed up the process and ensure that people are getting justice. We could ensure that victims are getting due process in relation to criminal charges and that they are protected.

There is the area of sexual predators abusing young children. Once they are released into society it is paramount that we make sure that our children are safe. Have we seen legislation brought forward? I think there has been a little in that area, but have we seen it passed? No. So much could have been done, but government for whatever reason has introduced a bill that was not done very well at all. That is why I will vote against it. We have missed an opportunity. The bill will be open to challenges because it was not done well.

Other solutions could have been put forward, but the government has missed an opportunity to define marriage although it was directed to do so by the Parliament of Canada. I appreciate that it was an opposition supply day motion but it was passed by parliament. Does it take parliament seriously or not? Or, is it just shuffled under the rug? That is why I have to question its sincerity about the bill and its underlying motive. Why did it do that? Why would we trust anything it wants us to do? Government members stand and say it is about equality, but many other relationships are not included.

My concern is the record of the government. I would be the first to stand and vote in favour of a bill that gives benefits to all Canadians without discrimination. There are other relationships that may not be conjugal, that may not involve sex. Why should they not be entitled to the same benefits?

A member talked about RRSP contributions and about what happens if one dies. I know two friends who are not in a sexual relationship. Should they not be able to have these same benefits? Of course they should. Why should they not? I personally know people who have been in relationships for 20 or 30 years where there is absolutely no conjugal or sexual relationship but they are very much dependent on it.

I know of another example of a priest in Chilliwack who resides with another person. They share a car. They are very dependent on each other and have been for years and years, but they are not in any conjugal relationship. They would not qualify under the bill. That is discriminating against them.

In summary, the government has missed a real opportunity to define marriage as instructed by parliament. It has failed in that regard. That is where I have to question what are its real motives. I believe in equality for all Canadians. I would be the first to stand here and say it. Again I commend the member for Edmonton Southwest for putting forward a positive solution which government ignored. That solution would have been far better than Bill C-23. I will have to vote against the bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 6.15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 688

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as being in favour of Bill C-23.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Was the hon. member present when the vote was taken? She has made her point. We will leave it at that.

I therefore declare the motion adopted. Consequently, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from February 17 consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order adopted February 17, 2000, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment pertaining to business of supply.

The question is on the amendment.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 689

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?