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.