Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to explain the nature and the purpose of this bill. There are those who would have us think it covers a much broader range of situations than is actually the case.
This bill has nothing to do with marriage or adoption. Basically, for reasons of fairness, it seeks to amend certain benefits or obligations so that couples living in common law relationships, whether those relationships are same sex or opposite sex, are treated equally before the law. That is the essential purpose of this bill.
All that the proposed amendments do is give effect to the May 1999 supreme court decision in M and H. The purpose of the bill is to amend 68 statutes so as to include same sex couples in the definition of common law couples.
In the past 20 years, most provincial governments in Canada have brought in legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms changed the legal framework with respect to the equality rights of homosexuals.
I wish to note that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was based heavily on the Quebec charter, which preceded it. Already in 1977, that charter specifically prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The legal aspects of sexual orientation have to do with two main principles: first, prohibiting discrimination in order to protect gays and lesbians against discriminatory actions; second, recognizing homosexual relationships, which implies granting the partners in these couples the benefits and guarantees enjoyed by unmarried heterosexual couples.
This bill is therefore not about the institution of marriage, even though an amendment was made to specify that the word “marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman. I do not see the point of that provision, but if it can reassure some people, fine.
It seeks to prohibit and eliminate the most pernicious forms of discrimination based on the individual characteristics of a group or an individual, including race, language, religion, but also sexual orientation.
The bill recognizes that society finds it unacceptable that certain groups not be treated fairly, including when it comes to social benefits and guarantees.
The fact that the bill includes sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination does not mean that homosexuality is either condoned or condemned, but rather that we are concerned about providing legal protection to individuals.
It should be noted that the proposed amendments are not all one sided. They will provide new benefits to same sex couples, while also imposing new obligations on them.
Here are a few examples. In the area of taxation, the total household income will be taken into account for the purposes of the child tax benefit, which was not the case before. The incomes of both spouses will also be taken into account to determine eligibility for the guaranteed income supplement.
Under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, same sex couples will be subjected to the same restrictions regarding the transfer of properties or of their goods before declaring bankruptcy.
In the Canada Business Corporations Act, the prohibition against a shareholder, an associate or an administrator receiving financial assistance from a company will extend to same sex partners.
In the Bank Act, with respect to conflict of interest, the partner of a director will be taken into account.
In the Canada Elections Act, a returning officer cannot appoint a partner as a deputy returning officer.
In the Trust and Loan Companies Act, same sex partners are included in connection with additional fines the court may impose on the partner of a person convicted of an offence under the act who has acquired any monetary benefit.
These are obligations that did not exist. There will be benefits, but obligations as well, so that these people will be treated as are all citizens of Canada.
There is nothing unique or revolutionary about this bill. I was saying that it arose out of many supreme court decisions. All of these cases were won by those who had brought them before the court. We are confronted to fact and law.
Since 1997, a number of provinces have acted, including British Columbia. They have amended their laws to include partners of the same sex. In June 1999, for example, Quebec amended 28 laws and 11 regulations to give same sex couples the benefits and obligations as opposite sex couples living in a common law partnership. In October 1999, Ontario, under Mike Harris, passed an omnibus bill amending 67 laws in accordance with a supreme court decision. I think this reflects a realistic attitude.
Seven provinces, the three territories and the federal government have passed legislation granting same sex survivor pensions to their employees. This is also the case for major Canadian cities in any region, British Columbia, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, the maritimes, for more than 200 Canadian companies in the private sector, hospitals, libraries, social service institutions and banks.
This is therefore a strong trend, if I can put it that way, aimed at adaptation to the modern world, to today's situation, to what we are experiencing today, to what we know exists even if some people want to hide its existence. This is a reality that cannot be made to disappear.
Polls confirm, moreover, that the public wants to see an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation. A 1998 Angus Reid poll reported 74% of respondents were in favour of federal benefits to same sex couples; 67% of respondents were of the opinion that same sex couples should receive the same benefits and also have the same obligations as common law spouses; 84% believed gays and lesbians should be protected from discrimination.
As these results show, this bill meets the expectations of the public, who feel that discrimination based on sexual orientation is inappropriate. This bill proposes some concrete measures that go beyond declarations of good intentions. Going beyond sexual orientation, this legislation gives equal treatment to every citizen, regardless of sexual orientation.
I dealt with this situation some fifteen years ago when I was a union negotiator. In 1986, I believe I signed the first collective agreement, in Quebec anyway, giving same sex couples the same benefits as opposite sex couples. This trend has continued, with the result that in the hotel industry, the sector in which I was negotiating at the time, most owners of hotels in Quebec recognize this reality. And this did not entail huge costs because these people pay taxes just like you and I do.
Once again, this is not a bill about sexuality or marriage—it is a bill about equity. I understand that some people are hesitant because of some of their values, often rooted of course in religious beliefs, but the religious beliefs of some must not become the law governing others.
Religion is an individual affair for which I have the greatest respect, but it must not be imposed on others. On occasion, we must recognize values that we do not necessarily share but that are held by others who in no way interfere with or denounce our beliefs.
In this sense, I think that this bill corrects the injustices we are now experiencing and have experienced for a long time. I believe it is time that we brought our laws into line with reality and the readiness of Canadians and Quebecers to accept those whose orientation is different but who are making a contribution to our society, just as they, I and we all do.