House of Commons Hansard #82 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was family.

Topics

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The recorded division on Motion No. 113 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 144. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The recorded division on Motion No. 144 stands deferred.

I will now put the motions in Group No. 2 to the House.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Reform

Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB

moved:

Motion No. 117

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 193.

Motion No. 118

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 194.

Motion No. 119

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 195.

Motion No. 120

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 196.

Motion No. 121

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 197.

Motion No. 122

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 198.

Motion No. 123

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 199.

Motion No. 124

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 200.

Motion No. 125

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 201.

Motion No. 126

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 202.

Motion No. 127

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 203.

Motion No. 128

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 204.

Motion No. 129

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 205.

Motion No. 130

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 206.

Motion No. 131

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 207.

Motion No. 132

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 208.

Motion No. 133

That Bill C-23 be amended by deleting Clause 209.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present to the House the 10 top reasons Bill C-23 should be withdrawn.

The tenth reason is that the government has ignored the Egan decision of the Supreme Court which ruled that the government is not constitutionally required to extend publicly funded old age security benefits to same sex couples. The Egan decision dealt with the question of federal spousal benefits which are linked to the public purse. Clauses 192 to 209 of Bill C-23 amend the Old Age Security Act so it seems the Liberals are directly contradicting the court's decision in Egan. The Liberals are using muddy logic again and they are subjectively adhering to court decisions; some they choose and some they do not choose.

The ninth reason is that according to recent reports the Prime Minister has decreed that Liberal members will not be able to represent constituents with their voices on Bill C-23. He has insisted that this vote will be a whip vote and require that each member of the Liberal caucus votes for the bill. It has long been the position of the Canadian Alliance that the first responsibility of members of parliament is to represent the will of their constituents. Without this basic principle at work, democracy is an illusion and Canadians are in fact electing a four to five year dictatorship.

In spite of this edict from the Prime Minister, 14 Liberals had the courage to vote against the bill at second reading. Some others who had less courage hid behind the curtains and chose not to vote. If a whip vote on the bill will not work for the Prime Minister, he should see the writing on the wall and withdraw Bill C-23.

The eighth reason to rethink the bill and withdraw it is the fact that the Naskapi nation of Quebec points out that Bill C-23 overrides its treaty rights. The Cree Naskapi, whose treaty agreement is referred to in the bill, came before the committee to share its concerns about the imposition of common law, same sex partners in its cultural definition of family and what it would do to treaty rights and obligations. Members of the Cree Naskapi made a strong case that the approach the government should take was to come and talk with them and negotiate first. Let them inform the people and then perhaps have a referendum on the issue. I think the Cree Naskapi are right and I think a whole bunch of other Canadians would appreciate the same respect from the federal government on the issue.

The seventh reason to withdraw the bill is the public's reaction to it. In spite of very little media attention and that the Liberal government is trying to sneak it through under the cover of other issues, the public outpouring of concern against the bill from coast to coast has been nothing short of miraculous.

Members of parliament from all parties admit to getting large volumes of faxes, e-mails, phone calls and letters concerning Bill C-23. Most say they have received more on this issue than any other issue this session. Without exception the very great majority of citizens are calling for Bill C-23 to be withdrawn. The justice minister knows this. We cannot even get through on her fax line. The petitions against Bill C-23 are coming in like rain every day in the House. We hear them one after another.

The sixth reason to withdraw the bill is that there must be something wrong with it if when after only four hours into debate at second reading the Liberal government moved closure to stop debate in the House. At report stage and third reading it has moved closure again after one day of debate. This is an omnibus bill. It affects almost every statute, 68 in all. It will impact on 20 different departments. The bill extends all public benefits to people who were not eligible before. It has sweeping implications for our social structures.

Why will the Liberals not allow debate? Why do we have closure again, for the 67th time by the Liberal government? Is it afraid more people will find out what it is up to with the bill and hold them accountable for it come the next election? If that is not what it is, why is it being rushed through? If that is why it is pushing Bill C-23 through it is another good reason to withdraw it.

The fifth reason to withdraw the bill is the treatment it got in committee after second reading. The sweeping omnibus bill which affects 68 statutes in total got a short three and a half days to hear from witnesses in committee. Many individuals and groups with important perspectives were not allowed to present to the justice committee examining the bill. No provincial voices were heard. No travel was allowed in order to get broader public input. Witness lists were shortened.

My motion to televise the proceedings and to get broader public input were voted down by the Liberal dominated committee. The majority of witnesses that appeared before the committee were heavily weighted in favour of Bill C-23. In short, the committee process was abused to give the false impression of fair public consultation.

I know the Chair is getting excited as we get close to number one, but the fourth reason Bill C-23 should be withdrawn is that the Income Tax Act which contains a definition of family has been totally changed. It has been changed from the commonly understood definition to a new definition that will include any two people of the same sex who share accommodation for a year and have what they think is a conjugal relationship.

It is true that the section of the Income Tax Act which defines family was primarily intended for application of tax policies toward Hutterite colonies, but we can be sure that the Hutterites were not consulted to see if they felt there was any need to accommodate same sex relationships as a family. Very likely they would strongly object to that inclusion. Bill C-23 is an unwarranted redefinition of family and that is another reason it should be withdrawn.

The third reason to withdraw the bill is that prior to the bill there was a definition in law which stated what it took to be considered related to another person. This definition stated that family relations were those related by blood, marriage or adoption. This definition is also generally consistent with the Canadian Alliance policy. Bill C-23 strikes down that definition of family and redefines it to include any two people of the same sex who live together for a year in a conjugal relationship or a sexual relationship.

The intent to redefine long held understandings of what it takes to be related to someone in order to give public benefits to two men or two women who have a sexual relationship is at the very least unnecessary. This is the third reason.

The second reason to withdraw Bill C-23 is that even though it proposes to extend all the benefits and obligations that were previously reserved for marriage, it is impossible from the bill to be sure who those others are that qualify. To qualify for public marriage benefits the bill proposed that two men who live together for a year in a conjugal relationship would be included, but nowhere in the bill is the term conjugal relationship defined. Yet it is the primary qualifying criterion.

The dictionary says that a conjugal relationship is one that has sexual activity as in marriage, but when asked if sexual activity is a requirement for these benefits the government says no, maybe and probably. Sometimes it says yes. It tells us that the courts know what is a conjugal relationship. This is the second reason to withdraw Bill C-23, because it refuses to define who qualifies and drives people into the courtroom instead.

The first reason is that although the justice minister tells us repeatedly the bill has nothing to do with marriage, it in fact gives every benefit and obligation in federal public policy to same sex relationships that were previously reserved for marriage, with the exception that if one is married one must go through a divorce to formally discontinue the relationship.

The terms marriage and spouse are taken out of several of the statutes affected by Bill C-23. Bill C-23 sets the perfect legal stage for a court ruling to force same sex marriage on Canadians, and they know it. They voiced their concerns and forced the justice minister to put forward an amendment to define marriage, but she did it in such a way that expert legal opinion said the amendment would have no legal effect. Only the Canadian Alliance amendments clearly set down the definitions of marriage and spouse in every statute.

If the Liberals vote against defining marriage in an effective way in legislation, that would be the number one reason why Bill C-23 should be withdrawn.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Sarmite Bulte Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again in the House for a second time to speak in support of Bill C-23. I had the honour and privilege of being one of the first MPs to rise in the House to strongly support the legislation after the Minister of Justice introduced it.

Before I speak to some of the amendments, some of the letters and the inaccurate facts that have been passed out even today as I am sitting here listening to my colleagues from the Canadian Alliance speak, I want to address a couple of things that the last two speakers have said.

The member for Saskatoon—Humboldt talked about the public being opposed to the legislation. The member for Calgary Centre talked about the lack of witnesses in hearings into this matter. While I was sitting here listening I found that quite incredulous. Do they not speak to members of the Canadian Alliance Party in Ontario? Have they not spoken to Mr. Long, who I understand will be seeking the leadership of the Canadian Alliance Party? Are Canadian Alliance Party members who live in Ontario not considered to be members by the Canadian Alliance Party or by the public?

Let us look at what happened on October 25, 1999, in the Ontario legislature. The Ontario government is headed by Mr. Harris. I believe Mr. Long, who hopes to be the leader of this great new party, was well known to Mr. Harris. On October 25, 1999, Queen's Park introduced bill 5.

What did that bill do? It amended 67 provincial statutes to provide benefits to same gender relationships. Unlike the hearings we have had, unlike the debate that is going on today and has been going on, do hon. members know that bill 5 passed in five days without debate and without a recorded vote? It is amazing, is it not, that bill was endorsed by all three parties in Ontario?

My riding is in the province of Ontario. I can confidently say that when I speak today and vote in favour of the bill I will be doing so because I represent my constituents and the will of the majority of the constituents in my riding.

There has been a lot of talk about marriage and the definition of marriage. Quite frankly I am personally of the opinion that it was not necessary to put the definition of marriage in this legislation because this legislation has nothing to do with marriage. Notwithstanding that, I will support the amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice.

For all of the talk about losing the sanctity of marriage and that the government is forcing this through and it is happening very quickly, I should remind members opposite that in its haste the Ontario government failed to take into account widespread public concern around the issue of marriage. Yet the federal government and the justice minister have felt it important to include the definition of marriage in this legislation.

Let us look at what the bill is about. The purpose of the bill is straightforward. As I said on February 15, the bill amends legislation in order to recognize the principle of equal treatment for all common law relationships.

The member for Calgary Centre talked about how this bill was going to extend the same benefits that married couples are receiving. That is not true at all. Right now benefits are being extended to common law spouses and those benefits will be extended to same sex couples.

The bill looks at both obligations and rights. The important thing to remember is that the legislation is about fairness, tolerance and non-discrimination.

My colleague the deputy whip spoke about the fact that in a changing society the family unit is changing. She talked about her children. I have been married for 22 years and I also have three children. We have discussed this legislation with my children. My children do not understand what the big ado is all about. If there is one legacy I can leave to my children when I leave Parliament Hill it is the legacy of fairness, non-discrimination and being taught that it is not fair to discriminate any longer. Intolerance is not acceptable in Canada or in our Canadian values.

Members have also talked about the whole concept of widening the legislation to include brothers and sisters and dependency. One of the things I have not heard talked about here at all is the equitable principle in law known as quantum meruit. This equitable principle often arises in estate situations when a deceased person has failed to provide adequate compensation in his or her will or may have died intestate or may have left a legacy in a will but has not sufficiently compensated a person who provided either services or work for the deceased person during his or her lifetime. This happens often in relationships between brothers and sisters or parents and their children. It is very important when we talk about the concept of widening the whole area of dependency that we do not ignore the equitable principle known as quantum meruit.

Let us look at the definition of the principle of quantum meruit as defined in Black's Law Dictionary. According to Black's quantum meruit is an equitable doctrine based on the concept that no one who benefits by the labour and materials of another should be unjustly enriched thereby. Under those circumstances the law implies the promise to pay a reasonable amount for the labour and materials furnished even absent a specific contract therefor.

There are four essential elements of recovery under quantum meruit. First is that valuable services were rendered or materials furnished. Second is that it was done for the person sought to be charged. Third is which services and materials were accepted by that person sought to be charged were used and enjoyed by them. Fourth is that under such circumstances a reasonably notified person sought to be charged, that plaintiff in performing such services was expected to be paid by that person sought to be charged. The principle of quantum meruit applies whether there is an expressed contract or an implied contract.

During my years as a practising lawyer about one-third of my practice was spent in estate law and often this principle came up. For example, a nephew looked after his aunt and drove her from place to place. The aunt had promised him a piece of land. She died intestate. There was nothing left. While the statute on frauds came into play and we could not obtain specific performance for the land, the nephew was compensated for the services that he performed.

When we talk about dependency, let us look at the equitable doctrine of quantum meruit. When we do so is it something that we as the federal government would impose in our legislation or is it a matter of property and civil rights which therefore becomes a provincial matter? Again it is a constitutional question.

We can say let us include dependency, that it is not fair when a person lives with and looks after his or her sister and does not receive anything on the sister's death. However, a remedy at law already exists to compensate a person for the services that have been rendered provided that one could reasonably expect to be paid for those services.

I would like to take the last couple of minutes to rule out some of the common myths which have come forward by a concentrated, well driven lobby group of a number of people because the letters we have been receiving in my office are all the same.

On the matter of secrecy, the House has held debates and the committee has held hearings. By the time the legislation passes, it will have had at least five months before the House and the ability to talk about it.

I would submit that the member for Calgary Centre was incorrect when he said that Bill C-23 will grant common law partnerships all the rights and benefits that married unions now have. Bill C-23 will extend to same sex partners the same benefits and obligations that common law opposite sex partners have.

In conclusion, our proposed bill affirms parliament's primary responsibility for social policy. It provides a responsible, balanced and legally sound framework within which to address recent court decisions and to ensure that same sex couples receive fair and equal treatment under the law.

I will vote today on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of my family, my husband and my three children, in favour of this legislation.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague for her excellent speech, which indicates considerable open-mindedness. I greatly appreciated her reference to the conversation with her children. This is the kind of thing that needs to be discussed very openly.

Before going into the amendments proposed by the Canadian Alliance in detail, I would like to point out that it is the 41st birthday of our colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. I am sure I can speak for us all in wishing him a happy birthday.

What we are being offered today, in discussing Bill C-23 and the amendments proposed by the Canadian Alliance is, of course, the opportunity to discuss a fundamental value.

A little later today, at 6.30 p.m., members will be standing up to vote. I know that in a parliament, and this is true for all those who believe in democracy, it is normal to accept a diversity of views. People are not obliged in any way to think the same way on everything. That is something I have long accepted, in fact ever since my first day in caucus.

With all due respect for the diversity of points of view to be expressed, however, I would like to argue that the bill we have before us is, first and foremost, one that concerns democracy.

Why does it concern democracy? Democracy has been the subject of discussions for 300 years. I believe that there is one inherent value, something that is rather intimately related to it. It is the conviction that all individuals are equal in the eyes of the law. This is what we are taught in law and in political science.

When we are involved on the local level with various community councils, on the boards of various institutions, we constantly hear that if there is one supreme authority, the state or the supreme court, it is because everyone must be treated equally, everyone must enjoy equality of treatment. This is so true that it is even part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in section 15, as well as of the Quebec charter of human rights.

What is it that we are being asked today to do as legislators? First, we are being asked to acknowledge that there are common law relationships. In our society there are people who, for the past 20 or 25 years, have felt the need to enter into relations of solidarity, relationships—I will come back to this—that are conjugal but not marriage.

This is a significant fact in Quebec, because the province in Canada with the highest rate of cohabitation is Quebec. The courts pointed out that common law relationships in which individuals deliberately and wittingly choose to enjoy mutual benefit without marrying must be treated equally.

This is why I have a hard time following my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance, because the bill before us does not concern marriage, but rather the antithesis of marriage. It concerns those who have chosen to live in a common law relationship.

In fact, I would not like there to be a debate on marriage anywhere but in parliament. I do not think that it is up to the courts to tell us what form we want marriage to take. I totally agree with those who say that debate on these matters is the prerogative of members of parliament. The day we debate it, I will be the first to rise and say there is no reason to limit the institution of marriage as such to heterosexuals, that it is discriminatory to exclude people of the homosexual persuasion from the institution of marriage.

However, the time for that has not yet come. The bill before us concerns the equal treatment of all people and the recognition of common law couples, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

It is most interesting that lawmakers—and here I will end my digression on marriage—did not feel the need to define marriage. The courts therefore gave a common law definition and the Minister of Justice, through the parliamentary secretary, presented the committee with a conventional definition of marriage, i.e. of a man and a woman.

I do not think it is necessary to further expound on the merits of the strategy. For the purposes of the debate, let us be clear that all those who will be voting this evening at report stage and tomorrow at third reading need to know that the conventional definition of marriage is not being challenged and is not under threat. This is a given that we must keep in mind.

I hasten to add that contrary to what some have suggested, adoption is very obviously not what this bill is all about. Constitutionally, adoption is excluded from this debate because it is a provincial jurisdiction and comes under the civil code of the Province of Quebec.

Members on this side know what an important day May 20, 1997 was. May 20 is a lucky day in the history of the sovereignist movement because it marks the day a few years ago when a referendum was held, with the results we know. These results will keep getting better, as each of us also knows.

On May 20, 1999 the supreme court handed down an extremely important and almost unanimous decision. Those at all familiar with the supreme court are only too aware that an 8:1 ruling is a serious ruling, one which made law and which was the culmination of a trend in rulings toward equal treatment.

The supreme court was faced with the following case. Two lesbians who had lived together for a number of years, and had built up a business together, separated. This is the case known as M v H.

One of the two applied for support under section 22 of the Ontario family law act. Initially, this case was heard by Ontario's divisional court and then its appeal court. The supreme court allowed the appeal and authorized the parties to appear before it.

This is why we have an obligation to pass this bill. Even if the debate has to be among parliamentarians, nevertheless when the supreme court brings down a decision it makes law and obliges the legislator to bring its legislation into line accordingly.

For the first time, the supreme court has said that homosexual couples are to be treated on an equal footing with other couples. It has also said that homosexual couples must be recognized in the eyes of the legislator as forming common law couples with the same recognition, the same obligations and the same privileges.

Some MPs find this a concern, and ask if we should not go further in recognizing what the concept of a couple implies.

I would remind hon. members that, given the jurisprudence referred to in M v H, this is a conjugal relationship. Among the characteristics of a conjugal relationship are: living under the same roof, a personal and sexual relationship, exchange of services, social activities, financial support and being seen by society as a couple.

In closing, I wish to state that there is no reason whatsoever why, as legislators, we cannot acknowledge that persons of homosexual orientation who are in a conjugal relationship cannot be considered a couple. This is what the bill is inviting us to do, and I hope that there will be many of us here in this House open to individual equality who will support Bill C-23 at the report and third reading stages.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Mississauga South, Health Care.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

April 10th, 2000 / 4:30 p.m.

Reform

Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on this bill at report stage. I regret the use of time allocation, closure and all of the usual heavy-handed, undemocratic tactics employed by the government, as this has been my first opportunity to attempt to articulate the overwhelming consensus of my constituents on this matter.

I believe it would be accurate to say that I have received more unsolicited constituent feedback on this issue than on any other issue in my time in this place. I find it very disturbing that the government has become so inured to using the hammer of the closure motion that members like myself have effectively been unable to substantially address this bill and our constituents' concerns.

The treatment of this bill by the government, the House leader and the cabinet reflects, more than perhaps anything else I have experienced in this place, the growing arrogance and abuse of parliamentary power by the government, which I honestly find disturbing.

I would like to say on behalf of my constituents that hundreds of working people have written to me, faxed me and e-mailed me, as their representative, opposing Bill C-23. Notwithstanding what members opposite say, these people are not bigots. They are not advocates of discrimination and intolerance. They are normal working Canadians. I know that members opposite have heard from like-minded constituents.

Perhaps the member for Parkdale—High Park regards as intolerant the members of her constituency who oppose the effective diminishment of the legal recognition of marriage. I do not. I think that her constituents and mine, who have serious heartfelt and conscientious objections to this legislation, are tolerant Canadians. They ought to be heard. If there is anyone intolerant, it is those who stand in this place to castigate Canadians who sincerely believe that there ought to be in law a preferential option given to marriage as the cradle of the family and the family as the cradle of human life.

I would like to register my serious dismay with the kind of inflammatory rhetoric employed by some members of the government and other opposition parties in characterizing as intolerant those Canadians who, in good conscience, object to this incredibly significant piece of legislation.

Why do Canadians raise those objections? They actually believe that the institution of marriage is central to any civilized and healthy society. I find it utterly remarkable that in the year 2000 members have to stand in parliament to articulate the reasons for which marriage ought to be given a preferential option in law. It truly is remarkable. It is a very basic natural fact that children are born and raised in the context of heterosexual relationships. Is that an intolerant statement? No, it is a statement of natural fact.

It may be that non-heterosexual couples would like to have that capacity, but nature has not so graced them. Every civilization throughout history has recognized that the procreative capacity, what the philosophers would call a radical capacity to procreate, is something that is of great importance and ought to be protected and promoted.

We can go back to the beginning of political philosophy and read Plato's musings about taking children from families, putting them in government run day care camps and trying to create the perfect human being. The effort to remove children from the cradle of the family has been the nightmarish vision of utopians throughout history. Civilized societies, societies which understand there is a basic ontological nature of the human person which dictates that children of human beings are best raised in a stable two-parent heterosexual family, know that special privileges, special legal protections and special legal obligations must be accorded to those who enter the very solemn legal and contractual obligation of marriage.

What Bill C-23 seeks to do is to take that very solemn legal privilege and obligation and turn it on its head, essentially saying that any two people who have the desire to live together in a conjugal relationship will, for all intents and purposes, be given precisely the same advantages, rights and privileges as married heterosexual couples without the attendant responsibilities. In fact, the Minister of Justice even admitted at committee that the only place where marriage is really an operative term in federal legislation, which would not apply to the same sex beneficiaries contemplated in Bill C-23, is in the Divorce Act.

What we are doing is taking these unique legal privileges, this preferential option for the family, and giving that to anyone, regardless of their capacity or lack thereof to procreate children and raise the next generation. In so doing, we are diminishing the distinctive legal, cultural and social value of the marital relationship, but we continue, and quite appropriately, to impose legal obligations on married couples through the Divorce Act, obligations which do not adhere to the same sex couples who will receive these marital benefits under the bill. It seems to me that this is a radical piece of legislation which undermines an institution central to any civilized society.

The Minister of Justice, under the enormous pressure of public opinion, even from her own caucus, decided that something had to be done to cloak this bill in the appearance of being somehow defensive of the institution of marriage, because, after all, due to the diligent work of my colleague from Calgary Centre, the House passed a motion on June 8 of last year declaring that the government should take “all necessary steps” to preserve the definition of marriage as “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. That shocking, intolerant, discriminatory motion passed by a vote of 216 to 55, with the entire federal cabinet voting in favour.

The Minister of Justice was required by political pressure, by all those millions of intolerant, bigoted Canadians that we keep hearing about from some members of the government, to do something to protect the institution of marriage. Therefore, she had her officials in the Department of Justice, which we all know is a haven of defence of the natural family, insert in the preamble to the bill some meaningless, rhetorical reference to the definition of marriage.

At committee it has been absolutely evident that the preambular definition of marriage included in this enormous, sweeping omnibus bill has effectively no meaning in law. It will not be used as a reference by the courts. It will not apply as a definition in the various statutes amended by this bill. It is a meaningless, token gesture that the Minister of Justice is giving to some of her backbenchers, who can then go back to their constituents and disingenuously claim that they stood in the House and voted for the traditional definition of marriage.

I put those members who intend to use that Trojan horse on notice that we will not allow them to mislead their constituents should they intend to do so at the next election. We will remind their constituents who stood in the House, took the responsibility and defended with their vote the basic institution of civil society, marriage, that little platoon of society to which Edmund Burke referred, upon which our culture depends.

I implore my colleagues opposite, do not let this be a whipped vote. Do not let it be a partisan vote. Let it be a vote of representation of our constituents, a vote that speaks for the value of marriage and family in our society. Do not be cowed by the voices of intolerance. Vote for the amendments to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Alex Shepherd Liberal Durham, ON

Mr. Speaker, normally I am happy to enter a debate, but I think this is a difficult one.

One of the things with which I have had difficulty as a member of parliament is the issue of morality and the fact that from time to time we are called on as representatives to attempt to prejudge, understand and reconcile the different moralities that exist within the general polity.

I say this not only to those in my own riding, but also to some in other ridings which possibly have an even higher threshold of concern about this legislation.

The member who spoke previously talked about the hundreds of letters he is receiving. I too have received some and petitions as well.

Because of my own concern about this issue and having to in a sense prejudge morality, I can well remember the last parliament when we had a debate over the human rights amendments and it was a somewhat similar debate. I commissioned an official poll in my riding. Even though I received hundreds of letters opposed to the human rights amendments, I discovered that the vast majority of my riding was in favour of them. I fear we are doing the same thing here. As a matter of fact, I have had less response on this legislation than I did on the original human rights amendments.

I stand in my place today to support the legislation. Why do we support the legislation? Behind some of the arguments today is the issue between collective and individual rights. We have defined our country as a nation in the world which respects individual rights. One of the things we can be proud of as a nation as we go forth in the 21st century is that we support, respect and try to enrich individual rights.

This issue comes down to a question of discrimination. Do we in fact believe that certain groups in our society are being discriminated against simply because of some of the relationships they choose to enter into? My background is as an accountant so I focus on the Income Tax Act. It tells me that with these amendments a same sex couple in a dependency relationship will be able to claim the other one as a full dependant. I ask myself, if that was not the case, are they discriminated against? The answer is yes, they are discriminated against and are treated differently.

Some of those in the opposition and others who oppose the legislation would tell me they believe that is appropriate. In other words, there is some kind of appropriateness to some forms of discrimination. Once we start making exceptions to the rules of a body of rights in a country, we are going down a very slippery slope in which there are only rights for certain people and rights for others. That gets me back to my original discussion of collective and individual rights.

What is really bothering some people behind this legislation is the ability to impose their morality on society generally. In other words, things seem to be changing. This is the way things were. One of the members spoke about her family. I have been married well over 30 years and have a grown family myself similar to what she was saying. I discussed this matter with them and they thought this whole issue was a bit of nonsense and that we were a bunch of old fogeys in the way we visualize society because society has fundamentally changed in front of us. I know my mother would be giving me heck for my opinion on this legislation but I think people's attitudes and views change over time.

For those people in my riding who believe very strongly about this legislation and think it is bad legislation, I can only simply say that I have tried to reconcile their views with what I believe to be the majority of the people in my riding. I have come to the conclusion that we still believe in a fundamental principle and that is that the majority rules. In spite of what some of the members in the opposition would have us believe, I believe that the majority of Canadians in fact support this legislation.

Getting back to the definition of marriage, this legislation does not really deal with the institution of marriage. It is the provincial jurisdictions that deal with the institution of marriage.

Having said that, we have provided a definition within the preamble. I believe that many in the community who would oppose this legislation are happy that at least there has been some recognition of what we believe to be a marriage as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Getting back to the issue of discrimination, one of the things that bothered me about the legislation, because we are extending benefits and rights to a larger group of people than possibly now enjoy them, is that the question invariably comes up as to the form of discrimination. Are there other people in our society who are being discriminated against?

I talked about the dependency relationship under the Income Tax Act. Many people similarly brought up the issue of a daughter who is supporting her sick mother and should she also not have the right to claim her as a dependant. Fundamentally I think we all agree that is true. We agree that we should be extending this definition. It once again goes back to the theme of my speech. We must not provide for any discrimination in our system. In fact we must find ways to do away with as much discrimination as we can.

We can talk as much as we want about this utopian society, but the reality is we are curtailed somewhat by affordability. That does not mean the government is not concerned about that issue. I am very heartened to discover that the Minister of Justice and others have commissioned a study to look into the ability to expand this definition to include other people who may well be discriminated against. That is appropriate, but obviously to go down that road today to include a broader definition of discrimination would be very costly.

When I explain that to those in my constituency who are concerned about that, I explain to them that under our current laws a broader definition of discrimination would be prohibitively costly. The impact on private pension plans and others would be that some benefits now being received by some people in my constituency would actually go down to provide for this enhanced vision.

I suspect that in a future parliament, parliamentarians will be discussing expanding the definition to allow other forms of deductibility of obligations and rights. There is no question that as we go down the road our society is aging. I am very concerned about families who are trying to support themselves and possibly invalid members of the family and need some help from our taxation system.

I do not believe it is appropriate to continue to be silent on those issues. We will continue to debate them. As we prosper in the future, the definition of dependency relationships will increase to include those people but as of today we are going with this one measure.

It has taken us a long time to have a charter of rights and freedoms. As a government it has taken us a number of years to even invoke it, which is where we are being led to today. The courts are saying that we have not been living up to the terms of the charter and it is time that we did. That is fair and justified. To say otherwise means that what we really want to do is to amend the charter of rights and freedoms and take away individual rights and liberties, a famous hallmark of this country.

In conclusion, I am very supportive of this legislation. I certainly respect the views of others who are opposed to it.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the special indulgence of the House. I was in my office working with the television on the parliamentary channel in the background. When debate on the Group No. 1 motions collapsed, I just did not make it all the way from the Confederation building to here in time.

Since we are talking about tolerating and forgiving each other's little minor foibles today, I wonder whether I could ask for unanimous consent that Motions Nos. 14 and 91 which are on the notice paper in my name also be deemed moved and seconded and thus included in Group No. 2, pursuant to the Speaker's ruling. I ask for unanimous consent for that.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member be permitted to move these motions?

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I regret that because I think my amendments would have certainly added value to what we are talking about in today's debate.

It is interesting that we have this conflict in the discussion of whether or not the term of marriage is being discussed here. First the Minister of Justice adamantly denied it. She said this bill had nothing to do with marriage, and subsequent to that she put forward an amendment that in fact did talk about marriage. Furthermore almost every one of the changes that is being proposed by Bill C-23 in the 68 different statutes has to do with a marriage relationship, a family.

There is one amendment I really wish could be on the Order Paper to actually have members vote on because I think it would be consistent with previous decisions made in the House. We should not be using the back door with this bill to redefine marriage and family in all of these different statutes. I urge members to think seriously about that.

I do not want to chastise my fellow parliamentarians for denying me consent. I will gladly concede that in a foot race I would lose to almost everyone here. That is part of my excuse for not getting here in 2.8 milliseconds all the way from the Confederation Building when the debate collapsed.

I simply say that we ought not to be doing things that cannot take the heat of debate. We should not be doing things that cannot bear the support of the public.

The member who spoke previously said that in a poll he had conducted the majority of the people were in favour of this bill. Of course we do not have questions and comments at this point but I would like to ask him exactly what question he asked.

Being a mathematician and being involved somewhat in statistical work I know this much about polling, that the way one words the question can almost certainly determine the outcome. If one were to say should we discriminate against people who like each other, probably 99% of Canadians would say no they do not think we should discriminate against people who like each other. But the question should we support and promote a redefinition of marriage and of family, and look at the ramifications of that is not being asked. That is not being done here in terms of the feedback we are getting.

When people stop and actually see what is happening in this bill universally they have serious questions about it and so should we. I urge all members to think very carefully. The words that we keep hearing are, let us not discriminate against anyone, let us treat everyone equally and fairly. One can hardly argue with those concepts. However we should ask the question, if we pass this bill and make all of those changes in the 68 different acts, who then are we discriminating against? It is a very important question. The inclusion of the term “conjugal relationship” throws open huge questions.

I submit that in passing the bill we will actually be broadening the group of people against which we are discriminating. This is a very intolerant bill in the sense that it grants benefits only to those who, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are in a conjugal relationship. That means that everyone who is not in that group is being discriminated against.

How will it be determined? It has already been mentioned several times in the House today by several of my colleagues that two of the ministers on the front bench are in disagreement over this. One of the ministers says “Yes, this involves a sexual relationship”. The other one says “No, it does not”. If it does not, what exactly is the definition of a couple who will qualify for these benefits? How do we determine who will be eligible? The definition simply is not there and there is confusion.

I venture to guess that if we were to ask 300 members of the House, excluding the Speaker, we would probably get, as we would with 300 economists, 300 different answers. Parliament is in error if we pass a law asking future courts and judges to rule without giving them a clear definition of what we are talking about.

One couple may say “Yes, we are in a conjugal relationship. We have sex in one form or another two times a week”. They would qualify. Another couple might say “We never have sex. We do not engage in sexual activity”. Would they qualify if they had lived together for five, eight or twenty years but had never engaged in sexual activity? Does that really, in the dictionary definition, indicate that is a conjugal relationship?

Furthermore, I think we discriminate against those who would be truthful. When it comes to receiving grants, benefits and things, there are invariably some people who are willing to be a little less than honest about it. The purpose of our laws and courts is to make sure that everyone is treated fairly and, in essence, people are forced to be honest. If we have several different couples in different relationships and some of them say “No, we are really not in a conjugal relationship but we could get some benefits if we said we were” and if they do not have a morality that prevents them from being untruthful, they would simply declare “Yes, we are in a conjugal relationship” and they would be eligible.

Parliament has done absolutely no study to my satisfaction that has shown any indication of the cost of this, because it is totally unknown. Starting out with a definition of a conjugal relationship being eligible for benefits where that definition is missing means we might have two people in Canada or we might have two million who will come forward to claim these benefits and rights that they have.

There is another huge conundrum here. We are putting homosexual people into the same classification as heterosexual common law couples. We know there are certain laws that cover common law relationships. If I am not mistaken, if a man and woman have been living together in a common law relationship for three years they are deemed to be basically equivalent to married and if they split up there is a division of assets and things like that.

What happens if we have one of these couples in this so-called conjugal relationship where after three, four or five years they break up and then one of them says “I would like to have half of the assets” and they go to court to try to solve this? The one who has the assets may say “No, we were never in a conjugal relationship”, while the one who wants the assets may say “Yes, we were”. How will the courts ever unravel that one? It is a conundrum. Why we, as parliamentarians, would have such an ill-advised piece of legislation, in which we ask the courts to rule on things that basically have no definition, is a mystery to me?

I urge members to vote in favour of my amendments which are not on the table. Maybe the members have reconsidered and would like to have my amendments at least in the debate. They can vote against them if they wish. I ask for unanimous consent once more.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member's motions be put to the House?

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.