Debates of April 10th, 2000

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say clearly and unequivocally at the beginning of my remarks that I fully support Bill C-23. I say that not only as a citizen and as a parliamentarian, but also as a father of five children, a grandfather of four and as a man who has been married a long time. I was first married in 1960. I think I know a bit about marriage and I might even know something about the institution of marriage. I can say unequivocally that I do not feel threatened by Bill C-23. I do not think for a moment that the institution of marriage is threatened by this bill.

When I listened to the anti-diluvium reformers across the way, I find it difficult to understand what I suppose they would construe as their reasoning. Somehow they believe that if we give homosexual couples in a common law relationship the same benefits and the same obligations as society has already given to opposite sex couples in common law relationships, that somehow threatens the institution of marriage. Madam Speaker, if you could square that circle for me, I would appreciate it.

If I enjoy a privilege or a right and if that is extended to someone else living in a committed common law relationship, regardless of whether they are opposite sex or same sex, how that threatens me, my marriage or the institution of marriage is beyond me. I guess it might be called reform party reasoning, flawed as it is.

Let me say one more thing about illiterate reform theology. Homosexuality does not spread like the flu. It is not a communicable disease. It does not spread around like that. The reformers should not worry, if Bill C-23 passes, which it will, that all kinds of red blooded, heterosexual Canadians will be changing their sexual practices tomorrow or dropping their heterosexual orientation. They will continue being heterosexuals as I am sure homosexuals will continue being homosexuals. I want to assure the illiterates across the way that it does not spread like the flu.

I want to mention a few other things because I think they are relevant to the debate. It is very relevant to cite a poll that was conducted by Angus Reid in October 1998 because it provides a very good indication of the thinking of Canadians with regard to some of the issues under discussion.

According to that survey, 84% of Canadians agreed that gay and lesbian individuals should be protected from discrimination. That very same poll showed that 67% agreed that same sex couples should have the same legal rights and obligations—reformers never mention the word obligation—as a man and a woman living together as a common law couple.

I am not at all surprised by these polling results. They are merely further evidence that fairness and equity are strongly held beliefs among Canadians and that these beliefs can exist alongside our deeply rooted respect for the institution of matrimony as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

I believe to my core that there is no contradiction at all between wanting to be fair to same sex couples and supporting marriage. Moreover, if we ask ourselves why Canadians exhibit this sense of fairness with respect to equal treatment for same sex couples, the answer is obvious, at least it is to me.

I suspect that most Canadians, indeed most members of the House, know people in unmarried relationships of the opposite sex and of the same sex. They are among our friends and relatives and often the partnerships are long term and committed ones.

On a personal level, in our own lives and experiences, when we think about our friends and family members who are in same sex relationships we want to see that these people are treated with fairness and dignity.

When we can actually put faces on the abstract notion of same sex partners, we can begin to see the daily realities involved and to realize the human side of this issue. This is the reason why the majority of Canadians support equal treatment under the law for same sex couples.

The provinces have announced their intention to review their laws. It is why the federal government and most provinces and territories have now extended benefits to their own employees who are in same sex relationships. Beyond the public service, the three provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia have taken measures to extend benefits and obligations to same sex couples.

Over 200 private sector employers have already extended work-related benefits, such as dental care and pension rights, to the same sex partners of their employees, as have many municipalities, hospitals and community and social service institutions right across the country.

I am fully aware that some will disagree with the arguments that I have made. They will say that it is the courts who have decided on equality for same sex couples. Let me say that the courts have merely been responding to laws, including the charter of rights and freedoms, that have been written and passed by us, by Canadians' democratically elected representatives.

The bill before us is yet one more of these initiatives by a democratically elected government. It would bring federal legislation into conformity with the charter. Its wording and definitions have have been examined to ensure charter consistency. Bill C-23 will ensure that our laws do not unfairly discriminate between common law opposite sex and same sex relationships.

I do not think I have to remind parliamentarians that there was a time in Canada when women were not considered persons before the law. In fact, there was a time when Canadian women were not allowed to vote and there was a big fight then. The social Conservatives of that period were against extending the franchise to women. I suspect it is the same group of people with the same mentality who are opposed to fairness and equality for gays and lesbians today. There was also a time when aboriginal people could not vote.

One of the positive benefits of the bill before us is that it removes from our federal laws the few remaining distinctions among children based on references to illegitimacy.

We will continue this fight to bring greater equality and fairness to more and more Canadians. This kind of fight has been going on for decades and in fact centuries.

Bill C-23 is about equality in benefits and obligations. First let us examine the benefits provided in the legislation. This aspect has been the focus for some members opposite who have described benefits for same sex couples in hysterical and even vulgar terms.

What benefits are included in the bill? The fact is that most of the statutes in the bill dealing with benefits relate to pensions. We believe that hard working Canadians should be able to provide for and indeed be encouraged to provide for their common law partners, whether opposite sex or same sex.

The bill has been debated for a good long time. Yes, we have had time allocation, but there is a point where we have to bring the debate to an end. It has been debated in other legislatures. It has been debated in homes. I think people have made up their minds. An overwhelming majority of Canadians are in favour of Bill C-23 and I urge its adoption.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, things are looking up a bit in this place. I could see it coming. In 1993 the Liberals had about a quarter of the section over here in addition to that whole side. In 1997 that was reduced significantly. There are a lot less Liberals. As long as their mentality and their way of thinking continue down that path, I cannot wait until the next election because they will be toast.

Canadian people are tired of the social engineering that is taking place in the House of Commons, the constant social engineering that has been in place since 1993 when the good old Liberals came back into power, something that has been the history of their party.

It always leads to their downfall. It only takes time. People finally wise up and realize the social engineering that has continued through their years of governance will never end until we get the right people in government who truly believe in democracy, who truly believe in the democratic voice of the common people throughout the land: the taxpayer, the guy and the gal who pack their lunches, work hard every day and pay taxes.

One of these days the country will wake up and be quite pleased because the people of the land will be the ones who will make a decision about what kind of society they want to live in instead of the governing body of this place.

The Liberals do not respect free votes or expect members of their caucus to represent their ridings because that is what they must do. They do not allow that. Is that democracy? The whip cracks and that is the way it will be. However one day society as a whole will have a voice in making a decision as to what kind of society we want to live in.

As for me, I choose the collective voice of the people over what that should be. I do not choose the voice of the government because it does not believe in the consultation process. Even though the Liberals talk it, they do not believe in it. They do not believe in the petition process.

My desk is full of responses to petitions. We let them collect and then we take them back to our offices, but the responses are simple. The petition is laid out on the table. The government takes it and it responds. Through all the gobbledegook that is in the long description of what took place in petition it is simply saying one sentence. It should reduce the response to one page, save taxpayers some money and save paper. The sentence should be simply: “Sorry, folks. We are the government. We know best”.

There were 2.5 million signatures tabled in the House of Commons by Priscilla de Villiers the first year I got here. It did not even sink in that 2.5 million people were asking for some very serious changes to the justice system. From the time of those tablings to today millions of more signatures have been tabled asking that something be done with young offenders, with the parole system and with the prison system to help protect society more.

They are tired of looking over their shoulders. They want to look to the future. Why should they be afraid of being in a school yard? They want to walk down the streets in city of Toronto or in the city of Calgary without fear. They kept tabling petitions, and what do they get from the Minister of Justice after all that time? Bill C-23.

That will not make a lot of petitioners happy. What a wonderful listening government: millions and millions of signatures mean nothing, but a little court decision regarding a situation will make the law. The government will listen more and more as the supreme court and other courts come out with rulings so it can make some more wise decisions based on the courts.

Never mind society. It wants to base it on the courts. The people of Canada are tired of the courts deciding what kind of society they want to live in. They are certainly tired of this place deciding what kind of society they should live in. They truly want a voice.

The Liberals should up the good work because after the next election they will be toast. They are not listening to the people of the land. They will have a voice. There will be a day that they take control of this place, take it back from the arrogance and the obnoxious methods being used to run their lives in a social engineering fashion. I can hardly wait for that day. I sure hope I live long enough to see it. I promise that day will happen.

The Liberals continually shut down debate in this place. Closure has been used 69 times now or 169 times. It does not matter. They just do it.

[An hon. member]

It is called a gag law.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

It is called a gag law. It is called for heaven's sake, let us not get any more information about it. They think they are doing the right thing. They would not dare want the people to find out the real truth. It is really sad.

We are supposed to look at everything optimistically. I am looking at this whole affair very optimistically because it will mean they will be gone. Praise the Lord, they will be gone and we will get some people in here who know what in the world they have to do to rule a good country.

Those people over there like a lot of humour. They laugh at a lot of things. That is good. It is that kind of obnoxious attitude that will help make them history. It will not be a very pleasant history. It will not go down in the history books as being anything wonderful. In my riding—

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Is your name Bull Connor? Where are your dogs?

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Over there.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

If the fellow wants to say something he should go to his seat.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My colleague deserves the same respect as anybody else when speaking. I do not expect to see the Liberal on the other side standing and heckling like he is. Would you ask these people to be respectful enough to listen to him.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I ask all hon. members to listen to what our colleagues have to say. I am serious. Let us keep it down a little.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, it really does not bother me. It just shows their true colours. Let them carry on.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When you call upon all members to pay attention to what my colleague from the Canadian Alliance is saying, this bothers me somewhat because I was quietly paying close attention. The one stirring things up is the hon. member across the way, who has been doing so for some time. The Chair should intervene.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I believe we are getting into debate here. The hon. member for Wild Rose.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc. As I said, they should carry on. It shows their true colours. People will not accept this as being brilliant but that is okay because, as I said, another election and they will be toast.

The time has come when the government needs to decide whether it will truly allow the people of the land to help make some decisions with regard to what kind of society we have. It is time to do that.

Do the Liberals believe for one moment that the people of the land are happy the decision in British Columbia regarding child pornography is still sitting before the supreme court all this time? They were saying not to worry, not to worry. That is not the kind of government people want. It was probably the most obnoxious decision in the face of society that has happened in this land for ages, that child pornography should be allowed to that extent.

What they want from people in this place including me is a little action to starting representing what the people of Canada want for a society. When will the Liberals start doing it? Liberal governments will never do it. I ask folks out there to get ride of them.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know how I get so lucky to follow the hon. member for Wild Rose. It just must be my day. Actually the member puts forward very valid points and some interesting questions, must of which have to do with Bill C-23, human rights, equal rights, the way we see differences in society and the way we see differences among people.

I was intrigued and entertained by the comments just made about what kind of society we want. That member and his party have stood in this place for the three years I have been here and continually gone on about what kind of society they want. They want a society where the views of Charlton Heston are more important than the views of the average citizen. They say that. They want a society that does not have any laws to deal with gun control and that believes in the American constitution which says one has a right to bear arms and a right to defend oneself with those arms.

That is not Canadian society by any stretch of the imagination, but it is certainly their society and their vision. They believe in a society that would discriminate against individuals because of their sexual preference. Let us deal with that just for a second.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Hector wants to do that speech in his riding.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

I did not heckle the member. It was not me. It was somebody else. He should settle down. The hon. member said he would like to live long enough to see change. I do not know if he is going to see change, but I would like him to live too. He should take it easy, lower the temperature, take a Valium.

Let us talk about Bill C-23. I do not care if the courts make the decision or if parliament is making it, but fundamentally the issue is whether we are prepared as Canadians to have a society in which we will say to people who are gay that they cannot have access to the dental plans of their partners in their places of employment, that they cannot share in some form of survivor benefits having lived in a relationship with someone for a number of years, or that because they are gay they are not entitled to those basic rights in the workplace.

I had some concerns about the word conjugal in the bill. That word was defined for me by members of the Mississauga Gospel Temple. By their name alone we can tell they are Christians and their belief in the Bible is very strong. They are very good people. Reverend Horton in a letter pointed out to me that the word conjugal in the dictionary refers specifically to the act of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman in a married state.

I said “Just a minute. If we are using the word conjugal, how can we say that this bill does not in some way reference marriage? I think it does”.

I went to the minister, as had others, and said that we needed to address it. For us simply to continue to say that this is not about marriage in some way, or that it could not be interpreted in some way by a lawyer somewhere down the road, is unrealistic.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

We will see how you vote on the amendments.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

I will be voting in favour of the bill, let me tell the member that.

The minister responded by putting in the bill the definition of marriage, which to me was acceptable. I have shared that information with my constituents at the Mississauga Gospel Temple and to everyone else who has written with concerns.

What I found interesting was that the definition, which clearly is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, has caused some concern in the gay community. They have called and said that somehow we have gutted the bill.

I have a message regarding that. If they are saying that and they are partners in gay or lesbian relationships, then what they are really telling me is that they want, perhaps through a hidden agenda, to move toward gay and lesbian marriages being defined in the same way as heterosexual marriages. I do not support that.

I have said that before. Members opposite want to bring up some comments I made in the provincial legislature as an MPP. I am quite prepared to defend them because that bill did not clearly define marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

While I may be prepared to draw my line in the sand which says that marriage is the union of a man a woman to the exclusion of all others, I have introduced a private member's bill which would amend the Marriage Act and amend the Interpretation Act to lay that out clearly.

I am not doing that to be mean-spirited to the gay and lesbian community. I believe they are entitled to the rights outlined in Bill C-23 and to the obligations outlined in Bill C-23.

I have said this before. I do not consider it to be homophobic. I just understand, have been raised to believe, and my constituents in the majority believe, that marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. That is based very much on procreation, on children and on families. I understand that to be the case.

Having said that, if two same sex people get together in a union, draw up a contract, do whatever they want and live their lives loving one another, I can assure you that does not jeopardize my marriage of 31 years. I am the only one who does that, and I do that on a regular basis, as my wife would say.

The fact that two women love one another, are in a relationship and live together has no impact on my relationship with my wife, nor should it for anyone. The reality is that we take the issue and decide what kind of society we want.

Let me use an example. Suppose there were two people working on the assembly line at General Motors. One of them was heterosexual with a wife at home. The other was gay with a partner at home. Are we prepared as a society to say that the heterosexual person should receive full access to General Motors' company benefits, pension survivor benefits and dental plan for his partner at home, but that the person making the same dollar, working the same hours and taking the same risks should not have access to those same benefits? Is that the kind of society we want? I do not think so.

The Canadian people understand the differences between the former Reform Party, or the C-C-R-A-P, or the UA, or the CA, or whatever it is, and the government. I think it is wonderful that it is having a leadership debate. We will hear the vision for Canada and the world according to Stockwell Day and according to the present leader of that party. I cannot wait to hear the debate. We will hear “praise the Lord” all across this great land. They will be standing and saying that if people come to their bosom they will make those people more free and more democratic. It is nonsense. They can stump it and thump it any which way, but the vision in which Canadians believe is not one of the extreme right. It is not one of the extreme religious right. It is the belief that we all have the ability and the freedom to worship in whatever form we want or not to worship in whatever form we want.

Nobody can tell Canadians that they must believe in certain philosophies. That is absolute nonsense. The Canadian people are saying that we will not discriminate. It is as simple as that.

Where do we want to go? Do we want to take away a woman's right to choose what to do with her body? I think they do. I think that is part of their philosophy. That is not the vision of this party. Frankly, that is not the vision of the majority of Canadians.

Do we want to have boot camps? I know they believe in that. They believe in the fist. They believe that a block of wood on the rear end of a kid will cure him. That is their vision. That is not our vision and that is not the vision of most Canadians.

Fundamentally, they believe in discriminating for whatever reasons they choose. That is not our vision and that is not the vision of the vast majority of Canadians.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is funny to hear the word extreme in this place. I think I just heard a speech on that.

I remind the government of some of the fatal errors that I think once again it is creating with Bill C-23. One of those fatal errors is the omnibus nature of the bill. The bill touches some 68 pieces of legislation. In doing so it will affect some longstanding and important pieces of legislation in the country, such as the Pension Benefits Standards Act, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada Pension Act, the Old Age Security Act, the Bank Act, the Income Tax Act and so on.

We hear a lot of rhetoric from members on the other side, but I have seen these omnibus bills go through the House before and we in the opposition are obligated to point out some of the problems.

One of the problems with an omnibus bill is that it ends up being left to the courts to resolve. Therein will be the problem with this bill. I want to be on record as stating that, because a lot of relatively innocent Canadians looking for some fairness in our society will end up giving more and more money to lawyers and going bankrupt themselves just by getting caught up in the web of the legal industry. That is bad.

There are some pretty experienced ministers on the other side and I do not understand why they would go along with this sort of thing.

There was a fair bit of talk about homosexuality. That is not only what this bill is about. This bill is about leaving people out. It is about leaving people like my mother out if she chooses to live with her sister. It is about leaving elderly gentlemen out.

[An hon. member]

Like me.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Like my colleague from Swift Current.

It is about exclusion, not necessarily inclusion. Members opposite have to remember that. This is not about homosexuality. It is about an omnibus bill that excludes some people. These people, by virtue of exclusion, will be required at some point to go into the courtrooms once again and pay the enormous fees that lawyers charge to prove their case for equality. That is sad. This could all be headed off by the government saying today “Let's clarify this. Let's include people. Let's make this fair”. But it is not going to do that. In fact, it is leaving such a bill up to terminology like “conjugal relationship”.

I mentioned in the House several weeks ago that I had sat down with four young fellows in another riding. I happen to know them. We went through some of the issues involved in Bill C-23. I asked them if they would be involved in these benefits. They said, sure, they were all in conjugal relationships, and they were laughing and giggling and bumping each other. I asked what a conjugal relationship was to them, and they laughed and said “us guys” and that sort of thing.

I knew all four of them and I knew they were not homosexual. They said that I could call them anything I wanted, but if they could take advantage through this bill of the Income Tax Act, the Pension Act, the Insolvency Act and the Bank Act they would do it. Why? Because whatever a conjugal relationship is, it cannot be proven that one is in such a relationship.

I do not know how many times people on this side of the House have to say “Clean up your act”, but these are loose ends, and serious loose ends. It appears to me that the government is simply going down the road trying to collect votes from a certain group in our society such that it is willing to change all of these pieces of legislation.

That is power gone to its worst, in my opinion. This majority government is in its second successive term and the government seems to feel that it might get a third successive majority government. Whether that happens we will see. However, the government thinks it can bring in such omnibus bills which affect our whole society and get away with it.

When the Liberals leave office another government will be left trying to figure out the mess. It will acquiesce. It is such a mess and it will be left to the courts. As one who spends a great deal of time following court cases, I know that leaving these things to the courts is a sad mistake.

One only has to look at the child pornography issue which has been left to the courts. Can you believe it? Time and time again we look at the mess of drugs in our society. That issue has been left to the courts. People who have peddled hard core drugs are walking away from the courts just because it is money and not common sense to common people.

I do not know what motivates a government to do such a thing, but I do know that because it is a majority government it will get its way, unless somebody on the other side has the courage to take it away. We will see what happens a little later when the voting starts.

The other thing a majority government such as this has failed to do is to go out into the country and ask people what they think. A member just a few minutes ago said the “majority of Canadians”. That is very interesting because nobody from the government was in my riding and there are about 160,000 people who live in it. Are we excluded from this group called a “majority of Canadians”? Who did the government talk to? Lobby groups? Liberal associations? If I asked my colleagues, I do not think any of them would say that the Liberals were in their ridings asking questions about this bill.

When a member across the way says that the majority of Canadians believes in this, that is hogwash. It is not accurate. At least he cannot prove it is accurate. He certainly has not talked to the people in my riding nor in many other ridings in the country.

The bill is called the modernization of benefits and obligations act. I think, because we are trying to include one certain group within our society, to call it a modernization is a misnomer. I would tend to call it a specialization act because it is an act that is directed at special groups, subsets of our society. If this were truly a modernization act, it would include not exclude a lot of other people.

The more I come to the House of Commons, the more I see legislation like this, the more I watch a majority government stand up, one, two, three, as they will tonight, and the more this is thrust upon us, as it has certainly been thrust upon my riding, the more disappointed I am in the process of government itself.

This is a statement from the Liberal Government of Canada saying “You will take this modernization of benefits bill and you will like it because there is not a damn thing you can do about it. We have a majority”.

In the final analysis I guess the only thing we can do when such bad business takes place in the House of Commons is to remember it at the time of an election and get a government in that considers all people not just some, and one that modernizes and does not specialize.

I am against this bill for the reasons I have stated. I am extremely disappointed in a government that feels the majority of Canadians buy into it as well.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this report stage debate. I must say that if I were to believe everything that was being said about this bill, I would probably want to vote against it myself.

I heard reports today that it has something to do with adoption. It has nothing to do with adoption. Only the provinces can legislate with respect to adoption. Why would anyone in the House want to suggest to their constituents that it has something to do with adoption?

I have also heard today that this has something to do with the division of assets. Why would the House have anything to do with division of assets? That is clearly a provincial matter under our constitution. We could not legislate with respect to division of assets even if we wanted to. However, members opposite in the House today have spoken about division of assets. What a lot of nonsense.

The rhetorical question has been asked by one of the members opposite: What kind of society will we have? Just having listened to a number of speeches here this afternoon, if we follow the logic opposite, what we would have is the wrath of the majority against the minority. If we follow their line of reasoning, not only would the majority rise up against the minority but the majority could in fact rise up against aboriginal treaties, which are also part of our constitution. However, I dare say I could easily find a majority of Canadians who would prefer to eliminate treaties from being part of our constitution.

Let us look at where this law came from. This law came into effect because of a decision by the supreme court which said that this was the right, fair and equitable thing to do, notwithstanding it deals with a minority and notwithstanding the fact that it will not cost anyone any money for all the studies.

I have some questions for the members opposite who have spoken so vociferously, and might I say also viciously, against the minority covered by this bill. They may want to question their cousin, Mr. Long, one of Premier Harris' two chief advisors, who declared today that he will be running for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance. When he appears at their leadership convention they may want to ask him why somebody who purports to lead the Canadian Alliance would recommend that the Ontario government enact bill 5. Let us look at Bill 5. It amends 67 provincial statutes extending benefits under provincial law. Incidentally, Bill C-23 amends 68 statutes.

Let us also ask why they are suggesting to people that we are sneaking this through parliament, that we are rushing this through parliament. Let us ask Mr. Tom Long at the Canadian Alliance why the Ontario government passed it in three days. Not only did it pass into law in three days, Ontario proclaimed it in three days. Why or how could they purport to ascribe to a party where one of the would-be leaders has been part of this? It took three days in Ontario but five months before parliament and we are accused of sneaking it through. What a lot of nonsense.

Let us look at the whole idea of debate. At Queen's Park there were six speakers over three days. There was no vote. It passed on consent. No one will ever know at Queen's Park where Mr. Long resides, who opposed it or who voted in favour of it because all three, including their philosophical cousin, Mr. Harris of the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario, put it through. According to the Toronto Star on October 27, 1999, Mr. Harris let it be known that anyone opposed to the bill should be absent from the House when it passed on consent.

What kind of society will we have? Will we have an exclusive or inclusive society. What I am hearing today is that we will exclude certain people who we, the majority, define as being different. We will have a society where the majority rises up and says to the minority “Sorry, we do not like you. You are different. We will not in any way deal with you. We will not recognize you and we will not give you benefits”.

It is about intolerance. We will tell people things that are patently not true. We will tell those people that the government is rushing this through parliament, but the record shows that it has taken five months here and only three days at Queen's Park. We will say that we never know who voted on it. Every vote here is recorded. What did we see at Queen's Park? We do not know who was for bill 5 or who was against it.

I need to ask again what kind of society they want. Do they want a society where the majority will dictate? Will we have polls for everything? Will we have some sort of grassroots—which is their term—discernment of what the majority wants? If they want to go on that basis they could eliminate Indian and aboriginal treaties in this country. They could eliminate all sorts of things in this country because the majority is either being told a pack of nonsense or the majority does not like the minority who appear to be different.

Aboriginal people appear to be different from many of us in this place. They have a different colour. I acknowledge that. However, the reality is that we have entered into constitutional agreements. That is not to say that they have special rights to the exclusion of all others. We have recognized that this is the right thing to do.

Let me go to something even more primitive or more fundamental. Let us look at Prince Edward Island which has four members of parliament. That was a constitutional guarantee. I guarantee I could find a majority in this country who would want to wipe out that constitutional privilege. Are they in some way enjoying more privileges than the rest of us in perhaps Ontario or, dare I say, Alberta? Prince Edward Island has a constitutional guarantee of four senators. There are only six senators for the province of Alberta. Is that to say that it has a privilege that Alberta does not have? That is absolutely correct. Why does the majority not rise up and eliminate that right? This is a situation where it is the right thing to do. Sometimes we have to do the right thing in this place.

This is not about having a society that turns its back on the majority. We would have people telling us that the majority wants to exclude certain people. If we followed the line of logic from the members opposite, what other minority groups in this country do we not like? I could undoubtedly find many other people who have been stereotyped as ones who should not receive benefits.

In the House a while back an amendment was made to the Canadian Human Rights Act, Bill C-33. Members opposite gave the same sort of rhetoric with regard to that bill. They indicated that we were attacking marriage. They said, if I heard them correctly, that this was a slippery slope.

I want the member for Wild Rose to ask one of the would-be leaders of the Canadian Alliance why Queen's Park sneaked bill 5 through in three days. It amended 67 provincial statutes. Members on the other side cannot have it both ways. Why do they not ask the member from Queen's Park, who supported it, the member of their cousin party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, who issues licences to ministers to perform marriages? It is not this government. It is the provincial government. If one were to follow their line of logic, who is attacking marriage?

Let me back up and look at the real attack on marriage, which occurred in 1974 and 1986 when laws were passed across Canada which stated that if people lived together it was the same as marriage. That was a provincial law and that, I would suggest to the House, was an attack on marriage. Being fair to people because they happen to live together and file their taxes together does not make them somehow different. If those members opposite ever became a majority, I would live in fear of the majority rising up against people they believe to be different.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have listened carefully to the debate throughout the day and I agree with some of the previous speakers who talked about this as being a difficult and moral issue.

I do not for a minute believe some of the material that has been coming from the members to my left because I submit that the bill is not about special rights for anyone. It is fundamentally about fairness and equal rights. It is a recognition that homosexual individuals pay into benefit plans and, until very recently, have been denied the benefits that should flow from those plans.

A good deal of discussion on Bill C-23, the modernization of benefits and obligations act, has indicated that somehow this is a judge-made law. It is important to recognize that the charter of rights and freedoms, which was introduced in 1982 and came into full force and in 1985, was achieved by the prime minister and nine of the ten premiers in April, 18 years ago this month. It was later ratified by the House of Commons and all the legislatures, with the exception of the province of Quebec.

Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

As I say, that law was passed by parliamentarians in the provinces and in the House of Commons. Under our laws it is interpreted by the courts, which is fair. I think most citizens would find it reasonable that somebody has to interpret it and it is the courts and eventually the Supreme Court of Canada. Again it says that one cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, along with a number of other categories.

As was pointed out by the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, in the case of M and H there was a court decision. The supreme court ruled eight to one that there should be a division of assets. In my opinion Bill C-23 will ensure compliance with supreme court rulings like that in M and H which call for an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation. The court has ruled simply that where benefits and obligations are extended to common law heterosexual couples, these same benefits and obligations must be extended to Canadians involved in long term same sex relationships.

I was intrigued with a book that I picked up for the first time last night. Justice, Not Just Us is written by Gerald Vanderzande who is described on the jacket of the book as follows: “What he has to say is always moving and compelling. His words transcend the boundaries between denominations and faith communities. In urging us to do God's work here and now he demonstrates the true potential of contemporary religion. If only its practitioners learned to act in unison”.

Gerald Vanderzande has something to say on this issue and I would like to refer to it briefly. He writes for an organization called Citizens for Public Justice. He said:

Let us now consider Citizens for Public Justice's position on legal-equality rights for gays and lesbians. The government encounters a variety of human relationships in our society, including heterosexual marriages and other social relationships—. When a government does not recognize, in law or public policy, the reality of other, non-marital relationships in our society, then, whether we like it or not, the courts are forced to reinterpret the meaning and scope of marriage within the existing legislation. That means that other relationships, even though they are non-heterosexual and non-marital, must be defined—

He goes on to say in this interesting document:

—all people are treated fairly when it comes to the recognition of certain civil rights and freedoms and the provision of certain services and programs—. How can we, without discriminating against certain people—recognize the constitutional and other rights of people who live in other “permanent” relationships?

He goes on to talk about what has happened in the far distant past. We have had some references to that as well. Mr. Vanderzande said:

Let me remind you that, as I understand it, in the Old Testament Scriptures, most marriages were “common law”. There was not what we now call a civil ceremony ensuring that people had made a formal vow. There was not a public declaration of mutual commitment before a civil authority. In fact, in the Scriptures, the father (the patriarch) of the family often decided who was to marry whom. In a culture that has moved on under a variety of influences, the government now faces new social realities. Government is not there to decide what is theologically correct. It is there to decide what is publicly just.

He concludes in this portion of his book:

If we agree that religion (faith) is at the heart of life, and if we agree that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms rightly protects everyone's basic beliefs and every institution's religious or ideological convictions, and that the government should not interfere with a citizen's basic beliefs and an institution's freedom of expression, then can we not with respect to various human relationships provide equal protection in terms of public policy for those who live in a non-marital, non-heterosexual relationship?

In this important debate the words that Gerald Vanderzande has included in his book Justice, Not Just Us are very significant.

I appreciate that because of time allocation, with which we disagree as well, time is running out. I did want to comment before I take my seat that I disagree fundamentally with my colleagues to the left and members on the Liberal benches opposite who talk about polls and that this is important because they have received hundreds of thousands of petitions stating that 68% of the people that were polled by Angus Reid are in favour of this. On something as fundamental as this we have to be seen to be doing what is right and not what is necessarily politically popular or unpopular.

[An hon. member]

It is discrimination.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

If people are being discriminated against, then that is grounds for correction. That is what this debate fundamentally comes down to. It does not matter what the public opinion polls say. It does not matter what the petitions say. I am saying through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member that the fundamental matter should be what we are doing to protect the rights of minorities. That is the point that needs to be made.