House of Commons Hansard #83 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-23.

Topics

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to have this opportunity today to contribute to the debate on Bill C-23, the modernization of benefits and obligations act.

This omnibus legislation is about fairness and about equality for all people in common law relationships, but since it still does not seem to be fair to some members of the House, I will take this opportunity to state what this bill is about and how we got to where we are now.

At its core, this bill is about ending discrimination. The courts have made it clear that benefits and obligations extended to common law opposite sex couples must be extended to common law same sex couples.

Recent court and tribunal cases under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act have found that federal policies and programs discriminate unfairly on the basis of sexual orientation.

On May 20, 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the issue of spousal support in the case of M. v H. The spousal support provisions of the Ontario Family Law Act were found to be in violation of the charter and that they unfairly denied same sex unmarried couples legal treatment available to opposite sex unmarried couples.

After the M. v H. decision, the government of Ontario was given six months to amend its family law legislation. Following M. v H., most of the other provincial jurisdictions also announced that they too would amend their laws to gain compliance.

The purpose of the bill before the House today is to ensure equal treatment in federal legislation for same sex and opposite sex common law couples, while preserving the clear legal distinction between unmarried couples and married persons.

The bill uses the term spouse or common law partner, in French un époux ou conjoint de fait, where no neutral term could be found, such as survivor. The terms common law partner and conjoint de fait are defined and include both opposite and same sex couples.

Bill C-23 amends 68 statutes to ensure they encompass common law opposite sex couples and extend benefits and obligations granted to common law opposite sex couples to same sex couples and their family members.

This omnibus bill is about benefits and obligations. The following are a few examples of some of the benefits and obligations. It is useful to remind people that this is the substantive part of this bill.

Under the Old Age Security Act, a low income married person or a common law opposite sex partner may claim a guaranteed income supplement which is determined on the combined income of both spouses or partners. Bill C-23 would provide that eligibility to GIS for a common law same sex partner, based again on the combined income of both partners.

Under the Canada Pension Plan, the surviving spouse in a marriage, or the surviving partner in a common law opposite sex relationship, may qualify for survivor benefits, based on his or her spouse's or partner's contributions to the plan. Bill C-23 will provide that in similar circumstances. The surviving partner in a common law same sex relationship would also qualify for survivor benefits based on his or her partner's contributions to the plan.

Under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, there is a limit to the ability of married persons to transfer ownership of their home or property to their spouse prior to declaring bankruptcy. Bill C-23 will provide that that common law opposite sex and same sex partner will be subject to the same limitations on transferring ownership of their home or property to their partner prior to declaring bankruptcy.

Clearly Bill C-23 should be endorsed by all parties for it is a necessary piece of legislation. It has already been entrenched in provincial legislation and it is an end to discrimination and bringing fairness. That is something that all Canadians should support.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the chance to speak on this bill again. I have been listening with some interest to comments from the other side of the House about how this legislation is going to undermine marriage and families. Mr. Speaker, if you tried to book a church or a hotel in this city or in any city across Canada for a wedding in less than a year, I think you would know that the institution of marriage is alive and well and thriving in Canada.

Members opposite have made the argument that only people married should be entitled to benefits and that the purpose of benefits, pension plans, health plans and so on is to assist in supporting a family with children. I think that proposition would lead most people who contribute to benefits ineligible for those benefits. It would exclude any family, like mine, that has already had their children and no longer able to have children. It would exclude any married couple that does not wish to have children, does not plan to have children or is unable to have children. It would exclude anyone who does not fit the very narrow definition of the traditional family, that does not represent the majority of families in this country.

During the debate members opposite have stated that Bill C-23 is further evidence of this government's anti-family agenda. This kind of hyperbole may make good sound bytes and good headlines, but it does not make a lot of common sense.

Let us look at the provisions of Bill C-23. A member opposite made a reference this morning to “good families”. This member's definition of a good family is a mother and father who are married and have children. Everyone else is excluded from what is a family.

I ask the hon. member, what about lone parent families? What about couples without children, families where the parents are common law partners, either opposite sex or same sex? Are these bad families by inference? I do not think so. I think most of them have the same commitments as those who happen to be married, to look after each other, to share with each other and to contribute to their community.

The government recognizes that there are many types of families in this country. This government's agenda supports families and does not make distinctions between what is a good or a bad family.

A significant number of the provisions of Bill C-23 have been drafted to allow common law partners, either same sex or opposite sex, to name each other as beneficiaries in their pension plans, pension plans I remind the members opposite, which they contribute to either as employees or as taxpayers. These provisions in Bill C-23 do not take away existing benefits from other couples from what would fit the opposition's definition of a good family. They will not take away pension provisions for children. In fact, these amendments will provide additional protection for children whose parents are in common law relationships.

Bill C-23 will encourage common law couples, both opposite sex and same sex, to plan for the financial future of their partners, reducing the burden on the state when people are left destitute. How can encouraging people in committed, caring relationships to look after each other be a threat to the family?

How is Bill C-23 anti-family when it repeals the last few remaining references in federal law to illegitimate children? What a horrendous reference. I give great credit to my colleague from Ottawa Centre for introducing a private members' bill on this subject, to remove that horrible term from all federal legislation. It is finally done in Bill C-23. It has finally put every child on the same footing in this society.

I do not see how Bill C-23 can be anti-family when it amends a provision in the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal Act that will allow common law partners to be included in the list of next of kin who may receive a medal on behalf of a partner who is awarded a medal posthumously. How is amending that provision anti-family?

How is Bill C-23 anti-family when it removes from the Bills of Exchange Act antiquated reference to “his wife, his clerk or his servant” or the obsolete reference to the “father, son or brother of a master” which currently appears in the section from the Trade Unions Act which is being repealed in this bill?

How is Bill C-23 anti-family by amending the Bridges Act to clarify that common law partners may also be included in the list of persons who can establish a claim in the event of an injury or death of a partner on a bridge? How is it anti-family when it amends the Carriage By Air Act by adding common law partners to the list of persons who can sue an air carrier for damages when there is a death of a passenger?

These are only a few of the examples of the provisions in Bill C-23. Where is the threat to Canadian society when we encourage people in this legislation to have a mutual relationship of care and interdependence? I think that strengthens society.

The bill does not take away from society or families; rather it encourages people to look after each other by extending both benefits and obligations. It is about fairness and tolerance. Anybody who thinks this bill is anti-family either has not read the legislation or chooses to misunderstand and misrepresent it.

During the course of this debate we have heard comments that are both hurtful and hateful. I regret that very much because I do not think those kinds of comments toward anybody who is not married represent the views of most Canadians or of most members of the House of Commons.

We have before us legislation that further extends fairness and equality of treatment in our society. That is an advance for society and for families. It is not a retrograde step.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Reform

Eric C. Lowther Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments with great interest. She made some valid points.

There is one I would like her to address. Many people consider and certainly many have petitioned the House and written letters to all of us that in many ways marriage is the initial foundation for families. Empirically the government's own report, the longitudinal study on children and family, showed that children do best when they are raised in a marriage between a man and a woman.

It is interesting that this bill does include a definition of marriage at the front end. Unfortunately because of where it is placed, according to expert legal opinion, it will not have any force or effect. Therefore the official opposition, the Canadian Alliance party, brought in a number of amendments to enact the definition of marriage for each of the particular acts referred to in the bill.

Parliament would be giving a clear indication of its intention to the courts and to the public at large. It would change this bill from being mute or saying nothing on the definition of marriage to the courts when the challenges come to redefine marriage. In fact there are some cases in the court system already that will be before the supreme court before long. By putting the definition of marriage right into the statutes, which is what we wanted, we would actually be sending a clear message that we have a positive position on what the proven best foundation for family is, and that is marriage.

I would ask the hon. member that if it is good enough to put in the preamble, why is it not good enough to put in the statutes?

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member made two points and I would like to reply to him on both.

The law is quite clear and has existed for 150 years in common law. It is exactly what marriage is and the House reaffirmed that definition within the last year. It is merely being emphasized, and not changed, by being put in the preamble of the current legislation. As a good legislator I do not like to be redundant. If we already have law, we do not have to have more law that says the same thing.

The hon. member also referred to the study on children. It is important to note that we have children in our society in all kinds of family situations who have problems. We put far too much emphasis, and the party opposite is the worst for doing it in my view, on punishing children when they get into trouble with the law rather than supporting and helping children whatever their family situations.

We have to pay a lot more attention to young children in our communities. As communities we have to be far more supportive of the development of children and of the families that raise them, and perhaps particularly of lone parent families who have extra stresses on them. One parent may be trying very hard with an inadequate income to raise children and deal on his or her own with all the pressures of parenthood. They are not getting enough support from their society.

Perhaps the party opposite with its new name would want to take a new approach to children who do get into trouble that deals with helping and supporting them, rather than punishing them when it has gone too far. Denying them benefits as children within whatever kind of family does not contribute to help those children grow up well.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak Bill C-23, the modernization of benefits. I would like to share my time with the hon. member for Elk Island which means that I have only 10 minutes to put together what I think is a strong argument for sending this bill back to committee for further study and input. I would like to quickly go through that.

First, this bill is an example of a very lousy way to develop public policy. Imagine a bill as broad as this one which affects 68 or 69 different statutes and debate has been limited both here in the House and in committee. That is not a good way to develop public policy.

Second, limiting the number of witnesses who could appear before committee is a very poor way to develop a policy initiative that is going to have broad ramifications for years to come. It is a poor way to develop policy and it was done with this bill by the Liberals. It will be to the detriment of this bill in the long run for not having heard from people from all walks of life.

It is interesting that when the government wants to trot out the finance minister's prebudget tour, it sets aside $500,000 and all kinds of time in the House and on the road to talk about whatever the finance minister may want to talk about. However, when it comes to substantive policy initiatives, such as this one, the committee is told to stay here and not to hear from the people who may want to make presentations. The government is going to ram the bill through and Canadians are going to have to live with it.

Third, there is a refusal to acknowledge provincial interests in the bill. The government would not even listen to provincial ministers who had interests in the bill. It would not even consider their concerns on the implications that this would have on provincial interests. It is always a mistake to ram legislation through that does not take provincial interests into account.

Finally, this is a big issue. A bill that will impact on society as much as this one will should have been preceded by a broad public policy debate and initiative to discuss the roles of the government, the private sector, individuals, the family, the charitable sector and other sectors in the society to come. When we talk about 21st century society, these things should have been discussed as a preamble or philosophical underpinning on any future policy debates with as much impact as this one. None of that broad policy debate took place. Instead, we were handed this as a done deal and told we would have to live with it.

It is interesting that most of Canada's public policy initiatives came after the second world war, such as the Canada pension plan, our health system, maternity benefits and a whole realm of social benefits. If we think about it, the 1940s was a different era in Canadian and world history. I am talking about where public policy initiatives should go in the next century. However we are talking about an old system based on the 1940s and the government wants to add another category or two and continue on with the same old set of benefits, and they are old.

The public policy initiatives and interests in this type of a bill should be debated. I am very disappointed the government chose not to have that discussion. We could have settled a lot of issues about who should and who should not get benefits based on public interest in this bill and in many others.

This is such a poorly crafted bill that it should be rejected. It is interesting that throughout this debate the government has failed to adequately define terms, such as conjugal relationship. The courts will decide one day, as they have so often been forced to do because of poorly defined terms, poorly drafted legislation and frankly, the lack of political will on the Liberal side to take a definite position and give it to the courts. Instead the Liberals say that it is a toughie so they will hide behind the courts.

I do not blame the courts. They will have to rule on this, as they should. They will come back and say that because it is so poorly defined they will put the definitions in place. What a poor way to craft legislation that will affect all Canadians for years to come. The Liberals throw up their hands and say that the courts are better qualified than the House of Commons. That is a shame. Lawyers are going to have a heyday. Mark my words, there will be case after case in the courts for years to come.

Evidence that it is a poorly drafted bill is the last minute attempt to define marriage in the preamble of Bill C-23. The minister came to committee, tossed in the definition and said “How about this definition, what do you think of it?” The definition is fine enough and one which the Reform Party now the Canadian Alliance, supports. However, it was strictly a public relations exercise. It does not affect any of the 68 or 69 statutes that are going to be amended. What it does is it allows the government to stick out its chest and say that it has made a small change.

As far as the actual statutes are concerned, there is no change. There is no emphasis on marriage in those statutes. In years to come when we open any of the some 60 statutes, we will not be able to find a single reference to marriage. That is a serious error. It is okay to have it in an omnibus bill but when the courts, the lawyers and departments get involved no one will find those words defining marriage in any of those statutes. That is a huge failure and another sign of a poorly drafted bill.

Finally, there is the refusal to include amendments of substance. My colleague who has been shepherding the bill through the House asked if it was good enough for the preamble of the bill why was it not put in the statutes. Instead of an answer from over there we get absolutely nothing from the government. The truth is that it does not want to put it in because it does not want to give it substance. That is a shame.

The government is going to ask the courts to decide. It is going to ask some bureaucrats to try and fish the information out of somewhere, I guess out of a black hole. The truth is that it refused our amendments and amendments from its own members because it did not want those amendments to see the light of day.

How does a bill that has been so poorly developed, that has had such little debate and has had such a low priority with Canadians, receive such a high priority with the government? That is a question we should ask today.

Would it not have been better to introduce a whole package of measures for which Canadian families have been clamouring? This bill was not in the Liberals red book. It was not on the campaign trail. It was not in any of their literature. It just came out of nowhere.

Instead of addressing the concerns of Canadians, for some reason the bill is big enough and of high enough importance that the Liberals had to get it through the House. They had to push it through using every procedural trickery they could get away with.

What is going on? Why did they not make the tax regime fair so that families and not the taxman make decisions about their children and how they should be raised? Why did they not do that? They did not.

It is interesting that every significant issue related to family and marriage has been brought forward by the opposition as a supply day motion in the House, and nothing has come from the Liberals. A motion which said that the federal tax system should be reformed to end discrimination against single income families with children was defeated by the Liberals.

We managed to get the definition of marriage through, but imagine all the crying and complaining on that side about how it was a divisive and terrible thing to be debating. We brought that forward. We were proud to bring it forward because it ended up being the definition the minister used in her own amendment. We had to bring it forward.

We had to say that health care should take priority over government grants. That was this spring. They defeated it. They want more government grants and less health care. It does not matter what are the issues. It could be the Sharpe case or protecting our children. They would not do it even though their own backbenchers asked them to do it.

The opposition side, which will be the government one day, said that we should be dealing with it and the government said no thanks. I have been here for seven years and the Young Offenders Act is still in committee. We still are not protecting children. The drunk driving bill is still lost in the black hole. The consecutive sentencing issue was never brought forward by the government. It was brought forward by a backbencher.

Conditional release, victims rights, at every stage when we are looking after the family and trying to give families priority from this side of the House, it is opposed by that side.

Why is that? Where are the priorities of government members coming from? I do not understand. They are running scared, it seems, not just from the courts but from Canadian public opinion, not wanting to deal with the issues which Canadians hold close to their hearts.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Reform

Leon Benoit Reform Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have heard members on the government's side and from other parties talk about the different kinds of situations in which people raise children today.

I think that is reality. I am the first to congratulate parents who raise their children in all these various types of situations, from a single parent to any other imaginable situation. I congratulate them for raising their children under what is often less than ideal circumstances.

When members opposite comment on this, do they believe that the ideal situation in which to raise children is to have them in a home where there is one male and one female parent? If they believe that is the ideal, is it not at least a laudable goal of government to try to accommodate that ideal? I am not saying to try to promote that ideal. I am just saying to try to accommodate it at least in law. That is a question I would appreciate all members on the government side who speak on the bill to answer.

Does the member for Fraser Valley East believe that the bill helps accommodate what I believe is an ideal situation? Others may feel differently about the mom, dad and kids scenario, but has the government tried to accommodate the situation I see as ideal in the tax laws? It is certainly not the only acceptable situation, not reality in many cases, but the ideal. Has the government through the various legislation the member has seen come before the House tried to accommodate that ideal?

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer that question. In our caucus we analyze every bill that comes before us. One question we ask is how it will affect the family. It is not the only question we ask. We also ask how it will affect the economy and how will it affect the environment. We ask a series of questions as we do our analyses.

One of the questions we feel is proper to ask is how it affects the family. Does it somehow strengthen the family? A family is anyone related by blood, marriage or adoption. We are not trying to have a restrictive definition of a family, but we are saying that there is a role in government to enhance families.

When we analyze the bill we do not see how it is strengthening families. We have not been able to analyze how it will do that. As I said earlier it is worthy of broad debate, which I think should have preceded the bill, on what is the public policy interest in the bill or in any other social service bill and whether we can demonstrate that it will be of benefit to society.

As the member for Lakeland already mentioned, there is a demonstrable benefit to giving parents the maximum freedom to raise their children in the way they see fit. For example, why are single income families making $60,000 a year penalized under the current tax system, discriminated against and told that if they put their children in registered day care they will get a tax break? However, if they choose to use Aunt Bessy or grandma or someone to look after their kids, they do not get any help. There is no tax benefit for them because they have made a choice. The taxman tells them whether or not they will get a benefit. It is not up to them to look after their kids the way they want. If they are put in registered day care they are given a tax break, but if they are looked after within the family unit they do not get any help. What kind of a law is that?

Surely parents have the best interest of their children in mind. They base their decision on many circumstances. Their desire to go to work, their necessity to go to work, the closeness of their family, the closeness of day care services, and all kinds of other factors are taken into account. Based on those factors they decide to raise their kids whatever way they choose. They may choose to look after them at home.

However, under the Liberal regime the taxman says that it is not up to families to make that decision. It is up to the taxman to make that decision, who makes it impossible for them to look after their kids in that way unless they choose the way they are told to raise their families. That is wrong. That is why the Canadian Alliance says it should be up to individuals and families to make the decision, not up to the revenue minister.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to participate in this debate. I am a dad. I am a grandpa. I have four wonderful grandchildren.

Today is a very special day for our family. April 11, 1935, was the date that my parents pledged to each other to live together for as long as they lived. They are today celebrating their 65th wedding anniversary.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

It is 65 years of wedded bliss, according to my dad. I am just kidding.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

An hon. member

It seems like much longer.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Yes, it seems like longer. Anyway, I want to take a few seconds to thank my parents. When I think of the family in which I grew up, we had parents who loved each other, who loved us, and we knew it.

I have related in the House before the story of the day when I was guilty of a serious transgression, having gone with some of my older cousins to an abandoned house and broken all the windows. I cannot believe I did it but there I was, a little nine or ten year old.

My father, and I just love him for it, took the time to take me to the man who owned that house and to hold me accountable. I had to ask that man to forgive me for what I had done. Dad also required that for the next three or four years all the money I earned went to pay for the damage. He held me accountable and I thank him for that.

We saw the love that our parents demonstrated to each other and to us, the level of discipline that requires, and the level of very loving discipline they gave their children. It would have been almost impossible for my brother and I to have grown up to be criminals. It would have been impossible because we just saw the opposite so richly modelled.

I remember, again just thinking of my parents on their anniversary today, how often they reached out to help other people in need. We were always participants in it. I do not have the time today to talk about the details, but we had a tremendous example in our home.

For about the last 20 years my mother used to pray that she and my father would outlive my invalid sister. I have talked about her in the House too. When she passed away just a couple of weeks ago, it was a tremendously emotional time for our family. While we were saying goodbye to our sister whom we loved so dearly, we were also saying thanks to mom and dad for all those years of being faithful to the trust they had to make sure that she was looked after. It was my mother's heart that said “Lord, we want to outlive Marion so that we can make sure that she is looked after”. The Lord granted that request, and for that my family is very grateful.

When I say that in preamble to my comments today, I am saying that strong families are indeed the backbone of a good and healthy society. I do not in any way apologize for that. I not ashamed of the fact that the ideal is a mom and dad loving each other for life. They nurture and care for their children. They make sure that they are looked after physically and that they have a very strong upbringing. The children are taught to care for others, to love one another and to forgive one another when we err, as we all do. They have that strong foundation.

As some of my colleagues have mentioned, I would be much better pleased if the Government of Canada would just spend some real time making sure that government policy was supportive of that ideal instead of doing what it does.

As my colleague who just spoke indicated, often the decisions of the government are negative for families. We have families who are literally struggling financially. They cannot make ends meet. They both have to go to work to pay their taxes and to try to provide for their children. I cannot for the life of me figure out why the government cannot have as a tax policy a special break for families that are providing the absolute best, an ideal environment for the upbringing of their children.

I know that I and other members of my party have been subject to quite a bit of negative comment because of our stand. I would like to put that to rest.

There have been accusations of our hatred and many other terribly negative comments. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have to say that I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in showing any lack of support for people. That is what life is all about. It is about family. It is about friends. It is about life, and it is about love. I reject outright their accusations.

In saying that, I would also like to add that some of the things the Liberal members opposite have said about us have been hurtful. We are tempted to yell back and say “You are just not right”. But because of the heavy emotional things which have gone on in my life in the last couple of months, and pardon me if my voice breaks a bit, I am really hurt by them. I do not care whether it hurts me, but that a member can look at another person and make an accusation so flippantly about presumed attitudes or the presumed motivations of other people, without knowing the facts, is not good for us. I really wish that Liberal and other members would not do that.

Undoubtedly, I have concerns with this bill. That does not mean I do not want to reach out a helping hand to those who have genuine need. It is just the opposite. In fact, if I have one major criticism of this bill, it is that it is passed off as bringing equality when in fact it will not. All it will do, in true Liberal style, is bring in another group to be included in the circle, to the exclusion of all others. I reject that.

I know of a number of people who have cared for and lived with each other for years and years. There is nothing in this bill for them. There is nothing here about equality.

I am thinking about two of my friends, two sisters who never married. They lived together with their mother for many years, until their mother died, and then they kept on living together in their house. I assure the House that there was never any conjugal relationship between them. Does the government recognize their need for sharing their benefits? No. No, it picks out one group and says that this is all about equality. It is not. It is about the group it has chosen, and that group right now happens to be people living together in homosexual relationships. That is what this bill is all about.

I also have heard over and over that this bill has nothing to do with marriage. That is interesting. I wondered if it did, so I opened it and I was absolutely amazed to find that one of the very first words in the bill was “marriage”. That was before the amendment.

The short title states:

This Act may be cited as the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act.

Clause 2 amends the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act. Subclause 2(1)(ii) states:

—marriage, in the sense that one is married to the other or to a person who is—

It goes on from there. The government says it is not about marriage. The very first word is “marriage”. In fact, it is about marriage. It is about a relationship. The government is referring to two people living together in a relationship which is similar to marriage. That is what it is doing, in effect.

I can assure the House that neither my parents' marriage nor my marriage will be threatened by this bill. Absolutely not. But in a way it does change the meaning of marriage when couples living in relationships which are not marriages are treated exactly the same. Then, indeed, the practising definition of marriage will change.

I regret that my time is up, because I could have gone on.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have to comment because the member for Elk Island referred to what we are doing as bringing another group of people into the circle.

When the circle is Canadian society and we are talking about people who have for too long lived in the shadows and on the fringes of society, does the member not believe that bringing more people into the light and into the circle of Canadian society would be positive, not negative? Does he not think that bringing people into the circle of the Canadian family would strengthen society, strengthen Canada, and would allow people to live full and complete lives as accepted members of society, rather than being seen as pariah and somehow outside the mainstream?

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have indeed thought about this question over the last six years since I became a member of parliament. I remember often discussing this topic. It seems to me that it comes up every time the Liberals are in some sort of public relations fiasco. They come up with another bill on same sex benefits and they keep talking about equality, widening the circle and so on.

In every case the Liberals have added to the list. That is not what spells equality. To me, the list is not complete until everyone is on it. I do not know why they insist on simply adding to the list. Why do they not come up with a policy that looks at needs?

There are many examples. One example is the case of the natives in this country. We try to accommodate the way in which they have been mistreated and mishandled for so many years by giving them special benefits based on their race.

Would we not be better off if we looked at the needs and provided for people based on need, as opposed to race, colour or other characteristics?

The list will not be complete until everyone is on it. I might also add, parenthetically, even fat people.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech of the member for Elk Island. As always, he brings a personal touch to it. He jokes a bit about his big size, but I think everybody knows that he has a big heart and he wears it on his sleeve.

As we debate this subject it is interesting to note that tomorrow is my 25th wedding anniversary. I do not claim any expertise. In fact, I think that 25 years should qualify a person for a novice badge, realizing how little we know about the institution. That being said, marriage has been a wonderful institution for me. I have a wonderful relationship with my wife, Deb, which I treasure. I work very hard on maintaining a good relationship and I look forward to another 25 years.

The member for Elk Island talks about the groups that have been added and, specifically, homosexuals. Does he think there are other types of relationships, not necessarily having to do with marriage, which are important? If the relationship does not have to do with marriage, does it still count? He mentioned relationships involving two sisters living together. Would those other relationships, though not marriage, be important?

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I could think of hundreds of them.

I think of my own friendships before I was a married man. I used to joke that a single man does not know what true love is until he is married, and then it is too late. Of course that was in jest.

Both of our sons were well on in years before they were married. In fact one of them is not yet married. They have very close friends. They live together, they share costs and expenses. They have a relationship which I do not think should qualify under this bill. The problem I have is that when the government attempts to come up with a list of everybody who is entitled to this or that, or whatever, the list never ends. That is the flaw of this legislation.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax West, National Defence; the hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Iran; and the hon. member for Québec, Parental Leave.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Minister of Justice for taking a bold approach, for her leadership and for finally putting into law what has been a long awaited response to an injustice.

I want to speak about one aspect of the bill, which is the element that deals with children. This is an omnibus bill which will amend a number of acts. As part of the bill there is an element which is dear to the hearts of many of my colleagues on both sides of the issue, that is, children. Whether people are in married relationships, common law relationships, whether they are single mothers or fathers, children are very important to all of us.

To that extent I would say that I am exceptionally happy that the minister is implementing an initiative which I introduced in parliament quite a few months ago, which deals with the removal of any reference to illegitimacy in Canadian law. When I approached the minister and her officials on the issue the answer was yes, without any debate whatsoever. It was only that it would be a matter of time to implement it. I was given the assurance that at the most opportune time it would be done.

I cannot say how happy I was when this bill was first introduced and the minister and her officials indicated to me that the amendment to the bill was in place and that from here on we would treat all children across Canada on an equal basis, without reference to whether a child was born within a marriage, a common law relationship or out of wedlock. We will look at children as children and treat them as such, and in whatever we do we will always look to the best interests of the child in every decision we make as a society.

With that element alone we have moved another step toward ensuring that justice will be done for all.

The bill is another step toward ensuring that we respect the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and that we are in compliance with that convention, which clearly states that governments at all levels have to review their laws to ensure that they are in compliance with the UN convention and that they respect the best interests of the child and ensure that the child's interests are always paramount in everything we do.

The bill has taken another step toward ensuring that we respect the charter of rights and freedoms that treats all Canadians equally regardless of age, sex, place of origin, religion or their abilities or disabilities.

This is a flowery day, as it is for my colleague from Alberta whose parents are celebrating their 65th anniversary. It is also a rosy day for a lot of children across the country, in excess of two million children, some of whom are sitting on both sides of the House of Commons. They came up to me after I introduced a bill last year to thank me for doing something about it because they did not know that under Canadian laws they were considered to be illegitimate.

As hon. members know, everyone here in the House is a legitimate individual who has the right and has earned the right to be here and to speak out. I would say it is a happy day for all of them.

At the same time, it is a happy day for all of those moms and dads who will be able to look back and say that they corrected an injustice that existed in our laws. It took this minister and this government to show leadership and take the bold approach to do something about it.

Everyone will now be equal under the law and our children will be equal under the law. Whether a child is born to a married couple or an unmarried couple will not longer matter. When some of my colleagues stand up in the House of Commons and give lectures about the importance of family, what about the importance of the child? Why would we not stand up in the House and make that priority number one? Notwithstanding the background or the economic condition of the family, why would we not stand up and ask what is in the best interests of the child?

What the government has done is in the best interests of the child. It is not right for us to turn around and say that only in a family situation where the mother and the father are married will we have a happy situation. That is not always the case. Many children do live in families where there is abuse or they are not receiving the proper attention and care that they deserve. If it was up to me, I would rather see a child without a family than living in a situation where the family is abusive to the child.

To that extent, it is hunky-dory for some of my colleagues to stand up and give us lectures about the fact that it is important to ensure the family unit without taking into consideration the importance of ensuring the best interests of the child in that family unit. Never mind whether it is same sex, opposite sex, single sex, double sex, quadruple sex, the bottom line here is that we have to do what is right.

With this legislation, the government has done what is right. We had a decision by a court. I am embarrassed that we had to wait until a decision was made by the court for us to do what we should have done a long time ago, which is to bring justice to the floor of the House and to society.

Mr. Speaker, there is a gentleman, we both know very well, who said something exceptionally good and respectful. It was Pierre Elliot Trudeau, my idol. What he said continues to ring in my ears every time this debate surfaces inside or outside the House of Commons. He said that the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

For my colleagues over there to stand up with their homophobic attitude and lecture us about what is and is not civil and what is or is not morale constitutes an immoral intrusion into the bedrooms of the nation. They have no business trying to tell people how to live their lives.

We were elected to enact legislation and laws that provide equality for all citizens regardless of their relations, backgrounds, religions and physical or colour differences. It is our responsibility to ensure that we have laws that treat everybody equally. The legislation that was introduced by the minister does just that.

My colleagues should not concern themselves about the possibility of two people of the same sex, whether they be two males or two females, lying about about having conjugal relationships because the law is quite clear on that. It constitutes a fraud under Canadian law and they could be prosecuted.

We already have legislation in place that governs people in common law relationships. To turn around and start twisting the whole issue from what it is, an issue of fairness, into a question of an offence on the institution of marriage, is total rubbish. Frankly, that is skirting the debate in the wrong direction. It takes it from one end of the spectrum and puts it in the bush where it does not belong.

We must continue to focus on what is before us. The institution of marriage is not affected. If members opposite want to define a marriage between a single man and a single woman, great, but our society today is different from our society of 100 or 200 years ago. Our society is a modern society that tolerates differences and takes into consideration the needs of the people. Our government has to reflect the needs of society.

If we move ahead with some of the suggestions by my colleagues we will be a troubled society. We must move forward and in order to do that we must be the mirror of society and respond to the needs of the people.

This bill is great news for two million children across the land who will be waking up tomorrow with a smile on their faces knowing that justice has finally been done.

I am honoured to have been given the opportunity to speak in support of this legislation. It is my hope that when it goes to the Senate it will pass quickly.

I have received a number of letters from across the country referring to this whole notion of differentiating between children, those born out of wedlock and those born of a single man and a single woman. Some of them felt terrible. Some are national journalists, politicians and prominent business people. Some of are members of the House in very prominent positions. These are good people and we have to treat them with dignity and respect. We have to do what is right for them.

I am quite honoured to be the member of parliament who introduced the bill, but I am more honoured to be associated with a minister who finally had the guts to stand up and correct the injustices that existed for such a very long time.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for bringing children into this debate because I, too, feel very strongly that this legislation has an enormous impact on children. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why I support it.

It finally defines same sex relationships as being outside marriage and because it defines, at last, marriage as being a lawful union of a man and woman, it creates a situation where, all things being equal, a child has the right to have heterosexual parents rather than same sex parents.

The difficulty in my view was that the courts were poised, up until this legislation, to define marriage as a same sex relationship. Had they done that, they would have extinguished the rights of a child, all things being equal, between a same sex couple as parents and an opposite sex couple being parents, to have heterosexual parents as the choice.

What happens now with this legislation is that it does not exclude same sex partners from adopting children. What it does, though, is it makes sure that the authorities have the discretion to make the choice between same sex parents or opposite sex parents.

I have never been one who was prepared, in the interests of expanding the rights of one group, to extinguish the rights of another, especially children.

It is true that this legislation is imperfect. I agree to some degree with the opposition that what it really ought to be about should be dependent partners. Sex should in no way be involved in this legislation. However, we had to move for the children because the courts were poised to determine that a marriage or a spouse would be an opposite sex relationship. If they had done that, then the right of a child to have heterosexual parents over same sex parents would have been extinguished.

This is not to say that same sex parents cannot be good parents. However, we do not know yet if heterosexual parents are absolutely equal to same sex parents. It does appear to us far more natural to have opposite sex parents. I should say far more normal because, whatever we are, we are all creations of nature or creations of God. I do not accept that it is unnatural to be homosexual. We are what we are, but it is certainly, shall we say, not normal as parents to be a man and a man or a woman and a woman, which is what this legislation addresses. It makes sure that, all things being equal, that children have the right to be adopted first and foremost by heterosexual parents as opposed to homosexual parents.

I would appreciate it if my colleague would comment on those remarks.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Liberal

Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, let me just go back to what this bill is all about. This bill is about implementing a decision that was rendered by a court. Plain and simple, the court over and over again looked at this issue and has sent over and over again the same signal to the government that what we have to do is ensure that there is no discrimination.

To a large extent the institution of marriage is not affected at all. In fact, my colleague the minister has taken the extra step in order to make an unequivocal statement in the bill to say that for greater clarity, a marriage is between a male and a female.

I would say for any of my colleagues to try to take the debate from what it is into a new territory is not doing justice any good. Simply put, the bottom line is that the court is telling us, “You have been discriminating against people who are living in a conjugal relationship who are of the same sex”. We have a charter that clearly states unequivocally that we cannot discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.

To that extent, as a parliamentarian I have to respect the law of the land. We have to implement what the law is telling us to implement.

I want to say to some of my colleagues that we have to get out of our shelters, go out in society and speak to our friends, speak to our families, speak to people we know in our constituencies and smell the roses. Societies have changed. I have no business trying to impose my beliefs on someone else. With regard to a person's a sexual orientation, it is not my business to tell them how to live. It is not my business at all. The law tells me that it is discrimination for me as a parliamentarian to impose my personal beliefs on others.

To that extent I think shifting the debate from where it belongs to something else is not right, it is not fair and it is not appropriate. We need to get the facts straight. It is no longer acceptable in our society to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation, their beliefs, their lifestyle, or on their background. We have to treat everyone fairly without any exception.

I do not understand why every few seconds my colleagues stand up on the other side of the House to try to lecture us on what is moral, rather than telling us really and truly what is their problem. Why can they not just realize that society nowadays is different than society was 500 years ago? Why do we have to continue to live in the dark ages of the 1200s? Why do we not move into the new century and do what is right?

In some cases I understand that it may not be popular for some of my colleagues to stand up and support what is right, but do you know what, Mr. Speaker? If I were in the shoes of any one of my colleagues, I would stand up and I would vote for this bill because that is the right thing to do.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate my colleague from Ottawa Centre. He made a very fine presentation to the House.

He touched on one point that I would like him to expand on. He mentioned children. It is society's attitude toward those children and how we must show that we can be accepting of them and not be discriminatory toward them and some of the struggles they are going through in a society which is all too often homophobic.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that what we as a society have to do is move to the next step and really start looking at the issue, as one of my colleague always says, with a holistic approach, which is to look at every element of the law, whether provincial, federal or municipal, and always ask how this legislation or law will help the children and how this law is going to serve the interests of the child.

Unfortunately, at other levels of government, that is what is lacking. At this level of government in the House, what the government has been doing every single time legislation has come before parliament, whether very recently in the Department of Industry or the Department of Justice right now or the Department of Transport before that or the treasury board, every one of these ministries has introduced legislation in the House and we always find something in their bills dealing with children.

To that extent I would tell my colleague that he is quite right. Everything we do must first have the interests of the child at heart.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Reform

Werner Schmidt Reform Kelowna, BC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke asked why we have to take things back to the dark ages. What I want to do is bring this to the 21st century.

I wish I knew who wrote this but apparently it is anonymous. For the record, I want to indicate that there are four classes of people. There are those who do not know and do not know that they do not know. They are foolish. There are those who do not know and know that they do not know. They are simple and should be instructed. There are those who know but do not know that they know. They are asleep, and we should wake them. The fourth are those who know and know that they know. They are wise and we should listen to them.

There are many Canadians who fall into the fourth class. They know that they know. It has to do with marriage. They know what the institution of marriage is and they know that they know that. They also know what the definition of marriage is: the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. They have told us that in thousands of letters, thousands of faxes, thousands of phone calls and thousands of e-mails. That is why the minister brought in an amendment to the bill.

We need clarity on this bill. Why do we need it? The way the government will vote on this particular bill will determine whether it really believes in democracy or whether it simply wants to promote its particular agenda.

Is it the people that the government will listen to, or will it ignore the representations which have been made and pursue an agenda it has set for itself in the interest of a particular position it wants to advance?

There are three points I want to make in the time left to me. The first is the need for clarity in legislation. The second is the need for a clear expression of the intent of parliamentarians as to what they want the courts to interpret in terms of law. The third is the need to recognize the significance of the message we send to society. It is for our children that we send this message.

The importance of the meaning of a word reminds me of a passage from Alice in Wonderland : “When you use a word it means what we choose it to mean, neither more nor less. It is simply a question of who is the master, that is all”.

The other side of that coin is that whoever determines the meaning of a word is the master. That suggests then that the master in Canada is the court, which decided what marriage should mean.

What it ought to be is that we as parliamentarians better define what that meaning is if we want to be the master of the intent of what is meant and how we want the courts to rule. We had better decide, not the courts and not the judges.

As a parliament, we need to clearly express what we intend marriage to mean. I have already indicated what various people in Canada have told us what it ought to be.

I want to move on to the next point which is for our children. I notice there are five hon. members from the government side of the House listening. I congratulate them for being here. I want to register the point about the message parliament is sending to people. That is do we really want to look at what the people have told us they want marriage to mean or are we going to put it somewhere else? We need to be careful in this matter because it will establish the truth of what we believe. Are we a democratic institution or are not?

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON

Yes, yes.

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Reform

Werner Schmidt Reform Kelowna, BC

I am so glad the hon. member over there said yes, yes. I expect him to vote according to the way his constituents want him to, not the way the agenda has told him to.

It matters what history has told us. Our custom has been very clear, that marriage shall be the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. That has been our history and tradition. Much has been said that that is what the definition is and it will continue to be. Parliament put that on record last June by passing Motion 216-55. It was very clear that parliament should do every thing it could. If the minister had really wanted to make the definition of marriage in her amendment legally binding, she could have.

According to David Brown, a constitutional expert and litigation lawyer in one of the reputable firms in Toronto, if she really wanted to do that, there were three things she could have done. She could have done something to amend the Marriage Act to include a specific definition of marriage. Or, she could have amended the bill to include an enacting section which provides that “for the purposes of all federal legislation, the word `marriage' means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. Or, she could have amended the bill to include amendments to each affected act enacting in each such act a specific definition of the word marriage. She did none of those three.

In fact, what she did was put it into the interpretation section. What was the amendment? She said “For greater certainty, the amendments made by this act do not affect the meaning of the word marriage, that is the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. If that is what she really meant, she should have put it in an enacting section in the law. It would have meant something. The way it is written now does not have that impact.

We have hon. members opposite who are in the legal profession and who know jolly good and well that this is the case. The Minister of Justice knows this is the case. There is absolutely nothing new in what I am telling the hon. minister. She knows better. So do certain other ministers who are sitting across the way.

The time has come for us to tell the truth and to recognize that the people of Canada do want marriage to be defined as the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. They want that in the law of Canada. That is what they have told us. If these government people are going to honestly reflect that, they are going to vote that way. It would be incorrect for them not to vote that way and vote the way the whip tells them. I would suggest that it is an abuse of the power of the whip to force each one of them to vote a particular way. They should vote according to the way the people have told them to.

If they do not do that we then have to be very clear that that group of people over there is anti-family and not in favour of marriage. We have to be absolutely clear what this is about. It is time that we determine what we are. Are we democratic? Do we really mean that marriage is one man and one woman lawfully united? Is that the issue or is it something else?