Debates of April 3rd, 2000

Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to speak to the bill today although, as has been noted in petitions already, there are many people who think the bill should be sent back to the drawing board for a real working over. I happen to be one of those who think that the bill, however well intentioned the government may believe it is, has opened up some ambiguities and some problems which we will basically have to leave to the courts to solve in the days to come.

It is always unfortunate when parliament drafts legislation that is so ill defined and so poorly drafted that basically we have to throw it open to the courts and say that it is too big an issue for us and ask those folks to deal with it in round two. That is exactly what will happen with the bill.

I want to make three points about the bill. Much has already been said about the status of the bill from the perspective of the official opposition, but let me just make three points that I would like to add to the debate.

First, the bill is called the modernization of benefits and obligations act, but before it was even brought to the House of Commons for debate it should have been preceded by a healthy debate both in the House and in committee on the future of government benefits in general.

It seems to me to say that we are modernizing benefits when basically we are throwing open the terms and definitions to interpretation by the courts is not modernizing at all. It is opening up a Pandora's box. It is opening up a can of worms and leaving it to someone else to interpret down the road.

It is not modernizing benefits. It may be trying to modernize language. It may be trying to respond in some way to earlier court rulings and all sorts of things, but it is not about modernizing benefit. That debate has never taken place. The debate that should have taken place in the House and in committee has never taken place. I would argue that it should have been sent to committee for extensive review.

When I first came to the House I sat on a joint Senate-Commons committee that reviewed Canada's foreign policy. We travelled not only within but outside Canada to get a perspective of where to go with the future of Canada's foreign policy. It was a big issue and it deserved a good hearing because it had not been done for quite some time. Times change and the world situation changes. It deserved a good hearing and a good airing both here and in committee.

We spent a year on that committee travelling, interviewing Canadians, debating the issue and talking about what a modern foreign policy should look like. We came up with many ideas that we gave to the government and asked it to bring forward in legislation and in policy.

The single biggest issue facing most Canadians is government benefits. It is bigger than foreign policy for most Canadians. It is bigger perhaps than any other debate with which the House will ever be seized. The future of all benefits paid out to individuals; the future of all benefits paid out through the Canada health and social transfer; the future of benefits paid out through grants and contributions; the future of benefits paid to individuals, transfers to individuals; and the future of the pension system, who is eligible for welfare and how we will have mobility between the provinces, should have been debated and had a good hearing in the House and in committee. That was not done.

If people come up with ideas they throw them on the table and say, for example, that maybe we should have registered domestic partnerships. At first blush it seems maybe that has some validity and maybe there is some future to the idea, but it cannot even be brought forward in this debate because there is no opportunity. There has been no broad discussion about the future of benefits paid in general by the government to all Canadians.

The first big failing with the bill is the lack of consultation. The committee on Bill C-23 never left these hallowed halls. It never travelled one foot out of these hallowed halls. It never met with Canadians. It never talked to the provincial ministers involved. It never met with groups concerned with the constitutionality of it or groups concerned with the future of family benefits. None of those discussions took place.

It is not correct to say that we have all the answers in the bill. We never talked to interested provincial people, interested family groups or people interested in the future of registered domestic partnerships. None of those consultations took place. That is a gross failing of the bill. We will reap the whirlwind down the road because we have not addressed the huge number of concerns people have raised and now feel compelled to send in on petition forms asking us to withdraw the bill and get it right.

If the government pushes the bill through, we will not be getting it right. We will be back into litigation. We will be back into the courts. We will have intervener status all around for everyone from provincial governments to interested groups. It will be a lawyer's heyday, which is very unfortunate.

The second problem I have with it is the poorly defined terms within the legislation. When ministers of the crown come before the committee and give conflicting testimony as to the definitions that will guide this bill in the days to come, we can imagine what the courts will do with it. When one minister says conjugal relationship means a sexual relationship and another senior minister says that it is not about that at all, it is just about having a certain degree of relationship that will be called conjugal, we can imagine the first court case. I can see it coming.

Someone will say, “I do not have a sexual relationship with the person I am living with but I believe I have a conjugal relationship because no one has defined it”. Where are we going? We are going to the courts. This legislation will end up in the courts. It will cost a pile of money.

Instead of defining it as Canadians would like it defined, or even as the House would like it defined, it will be defined as the courts want it defined. I do not blame the courts for this. Once again the government has weak legislation that is poorly defined. It throws its hands in the air saying it is too big of a job for the government and throws it back into the bailiwick of the courts. The courts to give them credit must deal with it and they will deal with it.

That is not the proper forum. The proper forum is this place. There needs to be a good healthy debate, lots of witnesses and lots of input. We could make amendments and changes back and forth, give and take, and come up with better legislation that will pass the test of a court challenge. People will be able to say not only did the ministers all agree for a change, but also parliament agreed that this is the best way to move forward on benefits for all Canadians.

The third thing I bring forward has to do specifically with the problem this legislation will have because of a late edition amendment the justice minister has made to the preamble of Bill C-23. The minister, responding to pressure from her own backbenchers and from Canadians, has thrown in a definition of marriage. It is a definition with which I heartily agree, but she has done it in the preamble of Bill C-23 and has refused to amend the actual statutes themselves.

It is a great public relations ploy on one hand but it is hard to imagine a weaker affirmation of what I guess is the government's intention on marriage. It is a weaker interpretation of what the House instructed on the definition of marriage in June 1999 when it said that a marriage is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. All members of the House approved that definition and said that we should take all necessary steps to make sure all future legislation reflected that. Instead of putting it into the statutes as she should have, the minister in an attempt to deflect some of the criticism put it into the preamble of the bill and hoped that would be good enough.

We have obtained a legal opinion from Dr. David Brown who is a partner in a civil litigation department in a Toronto law firm and practises commercial and corporate litigation and administrative law. He is a sessional lecturer at the faculty of law at Queen's University and has been teaching law since 1989. He is a senior advocate and a seminar leader at the Ontario bar admissions course. He is an acknowledged expert in this field. He said:

If parliament intends to state that, as a matter of federal law, “marriage” is the “lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”, then in my opinion [the minister's amendment] does not achieve that objective. As previously stated, [the minister's amendment] is not an enacting section; it will not bring into force any legally binding definition of “marriage”. By contrast, if the bill was amended to enact a definition of marriage for each of the particular acts referred to in the bill, then parliament would be giving a clear indication of its intention to the courts and to the public at large.

That is what the Canadian Alliance is attempting to do. That is what our report stage amendments are designed to do. We followed the advice not only of some of the finest litigation and legal experts in Canada but we have also followed the advice of Canadians who have said to put the definition some place where it matters. Let us give direction to the courts instead of letting the courts give direction to this place.

Approval of our amendments will strengthen the bill. It will give the direction the minister says she wants in the bill. It will be doing all Canadians a favour both now and in the future in litigation.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak in support of the amendments put forward by the member for Burnaby—Douglas.

I am proud to be from the riding of Vancouver East. I have had a lot of phone calls, e-mails and correspondence from gays, lesbians and straight people, constituents who have been in favour of Bill C-23. They saw it as a positive, progressive and long overdue move by the government to recognize equality for gays and lesbians in terms of modernization of benefits and so on.

Given the events of the last week or so, it has been a shock to see how the government at the 11th hour has begun to renege on the original intent and spirit of Bill C-23. It is caving in to what I think is clearly a minority viewpoint coming from the Reform Party and some people in the community. It is very disappointing to see the government cave in at the very end and in effect undermine the fundamental value and point of Bill C-23.

I wholeheartedly support the amendments that were put forward by the member for Burnaby—Douglas. Those amendments are our attempt to put this bill back on track and to say to the government that there was a clear intent with Bill C-23. That is what we should keep in mind here. We should not be sidelined and sidetracked by all of these other political debates.

In listening to the debate today I have been truly dismayed and shocked by some of the comments that have been made by members of the Reform Party.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is the Canadian Alliance.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to figure out what the alliance is. An alliance implies that one is in alliance with other partners. I do not exactly see people beating down the doors. It seems like it is the same old Reform Party.

In the debate earlier today, the member for Yorkton—Melville spoke about Bill C-23 implementing special rights. He said that children will suffer. I find this to be quite outrageous and insulting.

I would like to know from the Reform Party, the new alliance, how it constitutes this as special rights. It seems to me that in the debate on Bill C-23 it is using exactly the same tactic it used when we debated the Nisga'a final agreement. It used this tactic fairly successfully in trying to divide Canadians, in trying to say that there are different statuses, different rights and special interests.

We have to stand today and say that the intent of this bill and why it was introduced was to live up to the charter of rights, to live up to the name, the spirit and the implementation of equality for gays and lesbians. That is something every single member of the House should uphold and be proud to uphold.

To characterize this now as special rights and that somehow children are going to suffer, the member owes the House an explanation as to how children are going to suffer as a result of this bill. That is what he said. Children are certainly suffering because of poverty. They are certainly suffering as a result of neglect. But they are not suffering as a result of what the provisions are in Bill C-23, or by living in families or communities where there are same sex couples.

I want to call the member on this issue. That kind of debate is inflammatory and divisive. It portrays a very narrow, intolerant, and I would say a very hateful viewpoint which is aimed and targeted at minority members of our community. What the Reform Party members are really saying about Bill C-23, just as they said about the Nisga'a treaty, is that anyone who does not agree with its narrow and very traditional view of the family is not to be afforded equality.

The member for Yorkton—Melville went even further in his attack. He went on to attack common law relationships. He talked about people shacking up and that common law relationships were generally characterized by domestic violence and children were abused and neglected. I could not believe I was hearing that kind of assault on common law relationships in the House of Commons.

I was involved with my husband for almost 25 years in a common law relationship before he died in 1997. I am insulted by what that member had to say against all Canadians who for whatever reason or choice decide to be in a common law relationship.

The remarks today were offensive to gay, lesbian and straight couples. They portray the arrogance of that party and its members in imposing their moralistic, bigoted and, I would say, hateful views on other members of Canadian society. We should reject that. If we believe in the charter of rights and equality, then we should say that is something we are going to implement in terms of pensions and benefits.

In terms of the amendments that are before us and what happened at the committee, I question why members of the government are caving in on this. We can see what is happening. We have heard other members in the official opposition say that they agree with the amendment of the definition. This is something that has never been defined in other statutes. In fact, not only are they calling for this definition of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, but they are now calling on the government to amend all statutes, all legislation, to that effect.

This reflects the real intent of the official opposition and what it is trying to do to take the debate away from the provision of equality. Those members are trying to move the debate to a ground of morals which they want to use in order to create division in our society.

I am proud to say that our party has always stood for equality. We have always respected, accepted, encouraged and supported diversity in our society. What we may see as a traditional family may be something different to someone else. What we may see as a conjugal relationship and what we may see as a loving, caring relationship of two people, are different things for different people. This party has respect for and commitment to that. I abhor the fact that the government has apparently started to backslide and is undermining its own bill in an attempt to play the political game the Reform Party is putting forward.

Our amendments are put forward to put this bill back to where it should be and that is on the modernization of benefits and not a debate about marriage, not an exclusion of people, not a definition that says one is legal and another is not. This debate should be about equality. I urge government members to reflect upon what the original intent was and not to cave in and cater to the very narrow interests that are being put forward.

It is very clear that in talking to the Canadian people, we would find that most Canadians accept, understand and want to see those equality provisions extended. They do not agree with the kind of bigoted, narrow-minded definition that has come forward from the Reform Party.

I hope the amendments will be considered and supported in terms of the original intent of Bill C-23.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate the amendments in Group No. 1 on Bill C-23. I will debate essentially three aspects of these amendments.

The first has to do with the matter of definitions. In fact I would like to suggest that the purpose of the amendment is to focus on the definition of marriage. That is the purpose of the amendment.

I think we would agree with a lot of things about this amendment. I know I certainly would. The suggestion that this is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others is consistent with the June 1999 motion in the House.

After looking at these amendments I asked myself what all the fuss was about with the definition. Why should we care so much about the definition? I recalled back to a day when I was in grade eight. The teacher came into the class and said “Class, I would like you to take out a clean sheet of paper and write at the top of the page the word science”. He then asked “What is science?” Science is the orderly arrangement of knowledge. After having gone through this in grade school, while taking several courses in organic chemistry in university, I asked a professor to define science, and he did. Guess what he said? He said that science was the progressively explicit organization of knowledge.

There we have it. What is in a definition? A definition tells us clearly what a thing or an element is and what it is not. It defines something as being exclusive from all other things.

One of the major contributions that Mendeleev made, for example, was to categorize the various elements, to show the various atomic weights of these elements and in what order, the valences of these chemicals and what they had, and how they would unite with one another. It was the degree to which one could specify in detail what each of those elements were, what each of the definitions are and how they work that progressed science.

As we define things more and more clearly, we are progressing. That is not regressive. The suggestion is being made that by modernizing we can somehow expand the definition of marriage. That is not the point. That is precisely why we have insisted that the definition of marriage be included, not only in Bill C-23 but also in subsequent legislative bills that this particular bill proposes to amend.

Not only does definition allow us to recognize what a thing is and, by that very recognition, what all other things are not that particular issue that we are talking about, there can be all kinds of other arrangements. There can be common law arrangements, gay arrangements and liaisons of a variety of natures. They are just simply liaisons and they are different from marriage. They are not marriage. To expand marriage to include that would, it seems to me, confuse the issue rather than clarify it.

What is being sought here is a clarity, to make abundantly clear to everyone that this is what marriage is. That means that any other relationship simply is not marriage. It seems to me that is very fundamental. That is why it is so essential that we focus on the definition.

We could go on at great length to determine what the other significant aspects are of a clear definition. One of the most significant aspect is to clearly identify how things relate to one another and how they differ from one another. This does not mean that they are not equal. A toe is not the same as a thumb. The head is not the same as a leg. However, they are part of a body. As we define these things, we begin to recognize how they relate to one another, and similarly in marriage.

The marriage definition clearly identifies the relationship between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others and that this be a lawful arrangement as to the exclusion of all others. It is abundantly clear that is what is being proposed here.

The difficulty arises when we confuse the definition with something else that it begins to mean something different. It is expanded to the point where relationships become confused and where in fact it is not clear any more what ought to be the situation with marriage as compared to any other situation.

We need to recognize that equality is essential and will only happen if and when we have clear definitions. If not, what happens? It means that if we have clearly defined something we can then go to a judge and to any other part of society and say what we mean. The judge would then not have to interpret it differently in one case from another case, from a different situation. It can then be applied across the board. The judge can be consistent, equal and fair in all those cases.

I believe it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice who suggested that the only reason why this was happening was because the supreme court said so. If there was ever a role for the House, it was to clearly define what we mean in the legislation that we write. The last thing we should do is let the courts tell us what we mean in any legislation. We should tell the court what we mean without equivocation and without interpretation. The judge then has to interpret the application of that law in particular cases. If the definition is clear, he can do so consistently with equality, justice and fairness. That is what we need.

What happens if we do not have a clear definition? It is very interesting to see what happens. First, there is confusion. What is it we are talking about? If that is the issue, then it is abundantly clear why this particular amendment should come forward.

In this connection, I will refer, as my hon. colleague did just a moment ago, to an interpretation of a rather respected law professor at the Osgoode Hall Law School, a practitioner in law and a man who has presented various cases before judges. After a very careful and studied analysis, he came to a conclusion and said:

If Parliament intends to state that, as a matter of federal law, “marriage” is the “lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others” then in my opinion (the Minister's amendment) does not achieve that objective. As previously stated, (the Minister's amendment) is not an enacting section—

Those watching must be wondering what in the world that means. It simply means that this does not enact that definition in each of the subsequent pieces of legislation. In other words, it may have force or it may not have force. It is a matter of opinion, a matter of interpretation. The definition of marriage should not be a matter of interpretation, which is essentially what this legal mind has said.

The gentleman goes on to say:

—it will not bring into force any legally binding definition of “marriage”. By contrast, if the Bill was amended to enact a definition of marriage for each of the particular acts referred to in the Bill, then Parliament would be giving a clear indication of its intention to the courts and to the public at large.

Can anything be more clear and unequivocal than that kind of statement? That is what we are asking the government to do.

The hon. member for Vancouver East stated that we are not speaking consistently with what people are saying. I certainly am speaking consistently with what my constituents are saying.

I was in my constituency last Friday and I asked how many calls, letters, faxes and e-mails we had received in support of Bill C-23 and how many we had received in opposition to Bill C-23. I was told that they had not counted the number in support of the bill because there was only one in support of it. We have not yet been able to count the numbers opposed to Bill C-23. Is that not pretty clear? Only one person out of almost 125,000 voters in the area supports the bill. By far, the majority of people are not in favour of Bill C-23 as it is being proposed.

In the interest of building and making a better piece of legislation there are two possibilities. The first is to amend it so it does what the government is intending it to do. I encourage the government to do that. The second is to withdraw the bill until it can be studied and until the people of Canada can express themselves, as they have to me, as they have to my hon. colleague for Calgary Centre and as they have to many of the other MPs in the House. Do it.

We are not here to condemn the government. We are not here to oppose the government. We are here to give to the people the kind of legislation and the organization of marriage and of families that will make our society stronger and will make Canada stronger. On the basis of that, the family is the strength of the nation.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult debate. I think the reason it is so difficult is because no matter whether we support or oppose the bill, the government drafters have put members of parliament in a position where they have to be against something. If we support the bill, there are strong concerns that we are against the preservation of one of the key institutions of our society and are weakening it. If we oppose the bill, there are assertions that we are against equality and against being fair to people in this country, particularly minorities.

This is a very difficult issue for members of parliament. From what I have heard, there is sometimes more heat than light in this debate, which is very unfortunate. As members of parliament, we do want to do what is right, what is best and what is fair for the people of this country.

I have a few remarks to make which I hope will add more light than heat to the debate and will help us as members of parliament and as Canadians to make a good judgment about this matter.

The key concern about Bill C-23, which is the same sex benefits bill, seems to be that marriage is being fundamentally changed in the context of public policy. Because marriage is one of society's most fundamental institutions, we have a legitimate obligation as members of parliament to very carefully examine this concern.

I did not speak on the first reading of the bill. I have not taken an active role on this particular issue to date because, as most people know, I have been very busy in my critic area talking about the mismanagement of public moneys in the human resources department.

Notwithstanding the fact that I have been somewhat absent from the debate, my office in Calgary received 110 calls, letters and e-mails on this subject since the bill was introduced. Those were, to a large extent, unsolicited by anything I did or said. Of those 110 calls and letters, many of which were very strongly worded, my office tells me that only one or two were in support of Bill C-23.

As a member of parliament and as a representative of the people of Calgary—Nose Hill, I am obliged to take that very seriously. I will read from one of the e-mails that I received which, in my judgment, is representative of the concerns that my constituents brought forward. The e-mail from this constituent mentions three serious concerns about the legislation. In different variations of language, I have heard this in the e-mails, letters and calls that I received.

The first concern was that “this law will eliminate all meaningful distinctions between marriage and same sex relationships”. The constituent goes on to say that “we should be strengthening the institution of marriage, not relegating it to a list of options for obtaining government benefits”. That was the first major concern I heard from my constituents and from people all across the country.

The second concern was that “the bill disregards the deeply held beliefs of millions of Canadians, including Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and many other faith groups”. This is a very difficult area. Some of the statements and some of the critique of the bill made from the faith perspective have been severely criticized. Some of the perspectives from faith groups have been very strongly stated. These are very deeply held values for many people and sometimes their statements are very unfairly criticized.

We just heard a speaker from the New Democratic Party use words like bigotry, intolerance and hate. When views are expressed from a faith perspective on behalf of millions of Canadians, whether they are expressed as temperately as they might be, they have questions that are fair to ask. Labelling their deeply held values as hate, bigotry, intolerance and reprehensible in a free and democratic society should be viewed as very troubling.

We have an obligation, whatever our viewpoint, to debate an issue and to approach it in a very reasonable, logical and temperate way, respecting each other and other viewpoints. To label viewpoints, as people on both sides of the debate have tended to do, is unfortunate, unhelpful and destructive in our society.

I would urge members of the House to understand the feelings on both sides of the debate. The feeling of some groups in society is a feeling of not being treated equally or fairly. Those feelings are legitimate. We need to be respectful of the concerns of other members of society about the values that they hold and about the structures of our society.

My constituent mentions a third concern: “This is a radical change to our legal, social and moral traditions. Such significant changes require that there be ample opportunity for all Canadians to express their views before this bill is passed”.

This has been a continuing concern about the bill, that it is being put forward quickly, without very broad public consultation and debate. Closure was introduced on this bill already. If we are bringing forward measures which affect the fundamental structures of our society and are causing the kind of concern I have seen, then we as members of parliament owe it to the public to have a full hearing before these kinds of changes are made.

On only one other issue have I received such a number of calls, letters and e-mails. That was on the proposed bail-out of professional hockey. I do not know if one would call that a fundamental institution of our society; however, it did bring a lot of public comment when government intervention was proposed.

There has been an assertion by the government that an amendment brought forward by the Minister of Justice would ensure that the definition of marriage in our society would not change. As is known from others who have intervened in this debate, there is legitimate concern about how reliable the minister's assertion is on that point.

As has already been pointed out, one of the senior constitutional lawyers in the country provided an opinion which stated “If parliament intends to state that, as a matter of federal law, marriage is the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”, which is what the minister says she is stating with her amendment, “then in my opinion the minister's amendment does not achieve that objective”.

We know that there can be a battle of legal opinions. I am sure there will be in court cases on this. However, members of parliament should take seriously the concerns that are raised, backed up by very reliable legal opinion. If we are going to change or interfere with the centuries-old tradition of marriage, then we should do so with full public debate, with a full definition of what we are doing, and we should certainly do that only with the concurrence of the majority of members of our society.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to debate Bill C-23. As my colleague has just pointed out, this is a very important issue. I do not think there is a member of the House who has not received a lot of correspondence on this issue.

The people of my constituency of Medicine Hat have spoken with one voice on this issue. They have made it very clear that they are fundamentally opposed to Bill C-23.

As my colleague has pointed out, we have had a tremendous amount of correspondence, more on this issue perhaps than on any other issue. I want to make it very clear that when I speak today I am speaking on behalf of, I believe, a huge majority of people in my riding who have serious concerns about Bill C-23.

Why are Canadians concerned about Bill C-23? That is the question we need to answer. I would argue that the reason people are concerned about Bill C-23 is that it would change the fundamental institution of marriage by stealth. There is no big open debate. We have not had a committee travel the country to gather input from Canadians on how they feel about changing the definition of what is one of the most fundamental and important institutions, not just in Canada but in all of civilization.

As we have known it in this place until recently, the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. That is the tradition that Canadians hold very important. It is part of our tradition. What is tradition? As Chesterton said, it is the democracy of the dead. It is the pronouncement of all the generations which have gone before. They said that tradition dictates that the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others is the definition of marriage.

Now the government, in reaction to a court decision, is preparing to change that. We offered it the tools to set aside marriage and to protect it so that it would not be redefined by this legislation, which leaves open the possibility that the definition of marriage would be changed ultimately by courts. When we offered it the chance to protect marriage, what did it do? It refused.

In my mind what it has done, very disingenuously, is offered an amendment to its legislation which would give the appearance of protecting marriage and all of the various statutes affected by this omnibus bill, but in reality it would not protect marriage at all. In fact, we have a legal opinion which states that. My colleague just mentioned it, but I will mention it again because it really boils down to this.

As I said at the outset, this will end up in the courts. That is where this will be decided. Let us listen to what constitutional experts are saying. This opinion is from David M. Brown who is a partner in Stikeman Elliott. He is a constitutional lawyer and a eminent scholar of these sorts of issues. He said:

If Parliament intends to state that, as a matter of federal law, “marriage” is the “lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others,” then in my opinion (the Minister's amendment) does not achieve that objective.

He goes on to say:

As previously stated, (the Minister's amendment) is not an enacting section—it will not bring into force any legally binding definition of “marriage”. By contrast, if the Bill was amended to enact a definition of marriage for each of the particular acts referred to in the Bill, then Parliament would be giving a clear indication of its intention to the courts and to the public at large.

Again, that is David M. Brown, a constitutional scholar and expert giving his judgment of what the government is proposing in the legislation. I point out that he makes reference to the fact that if there were a specific definition attached to every statute, then it would be clear and the courts and the public would understand that we are proposing to set aside this definition of marriage as it is traditionally understood.

The government has refused that. Government members across the way have refused it. Some in the past have spoken up and said “We believe that we should have that definition in the bill”. Now some of them, I believe, have been mollified by this red herring, straw man, or whatever it is, in what amounts to the preamble of the legislation which Mr. Brown, the constitutional expert, said would have no impact on really protecting the definition of marriage.

It is a chimera. It does not exist. There is no protection in this legislation for marriage as we traditionally know it. That is the first point that we want to make.

The second point is that the benefits which would be extended would be extended on the basis of conjugal relationships. What does conjugal relationship mean? It does not say in the legislation. In the Oxford dictionary it says “Of marriage or the relation between husband and wife”. In this legislation conjugal seems to mean, I guess, any kind of sexual relationship between any two people. That is what it seems to mean. It is vague. The justice minister interpreted it one way. The Secretary of State for the Status of Women interpreted it in a different way. It is important that Canadians understand exactly what the government is getting at. Again, the legislation in my mind is left ambiguous as part of the government's strategy. That will leave it open for the courts to decide in the future, which I think is wrong.

I think we abdicate our responsibility as legislators when that sort of thing happens, but it happens all too often when it comes to this government. We are legislators elected by the public to decide these issues. We should decide them based on clear definitions. We should establish the definitions. We should talk to the public and find out where they are on these issues. We should not try to essentially sneak legislation through and call on the courts to decide for us later. That is an abdication of our responsibilities, and it is wrong. That is another reason we should be concerned about this legislation.

I want to shift gears for a moment and touch on something which others have touched on, which my colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill touched on a minute ago, and it is on the language that surrounds this debate. Every legislator here wants to do what is right in their mind. They want to do the right thing. We should be mindful of that, even if we profoundly disagree with other people's points of view.

I absolutely reject some of the language I have heard coming from some of my colleagues in this place who say “When you oppose this you are hateful” or “you are intolerant”. What does tolerance mean? Let us get to the bottom of that.

In my mind it means when we honestly are prepared to hear another point of view; suspend our own judgment, our own feelings on the issue for a moment and hear the other point of view. After we have heard it, considered it and thought the thing through, then we make a judgment. We decide one way or the other.

It does not mean that we are indifferent to what goes on, which is what some members seem to imply. They seem to say that we should be indifferent, that we should not respond when someone wants to do something which fundamentally, in this case, would change the definition of marriage. If we respond in the negative, then we are intolerant. That is crazy. We have to do our job as legislators. That means carefully thinking these things through and making a judgment ultimately.

When we make a judgment, that does not mean we are hateful or intolerant; it means we have decided. We have made a judgment, which is what we are called upon to do as legislators.

I urge those who are suggesting that people who do not agree with them are intolerant or hateful to lose that language and get down to the serious job of debate. If they do not like what they hear, I suggest they debate the issues instead of throwing words around which is so easy to do and which cuts off debate. I think that is what we are called upon as legislators to do.

I will summarize by saying that the people of my riding are profoundly opposed to the legislation. The definition of marriage as it is has served us well for millennia, for all of civilization. The people in my riding intend to keep it that way. They want to preserve that definition. I am doing my job today as I stand up for the people in my riding. It is certainly in accord with my own personal views when I say that we must preserve this definition of marriage. It is fundamental to society. I urge members across the way and around the House to vote in opposition to Bill C-23.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-23 at report stage today. I want to start by congratulating the member for Calgary Centre who has done such an excellent job of working on the bill for us. I know I can extend those congratulations on behalf of myself, my colleagues and certainly all people in my constituency who have contacted me about the bill. They show a lot of respect for him and for the great job he has done.

It appears through the legislation that the government has decided it wants to talk about the private sexual activities of Canadians. We have to go back some time in history and think about what Mr. Trudeau said, that basically government should stay out of the bedrooms of society. Those were pretty wise words that this government should take to heart.

The idea that we will create sex police, someone who will be sitting on the hillside watching the bedrooms of Canadians, is just an obnoxious thought. The member who previously spoke said that he had received a lot of calls. In my office I have received some 314 calls about child pornography and 143 calls about Bill C-23.

If we take what the statisticians would use, for every call we get it represents about 10 people who are actually interested. Some would even go as high as saying that it could represent 100 people who actually pick up the phone or write a letter to their members of parliament. That tells me there is a lot of concern about this piece of legislation in my constituency. I know the people in my constituency would expect and would demand that I stand today to speak to the bill.

In looking at the bill it is obvious that the government is very much anti-family. It appears that it thinks it is modern, that it is 21st century, to oppose the very roots of the family, the very foundation of what a family stands for. If we examine historical society in different countries it is not a very good omen for the future of a country when it abandons something as valuable to society as the family.

Let us examine a few of the areas where the government is anti-family. Let us start with tax unfairness. Obviously in taxation there is a real unfairness to the stay at home parent, either male or female, who wants to stay at home, wants the choice of staying at home and wants to get the tax benefit for that. That has not been fixed. Obviously the finance minister has recognized it. He knows it is there and yet has made no effort to fix it.

A second item is child pornography. I mentioned that I have received many calls and many letters. Many people have stopped me on the street to talk about it. Yet we have a justice minister who is prepared to let the courts take care of it, to wait for the courts to act on it. Obviously the supreme court in B.C. acted on it and said that it was all right to possess child pornography. Now it is before the supreme court, and again we are waiting. Cases are being affected. Judgments are being postponed and charges are not being laid because of the particular legislation. This is anti-family. This is opposed to the very thing I hope everyone in the House believes, that we must protect those who cannot protect themselves, and that is children.

Let us look at the divorce and family court acts and the custody situation. How many members of parliament have had parents and grandparents come in and talk to them about the difficulty of getting access to their children or grandchildren? That has to be a crime in itself with which the government has failed to deal.

I can brag that last week I had a grandson, and I am pretty proud of that. He is nine pounds and doing great. If I were refused access to that little guy it would hurt very deeply. Yet there are constituents who are suffering from such punishment through no fault of their own. A government that cared about families would care about the little guys out there whose parents and grandparents want to see.

Dealing with the Young Offenders Act, how many times have we been told that it is not working, that it is not rehabilitating young people and that it is not preventing crime? If we look at the most recent trial in Victoria the problems with the Young Offenders Act would only be further reinforced. The government has not done anything to fix that. We have had six announcements from the minister that it will be fixed and yet six times nothing much has happened and nothing much has changed with the Young Offenders Act.

There is the whole area of sex offenders on parole. In my own constituency a sex offender who had committed 10 previous offences was getting out on parole. I met with 300 parents in a school gymnasium in the community the person was coming back to. At that same meeting the RCMP said the person would likely reoffend. The psychiatrist said the person would likely reoffend. The warden of the prison said the person would probably reoffend.

I came back to Ottawa with a message from those parents. What do I tell the parents of the 11th, 12th or however many more victims? Much to my terrible unhappiness, a year later there were in fact 11th and 12th victims.

A government that cared about families would do something about habitual sex offenders of children to put them away and keep them away. It would change the law in that regard. We cannot have these people being released. It took everything in our power to get the picture out so the parents would know for whom they were looking. In this case the person ended up staying very close to a schoolyard and unfortunately he picked his victims from another town. That is what is happening out there. The government is not friendly to families.

The Liberals say that they are to have a national day care plan. Another plan. The Liberals are great for having plans and programs. They love to spend on programs and deliver programs for which they will get credit. In my riding most people do not want a national day care program. They want less taxes, more money in their pockets, government out of their hair and to take care of their children. They do not need the government to take care of their children for them.

I could go on. How about the marriage courts? How about the problems there? How about the case of the guy where a judge decided the support payment would be over 100% of his salary? Unfortunately that gentleman could not face it any longer and committed suicide to get away from that judgment. That is not a court system or a government friendly to families.

We could talk about the medicare program. We hear the minister saying that the provinces have no plans. They do have plans. They are doing things. The lack of leadership is coming from this government. At least 75% of Canadians would tell us that health care is their number one concern.

Now we have Bill C-23 on conjugal relationships. That is definitely anti-family as we know it. I have many quotes. We do not know what the minister really means by what she is saying. We have heard members previous to me read from the independent legal opinion of David Brown, a lawyer who commented on the amendment put forward by the minister. He said that it would not work, that it would not stop the sorts of things that are happening.

We could listen to the secretary of state. We could listen to the Minister of Justice. We do not really know what Bill C-23 is all about, except that Canadians know it is poor legislation, that it is anti-family, and that it is putting the government in the bedrooms of the country. They are opposed to it. I am proud today to stand on their behalf to give that message.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is essentially quite simple. It equates common law heterosexual with common law homosexual and moves very close to marriage for the purposes of rights, benefits and obligations. There is not a great deal of legal difference.

The operating premise of the bill is the equivalency of those three forms of relationships. No one, however, seems to be prepared to ask if they are equal forms of relationships. At the justice committee we heard from a number of equity seekers, all of whom were prepared to gloss over the essential premise of the bill. No one seemed prepared to ask the fundamental question of whether these relationships were in fact equal.

Mr. Speaker, you are a lawyer and I am a lawyer. If you give over the floor to lawyers you are more likely to hear arguments based on the charter of rights, which inevitably takes something of a preordained path. No one seems to be prepared to pull back the lens and ask some very difficult and troubling questions about the face of the family in the 21st century. Regardless of what any of us say in the House, and regardless of what any of us believe in the House, the face of the family is changing in the 21st century.

I continue to remain critical of the government's unwillingness to seriously engage in this discussion. I take the definition of marriage as the one given in the Geneva declaration as adopted by the World Congress. The natural family is a fundamental social unit inscribed in human nature and set out as a voluntary union of man and woman in a lifelong covenant of marriage. The natural family is defined by marriage, procreation, and in some cultures adoption.

I believe that marriage is a fundamental social unit of our society and can only be neglected at our peril. That and $1.10 will get a cup of coffee upstairs. To say that it is a soothing balm to some is to state the obvious. To say that it is like chalk on a blackboard for others is equally obvious.

Rather than repeat anecdotes and draw inferences from experience, I would like members to address their minds to the national longitudinal survey done by Statistics Canada entitled “Growing up with Mom and Dad—the intricate family life courses of Canadian children”. I would like to put some statistical flesh on the bones of the argument and ultimately return to why I am critical of the bill.

The survey by Statistics Canada found that 84% of children under 12 lived in two parent families and that slightly over 15% lived in a single parent family relationship. Of that 84%, about 75% were with two parent families which were neither blended nor reconstructed.

If we want to enhance our chances of instability we should live in a common law relationship over a period of 10 years. The likelihood of break-up is around 63%. If we want to enhance our chances of divorce, we should live common law first. That about doubles the chance of divorce, from about 13.6% to about 25% over the same 10 year period.

This is somewhat counterintuitive. It does not seem to make a lot of sense but the obvious observation and the common wisdom of the day is to try out the relationship first, take it for a spin around the block to see if they are compatible, et cetera.

Statistics Canada puts it somewhat more drily. The results are fairly clear.

Children born to parents who are married and who have not lived in common law union beforehand are approximately three times less likely to experience family breakdown than children whose parents were living in common law union when they were born and did not subsequently marry. Children born into traditional marriage with no prior common law union are least likely, 13.6%, to experience family breakdown before the age of 10. Children whose family lived in common law union before they were married are in an intermediary category. Family breakdown has been experienced by approximately 25% of the children where they were born prior to or after their parents' marriage.

The figures for children by common law unions are by all means the most spectacular. By age 10, 63.1% of them had experienced family breakdown confirming the more short-lived nature of the relationships even when there are children involved.

Who says that all relationships are created equal? Certainly children experience marriage without common law differently than children with common law, which is different again from those who are straight common law rather than gay common law. I do not have statistical information on gay common law, but one would have to assume that by statistics at least the rate of instability is similar to heterosexual common law.

There is not much doubt that children pay for the instability of their parents' relationship. Forty-one percent of single parent children have some kind of developmental problem as opposed to 26% for families that are intact. It is quite clear that children pay for divorce. It is a harsh truth and one that I as a divorced parent do not want to hear, but experientially and statistically it is quite true.

The premise of the bill is equality of relationships and many will argue vigorously that this is what the bill achieves.

In our rush to be inclusive and to practise equality we seem to have forgotten that marriage is much more than a few economic and social elements stitched together so as to justify parallel and apparently similar relationships. It cannot be assumed that the public good will be well served. Our enthusiasm to be equitable, as driven by charter decisions, is sending our society in a direction that assures us that all relationships will be created equal. Certainly our children know that this is not true. The question is when will their parents clue in.

Marriage breakdown over 10 years is approximately 13%. The breakup rate doubles with common law prior to marriage. Over the same period common law breakups are in the order of five times more likely than that of marriage.

I submit that these are not equal relationships and should not be regarded as same for the purposes of public policy. To add common law homosexual relationships to common law heterosexual relationships and say that they are the same thing in my view is a fallacy.

This frankly puts me in a bit of a dilemma because as a government member I take great pride in supporting the government. The government has gone a long way in introducing the definition of marriage into the bill.

I am still of the view that this is a deeply flawed bill and I wish frankly that the government had gone about it in exactly the opposite way, which is to engage in debate about all the forms of family in the late 20th century, to recognize that family sees many faces in the course of a lifetime and that arguably, dependency is the basis for determining whether there are rights, benefits and obligations. Once we determine that, then we can determine equality, whether it is same sex, opposite sex or no sex.

Those are my comments. I find the government over the course of time has moved in the right direction, however I still see the bill as being very flawed.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today representing not only the clear majority of the people in Elk Island but also certainly the majority of people across the country.

Why the government would proceed in the way it is doing with this bill is a mystery to me. I have said a number of times that in order for our country to be governed well, we have to maintain the consent of the governed. That is how a democracy works. Increasingly in this place because the government has a slim majority and because of the way our parliament misfunctions, it is able with a small minority of people to jam its view of things down the throats of everyone. That greatly increases the cynicism about government. It greatly increases the lack of respect for this place.

I have received a large number of communications on this bill, as I get on a number of different issues. I stand here to represent what by far the majority of people have said. I do not have the latest count but I think it was about 200 phone calls, faxes and e-mails that we have received. If that is a fair sample at all of the understanding and the desires of the people in my riding and other parts of Canada who communicated with me, it is rather overwhelming.

Of all those communications, I received one that said we should support Bill C-23. That was not from a person in my riding. Lo and behold I got a second one. It looked familiar so I checked and sure enough it was a fax version of the same communication I had received by e-mail from the same person. At this stage one person has communicated to me twice to say it is a matter of urgency, go for it.

Let us contrast that with things that are urgent to Canadian citizens, such as real tax breaks instead of just talking about them as the government does, real changes to the Young Offenders Act instead of just talking about them the way the government does, a real attack on the issue of child pornography instead of the total stated inaction of the government. It boggles the mind. No wonder people are becoming cynical about the federal government. It does not listen and it is time that it did.

We have a record in the House. Over 500,000 people have put their signatures on petitions begging, pleading and cajoling the government to do something about child pornography. What is the government's response? It cannot do anything about it, it just has to go along.

On the other hand when a small special interest group comes along and says it wants to expend millions of Canadian dollars in order to provide undefined benefits to people undefined, the government says it will ram it through parliament. It will make sure its MPs vote in favour of it on penalty of being disciplined if they refuse.

I will provide some history. I have had the privilege of being in this place for over six years. It has been a great privilege but it has also had its frustrations of course. About four years ago, as I recall, we debated exactly the same question. The only difference is that on that occasion it was a private member's bill.

One of the features of private members' bills is that generally they are free vote bills. On those bills members of parliament from all parties look at the issue, get a read from their constituents if it is a controversial item or one that has their interest, and they return to the House of Commons and in true democratic style they vote the way they are told by the people who elected them.

On that occasion because of my interest in the subject, I wrote down the vote results and put them into a computer file. Had I filed them in my regular paper system, I may never have found them but they were in my computer and I was able to do a search. I found the statistics from that particular vote.

It is very illustrative to see how far we have come on this issue in the last four years. One possibility is that we have made this dramatic change in the House and in our individual convictions on this question, or we have been whipped into shape. It is one or the other. I think it is the latter and it is shameful.

These were the numbers in the spring of 1996. There was a private member's bill by the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve on the question of permitting same sex benefits.

Remember that in the previous parliament there were 177 Liberals. There are about 20 fewer now and hopefully there will be at least 20 fewer next time around. I am hoping for 120 fewer. There may even be 150 fewer but whatever it is, this is what happened at that time. Out of 177 Liberal members how many voted in favour of same sex benefits, a bill very similar to the one we have here today? It will shock everyone to know that there were 18 who voted yes. There were 18 out of 177. Very close to 10% voted in favour of it at that time. About 40%, 70 in number, voted against it. That was on the Liberal side.

Equally illustrative is that 89 Liberals did not show up to vote. That also says something. If a person is not willing to stick his chin out and take a stand on an issue, I do not want to use any pejorative terms but I think it shows a weakness of character to simply say, “I am going to sit on the fence on this and I do not want anyone to criticize me for having voted yes or no on it, so I just will not show up”. That is what happened. Eighteen Liberals, 10%.

In the Reform Party at that time 11 members were absent. Again, if I am going to apply the same standard, perhaps some of them were not willing to vote on it. Because most of us are from the west it could also be assumed that a number of them were in travel status on the day of the vote. Almost 80% of Reform members present voted a firm no on that question because we were reading what the Canadian public wanted on this issue.

Of the nine members of the NDP, only two voted yes. That is 22%.

Of the Conservative Party, they were evenly split, all two of them, one on one side and one absent. With all respect the member for Saint John voted against that bill at that time.

How we have slipped. Things that were sort of accepted as not being acceptable are being jammed on us by, very frankly, a minority government. The Liberals had 38% of the vote which gave them a slim majority here in the House. Without any regard for the democratic process they have used closure and time allocation and have prevented Canadians from expressing themselves on it. They have prevented Canadians from having their say on this very important question. That is shameful. It is so sad that the government simply does not believe in representative democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had a half an hour, but you have already signalled that my time is up. That is so regrettable because I would like to talk to many other issues. Perhaps I will get another opportunity when we come to the second group and I will certainly utilize it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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 Davenport, the Environment; the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, Fisheries.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to report stage of Bill C-23. Bill C-23 would give out marriage-like benefits while failing to define marriage in legislation. Bill C-23 would remove any sort of unique public policy recognition of the institution of marriage.

The official opposition has tabled close to 100 amendments to Bill C-23, which would amend 68 pieces of legislation. The Canadian Alliance amendments, if passed, would define the terms “spouse” and “marriage” in each of the statutes affected by Bill C-23. In our amendments the term “spouse” would be defined as either a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage. The term “marriage” would be defined as the lawful union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. Why is that so threatening to some?

The approach by the justice minister in her amendment is an insincere attempt to alleviate widespread concern about Bill C-23 stripping away any unique public policy recognition of the institution of marriage.

After much public outcry and pressure from members of her own party, the minister proposed to add an interpretation clause to Bill C-23, stating that the bill does not affect the meaning of the word marriage. The legal affect of an interpretation clause in an omnibus bill like Bill C-23 is uncertain at best. Here are the facts.

Bill C-23 is an omnibus bill which would amend dozens of statutes. Thus, if the bill is passed, the justice minister's marriage amendment would appear nowhere in the consolidated statutes. It would not be seen by anyone looking at the online version of any of the acts modified by Bill C-23.

The minister is taking the easy way out by using the backdoor approach. Why not affirm the institution of marriage by using the appropriate legislative tool? Furthermore, the minister's amendment only affects the provisions of Bill C-23. Will we have to have an amendment every time the word marriage comes up in legislation in the future? We do not know that yet, but I am pretty sure this is another one that will keep lawyers very busy.

In committee a motion to clarify that the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for the purposes of Canadian law was voted down. The justice department officials said that a charter amendment would be necessary to effectively protect the definition of marriage. I find that rather strange, based on a vote taken in the House, but I will talk about that later.

The justice minister's amendment shows that the Liberals are under intense public pressure on this bill. Regrettably, the minister's interpretation clause of marriage would have little legal weight. In other words, her amendment would not truly protect marriage in legislation. She is just playing the political game.

The approach of the official opposition would be to define the terms “spouse” and “marriage” in each of the statutes amended by Bill C-23. We would be clear and our approach would be meaningful about what these important social policy terms legally mean. If the Liberals vote against these amendments, they are voting against the definition of marriage in federal law.

On June 8, 1999 parliament passed a motion by a vote of 216 to 55 to take all the necessary steps to preserve the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. The result of that vote was pretty definitive. It was not even close.

It is time for the government to act on this directive and show some courage against those who would want to destroy it.

The Liberals are pandering to those who want to devalue marriage as a cornerstone of public policy. Marriage produces real and tangible public policy benefits. Liberal cabinet ministers cannot get their stories straight on who would qualify for benefits as a result of Bill C-23.

The justice minister says that Bill C-23 would not extend benefits and obligations to individuals in other relationships of economic and emotional interdependence like ordinary roommates.

The Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, said that one would not have to have a physical relationship to qualify for benefits under Bill C-23.

Who do we believe? The Minister of Justice who says only opposite or same sex couples involved in a sexual relationship, or the secretary of state who says there does not have to be a sexual aspect to the relationship? All of this is very confusing coming from ministers of the government.

Getting back to the minister's solution to sorting out the mess she created, allow me to read a legal analysis of her amendment as offered by the law firm Stikeman Elliott, which is a very well respected firm in Toronto, especially for its litigation department. It also practises corporate and administrative law. It has practised before the supreme courts of Canada and all over the country, and we should respect what it has to say about this law. It certainly has as much knowledge of what will happen as a result of the bill as any of the lawyers working for the ministry. I quote what that firm had to say about Bill C-23:

In sum, the justice minister's amendment would operate to tell the courts that any of the amendments made by the bill were intended not to affect the meaning of the word marriage. This would only have a practical effect if one of the specific acts already contain the definition of the word marriage in some part of the act not amended by the bill. It would be difficult to see what use courts could make of the interpretive guide offered by the minister's amendment.

Allow me to quote further from the legal opinion:

If parliament intends to state that, as a matter of federal law, marriage is the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, then in my opinion the minister's amendment does not achieve that objective.

That quote comes from Stikeman Elliott, one of the most respected law firms in the country. It stated that in its opinion the minister's amendment does not achieve the objective it is trying to achieve.

The minister's amendment is ambiguous and does not send a clear directive to the courts about the definition of marriage. What does that mean? It means that millions of dollars will be spent over the next number of years with lawyers going to the courts trying to seek a definition.

Why would parliament, when it has the opportunity at report stage, not put forward proper amendments to the bill to make sure that we tell the supreme court and the other courts what the definition of marriage is when it was voted on by an overwhelming majority of members of parliament? But the minister's bill, according to Stikeman Elliott's report, does not achieve that objective.

The same legal opinion offers three methods which would constitute clarity and weight for the courts. The first would be to amend the Marriage Act to include a specific definition of marriage. The second would be to amend the bill to include an enacting section which would provide that, for the purposes of all federal legislation, the word “marriage” would mean the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. That has already been voted on by the House and the government should be taking the directive it was given by a very big majority of members of the House. The third would be to amend the bill to include amendments to each affected act, enacting in each such act a specific definition of the word “marriage”.

Bill C-23 is a very flawed piece of legislation. That has been indicated not only by opposition members of the House, but by members of the government who have spoken against parts of the bill. We have an opportunity at report stage to move amendments which have been recommended by major law firms from across Canada and the government should take them seriously.

The Liberals refuse to be clear on who qualifies for benefits. They refuse to deal with the definition of marriage and they refuse to stand for the family.

There is an opportunity at this stage to vote for amendments which could change that opinion, which is shared by many Canadians and many law firms.

I thank the House for the opportunity to put forward not only my opinions, but those of many legal people from across Canada and those of Canadians concerning the faults of this bill.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-23. My colleagues have expressed many things which are wrong with the bill.

I would like to commend my colleague from Calgary Centre who has worked very hard on the bill, has analyzed the bill, has shown what is wrong with the bill and has put forward amendments. I would like to congratulate the member and his staff for their hard work.

The bill has opened up the debate on two fronts. First, on the definition of marriage and what marriage means, and second, on benefits. What is a benefit? To whom would the benefits apply?

I received a tremendous amount of calls in my office when the bill was introduced. There were close to 50, and not a single one was in support of the bill. All the calls that came in were against the bill.

I find it quite distressing that my colleagues from the NDP have gone out of their way to use words like bigotry to express their point of view, especially the lead speaker for the NDP who used very harsh words in expressing his view of those who oppose his point of view. If I recall correctly, this member trots around the world and stands for minority rights, for other people's right of free debate.

Today we are in the House having this debate, and Canadians have expressed a concern about the bill. They have expressed serious reservations and serious concerns. Instead of the member listening to what other Canadians are saying, the member accuses us and calls us all kinds of names. Perhaps if he listened and came up with some positive solutions we would be further ahead in achieving many of the things which would be of benefit to Canadians.

About three months ago I had a call from a constituent who was living with a same sex partner. We had a very interesting discussion. I must say that it was a very, very civil discussion, with none of the rhetoric that we hear about bigotry or anything like that. I expressed to my constituent my personal view, which is quite simple: that every human being is entitled to dignity. He may have an alternate lifestyle or he may have some other point of view, but he is entitled to dignity and he is entitled to live in Canada with his head held high, without fear of discrimination. I expressed that point of view, that any Canadian must be able to walk on the streets of Canada without fear and without discrimination. That is what we should be aiming for. One of the ways to do that is through education. We have come a long way in that respect.

I had the privilege of talking to my colleagues in the Bloc. I actually travelled with my colleagues in the Bloc. We have a fantastic relationship as friends and I respect them. But when it comes to a question that is fundamental in society, then we differ. All the reasoning and all the name calling that is directed at us does not go a long way in addressing this issue.

To get back to Bill C-23, let us talk about benefits. The bill is absolutely flawed. The bill gives benefits based on sexual preference. It leaves out many other issues on dependency which should have been included. I would like to know why these issues were left out.

I read the statement which the justice minister gave at committee on February 29, 2000, that the issue of dependency is a separate issue. Then she said the same sex benefit also affected a bigger issue which, perhaps from her point of view, was trying to define marriage. The second problem originates with the definition of marriage.

In June we in parliament defined marriage as a union between a single man and a single woman. Parliament made quite clear the definition of marriage. In listening to the speech of my colleague from the NDP he talked about the benefit issue and marriage. He is looking at the bill as parliament sanctioning marriage, which is a concern of many Canadians.

Canadians view marriage as a union between a single man and a single woman. That is the view of society. There are many reasons that society views it in this way. I do not think I need to go into them. They have been debated very well. When it comes to whether it means we will look down on those who choose an alternate lifestyle, it is an individual choice. I personally do not look down. It is a choice that someone has made but it is not my choice.

I do have a problem when this choice is forced through other means. In Surrey, B.C., the school board is talking about teaching this to children. Some of us will have objections to that. Why not? In the same way as he has his point of view, I have my point of view. Perhaps he should understand that he should recognize my point of view as well, instead of screaming over there that we are bigots and whatnot. It is a point of view. It is a public school and as we can see from the Surrey debate parents are apprehensive about it. Religious groups are apprehensive about it. That is acceptable in society.

The debatable question is about marriage. As I said, in listening to my colleagues who support the bill, they are moving away from benefits into the issue of marriage. That is a major concern. My colleague introduced an amendment to ensure that the views of Canadians regarding the issue of marriage were addressed in all 68 statutes.

The justice minister has made an amendment. In all the 50 calls that I received I told them that if they wanted to be effective they should phone the justice minister. I bet that calls were made to the justice minister and hence she ran to the drawing board and came back with something haphazard by including the definition of marriage. If she is willing to go back one step, what is wrong? Why can she not put that definition in all the statutes so that it is very clear to the courts every time they look at the definition of marriage.

The bill is asking in all 68 statutes that same sex be included. Our main point is that the definition of marriage be recognized as my colleagues have stated and as was indicated quite clearly in an independent legal opinion which I should like to repeat:

By contrast, if the Bill was amended to enact a definition of marriage for each of the particular acts referred to in the Bill, then Parliament would be giving a clear indication of its intention to the courts and to the public at large.

This was done by the motion in June of last year.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I last had an opportunity to speak to the bill on February 21. In the period of time since then and considering the momentous number of things the bill would change, the lack of interest by the national news media in this debate, particularly in getting the information out to the Canadian public so that it might be made aware of the implications, has been interesting.

I believe that any society in the world is no stronger than its smallest unit. Unfortunately legislation that we pass in the House frequently chips away at the ability of Canadians to organize themselves in any way to enhance their family unit, which is the smallest unit in society.

The Liberal government introduced legislation called the same sex omnibus bill. It will grant a same sex couple virtually all the benefits and responsibilities of common law couples.

Bill C-23, an act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations, would amend 68 federal laws affecting key departments and agencies. The bill creates a new term called common law partner, defined as a person cohabiting with another person of either sex in a relationship for a year. Probably the most serious single oversight of the Liberals is that they chose not to define the word conjugal. The common definition of a word may or may not become the legal definition. Lack of definition in this legislation requires the judges to make law. Conjugal will likely mean intimate sexual activity.

The government wants us to believe that the bill merely gives same sex couples the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples. As I mentioned at the outset, unfortunately the mainstream news media are basically ignoring the entire issue being debated not only today but for the time it has been before the House of Commons.

I think the word news is made up of the word new in that they want to have something new. I would therefore draw to their attention what my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance have been reading and reading and reading all day long.

It is the opinion of Mr. David M. Brown, a partner in Stikeman Elliott's civil litigation department in Toronto. He practises commercial and corporate litigation and administrative law. Mr. Brown is a sessional lecturer at the Faculty of Law at Queen's University where he has taught trial advocacy since 1989. He was a seminar leader for the civil procedure section of the Ontario bar admissions course.

Mr. Brown has appeared at all levels of court in Ontario and Manitoba, as well as frequently before the Supreme Court of Canada. Major constitutional briefs have included being counsel for interveners before the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada in Rosenberg in 1998 and M v H in 1999.

This person's opinion has some very distinct weight in the context of the minister coming to the justice committee and saying “We are going to define marriage and this is how we are going to do it”.

The Minister of Justice is also a distinguished lawyer. I believe she has taught law at least at one university in Canada. Therefore it is hard for me to understand how she could have missed the obvious item that Mr. Brown has pointed out:

If Parliament intends to state that, as a matter of federal law, “marriage” is the “lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others,” then in my opinion the Minister's amendment does not achieve that objective. As previously stated, the Minister's amendment is not an enacting section—it will not bring into force any legally binding definition of “marriage”. By contrast, if the Bill was amended to enact a definition of marriage for each of the particular acts referred to in the Bill, then Parliament would be giving a clear indication of its intention to the courts and to the public at large.

I mention again that it is a responsibility in a democracy for us to have freedom of the press, but it too has a responsibility to bring to the people of Canada these facts and these words. It is the opinion of this respected scholar that the justice minister, either in haste or perhaps in ignorance, clearly missed the boat by not putting this definition into the enacting part of the legislation. I would not dare suggest any other motivation on the part of the minister.

We have spoken all day long about the fact that this is an attack on marriage. Although it was unlikely intended that is exactly what the bill is. Its consequences will abolish marriage as a specific relationship under federal law.

The purpose of the bill is to open up the unique rights and privileges of heterosexual married couples to those cohabiting in a conjugal relationship. This is very troublesome. To acquire proof of conjugal or sexual relationships between individuals would necessitate a gross intrusion into the bedrooms of Canada. When Pierre Trudeau was prime minister he said the nation had no place in the bedrooms of Canada. Yet the same Liberal Party is now stating that benefits will be available on the basis of sexual intimacy.

Considering that Revenue Canada insists on snooping into every conceivable part of our lives, even to the point of spying on Canadians to establish criminal activity when reporting income tax exemptions and expenses, it is absurd to extend benefits under the Income Tax Act on the basis of private personal activity that cannot and must not be monitored. I make this point very clearly.

There is confusion between the Minister of Justice and the junior minister from Vancouver Centre. There will be court intrusion. Let me state again to single parents that going into the 21st century we recognize there are many single parent families, sometimes based on choice and sometimes based on uncontrolled events. This is why Canadian society has correctly decided, along with the rest of the world's nations, to extend special benefits to people with relationships similar to the heterosexual traditional family unit. Those benefits are extended to single parents, along with family units related by blood, marriage and adoption.

Here is something that is very troublesome. The fact that the government intentionally chose not to include a definition of the word conjugal turns that definition over to the courts. We have seen in at least a half a dozen cases in the last four or five years where the supreme court has intruded into where parliament wanted to go with particular law. I think of the Feeney case in British Columbia. Basically it excluded all sorts of evidence that was taken when a person was in flight from the police having just committed an absolutely terrible murder. He bludgeoned a person to death.

In the so-called Feeney case the supreme court said that all that evidence must be excluded because there was no warrant to walk into the person's house who had just fled the scene of the crime. The House of Commons, therefore, had to deal with this intrusion, and I call it an intrusion, by the supreme court clearly defining where the police can and cannot go. In fact the enforcement powers in Canada have had their ability to move forward and take enforcement actions seriously hampered by the supreme court.

I cite that as one example of the fact that we in parliament have a responsibility to the people of Canada who elected us to come forward with correct, clear and concise legislation. When the government turns around and will not define the word conjugal, it invites the supreme court and any other court to define that word. In other words it invites the courts to make laws that the Liberals do not have the intestinal fortitude to bring forward. When that sees piled on top of it this situation where the justice minister has come forward with an amendment that appears to be doing what Canadians want but in fact will not, is a serious problem in terms of this legislation.

This legislation in my judgment is not at all reflective of the values of people in Canadian society.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, for many of us in Canada this is a very difficult issue. As I came to the House this afternoon I had to put down a few of my thoughts on it. I want to refer to some very difficult situations which we as Canadians have to face.

We all recognize that with the supreme court decision, we as a government are literally being told that people who are involved in sexual relationships of the same gender should be acknowledged in terms of the benefits that might be available to them as citizens of the country. I personally feel we are offering a special status to certain groups in our society. It is a status which is outside marriage and one which is based, as the amendments would say, on conjugal relationships that are not of a traditional nature.

Nearly every religion I have studied has had a great respect for marriage. If we go back to our Biblical stories which deal with Adam and Eve, Eve came as part of a man and was made his helpmate. The two of them developed according to Christian ideas and Christian teachings a world civilization on which we as a Canadian nation have based our general philosophy. We have seen throughout Biblical teaching various aspects of different sexual relationships. In fact after the great flood in the story of Noah, there were sexual activities that were condemned by the general society in which Noah lived.

The response I have had from across New Brunswick and especially in the Miramichi, is that a great number of people are concerned about how marriage might be interpreted if we as a government accept the new standards in which people have special rights in terms of their sexual relationships. In regard to my own community, I have had e-mails, letters and phone calls and they run about 99% showing great concern about what the government is doing.

We have to realize that in terms of relationships and dependency, there are a great number of different aspects by which people are dependent upon one another. I can think of situations in my own community where two brothers or two sisters live together, or where a brother and sister have shared a household. When I look at those relationships and I consider the bill before us which amends various acts, it gives me a great deal of concern.

I have to be concerned in that the definition we write today which will be in the preamble will not really apply to all of the different acts which we are attempting to amend. I would certainly want to ensure that if we are going to write marriage into the general amendments of the various acts, we should put the same definition into all aspects of the acts that are affected by these changes.

We as Canadians have always been tolerant of all forms of relationships, but the basic concept of marriage and the family values that this country needs to develop are very important. All of us have friends and people we know who are involved in different types of relationships. But in terms of the bill which we are looking to amend various parts of the different benefits and relationships that we might have under the law, we certainly should not base it upon sex.

In the marriage vows that many of us have taken, there is no definite aspect which says that we have to be involved in a sexual relationship. Yet with these changes, we are saying that people who are involved in conjugal relationships are the only ones who will receive benefits of the various plans that our government has available.

I want to go on the record as representing my community which has great concerns with this bill. It is my suggestion that this bill should be set aside until the government can put before the House a definite concept of what other relationships might cost.

We must not in any way discriminate against other family groups who are not sexually involved but who represent a great tradition of this country. I hope all of us as parliamentarians can look at this and hopefully table this legislation until such time as we fully study the costs and benefits of all types of loving relationships that exist in the country.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Before resuming debate I want to come to the points of order raised earlier today concerning the admissibility of Motions Nos. 3 and 4 on the notice paper which were selected for debate at report stage of Bill C-23, an act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations.

Motion No. 3 in the name of the member for Burnaby—Douglas is identical to the text of a subamendment moved in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights during a meeting on March 23, 2000 and defeated in a recorded division. Motion No. 4 in the name of the member for Elk Island is similar to another motion moved in that committee. Under normal circumstances such motions would not be selected for consideration at report stage. I have looked carefully at the two motions and after appropriate consideration, I am convinced that they do fulfil the requirements to be selected in that they have such exceptional significance as to warrant a further consideration at report stage.

Accordingly, both motions remain selected for debate and voting purposes in Group No. 1.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure I suppose to speak to Bill C-23, the modernization of benefits and obligations act.

I am opposed to this not only like my colleague on the Liberal side who spoke just a moment ago, because I think there are major flaws in the legislation, but I am also opposed to it because many people in my constituency of Langley—Abbotsford have expressed their absolute opposition to such a bill. Not only have they expressed their opposition but they have asked me why this omnibus bill is going through the House of Commons already when practically nobody has heard much about it in terms of talking to the people of the land.

I know for a fact having been in the House for almost seven years, that omnibus bills are creatures of confusion. We have seen many omnibus bills go through the House. I can recall one which was a justice bill. It took us literally months to figure out what was in the darned thing before we could even make decisions on it.

Now that we have looked at Bill C-23 we see major flaws with which the government will not deal. Unfortunately it will deal with them by leaving it up to the courts of the land.

I do not want to get into a large discussion about my confidence in letting the courts of the land deal with legislation or we would be here for a long time. I do not think legislation on issues such as these, benefits under the Income Tax Act or the Pensions Act, should be decided upon by the legal industry. That is where we continually go wrong. We develop an omnibus bill, make it law and throw it to the courts when it does not fit. We are already telling the government it does not fit and members of the government are saying it is flawed.

Why on earth the government wants to continue to push this I could say is beyond me, but it is not. It is typical. Lo and behold, once the government gets it through the Senate and royal assent, people will be asking a lot of questions. They will be saying “Gee, I did not know it was going to affect me this way”.

That is what is wrong here. We are trying to head this off already and the government is saying, “It is going through anyway on time allocation. Cut your speeches short. You have only got 10 minutes, no questions. Let it go”.

I want to address some of the things that concern me. I know it has been mentioned but I am going to change my approach a little.

I had the occasion not too long ago to talk to four young fellows. I knew them all. They were sitting around and I asked them about Bill C-23. First of all they did not know much about it. They said, “On this conjugal relations stuff, you can say whatever you want about it, but if the benefit befits us, if it is good for us, we will say whatever it takes. We will do it”.

That may sound a little funny but the reality out there is that when someone wants to take advantage of a piece of legislation, within the parameters of law they will do so. They will do so regardless of what we call their relationship. They will just say, “Yes, that fits me and this person and that is what we are going to do”.

The government should know that just by defining things based on a conjugal relationship which is undefined, many people frankly will use that terminology and say, “Yes, that befits me, so where is my benefit?” That is what many people are trying to say. We just cannot rewrite society's rules to fit a piece of legislation.

Bill C-23 introduces the term “common law partner” which is defined as a person cohabitating with another person in a conjugal relationship for a year. For pension benefits Bill C-23 uses the term “survivor” instead of words like “spouse”.

The government refuses to define conjugal relationship, so again who actually qualifies under that terminology is going to be left to the courts, if we can imagine that. It will not just be one court case that is going to cost someone a lot of money. It will be case after case after case.

I have been in enough court cases in the land; I am not a lawyer but I have been through them. What happens in the court situations is that decisions by the judiciary will tend to go for the lowest common result. Once it is established that a conjugal relationship exists in one decision, someone else will come in and say if it fits there, it should fit for them and it will go to that level. The next person will say, “Conjugal relationship, yes, under the Income Tax Act that is me”. They will go to the next level and on and on it will go.

This is an expensive, undefined category. It should not be in legislation unless it is clearly understood, clearly defined and clearly agreed to by the majority of Canadians. It is as simple as that. I have heard my colleagues say this for months now. But there is still a majority situation in the House of Commons where a government with a slim majority says, “We stand here and tell our people how to vote and that is the way it is going to be. All of you people who do not like this, that is just too darn bad”.

The justice minister indicated that only those engaged in a sexual relationship would qualify under the bill. However this was not so clear from testimony before the justice committee. As a result there is much uncertainty about what conjugal means. How on earth did we ever get to defining what benefits are allowable to individuals under any act based on sexual activity? Where are we coming from?

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

And where are we going?

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

“And where are we going,” as my colleague has said.

It is good to see that we have resolved all the problems in this nation and now we are ready to create some new ones. That is the way this group is thinking. This kind of convoluted thinking, that benefits should be entrusted or entitled to an individual based on a sexual relationship, could only make sense to politicians because it does not make sense to anybody else. I should clarify for these fellows over here that it is not all politicians and not everybody on the government side who agree with this.

Common law partners are not required to register anywhere in order to claim benefits, nor are there provisions for information sharing between departments. Thus, couples could apply for conjugal benefits under one piece of legislation while maintaining that they were simply roommates or friends for another piece of legislation, which might impose some obligations.

I will go back to my four young friends who could say “Yes, this is conjugal if there are benefits here for us”, but if it were another piece of legislation, they could say “No, we are just roommates. There is no sex here”.

I defy anybody from the other side to stand up and say that this legislation is good, that it will stand the test of time, that it is defined, that it will not cause much confusion and that it will not cost a lot of money. If members do stand up they will only do it because they were told to do it. What members on the other side need to do is to stand up and say “We have to look at this further. It is flawed and has serious problems. I do so because the people of my riding expect that of me”. That is what we expect of them.

This legislation is flawed and it must be defeated. I ask members on the other side to thoroughly consider this advice and do what is good for the country, not what is good for their party.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I, like my previous colleague, am also quite confused as to where we are going when we spend hours in the House of Commons debating this type of bill.

I have been waiting since 1997, since the present Minister of Justice became the minister, for legislation to come forward that would have some meat in it and some valuable answers to the serious problems that we have in the country regarding crime.

When I look across the land, I see the number of victims we have to deal with. I see the number of young people who are suffering at the hands of other young offenders. I see the amount of drugs that are flowing on our streets and in our cities. We have young children on our streets serving as prostitutes. I see the difficulties we are facing with regard to gangs that are building strength across the country. I see the problems in our prisons. I see the absolute turmoil we are facing when it comes to criminals, the law and the protection of society. However, I have yet to see any legislation from the Department of Justice that would solve the problems that many people see as serious problems in the country.

Instead, we are debating a bill that was brought forward by justice minister, which, I can assure members, at least 95% of the people absolutely object to. They absolutely object to this kind of work. It is totally disgraceful that anyone would bring forward legislation of this nature without first going across the country and talking to Canadians. It is high time we, as the Government of Canada, began to recognize that out there in our beautiful land live people. These people make up our society and they should be the ones to determine what kind of society we want to live in. It is time for consultation of that nature.

Instead, we throw out a piece of legislation that is so poorly defined and so poorly written that it will taken dozens and dozens of court cases in the future, based on these kinds of things, to settle. The courts will be very busy, our lawyers will fill their pockets and the taxpayers will cough up more of their hard earned money to try to get some answers from the courts, which will decide what kind of country we live in. The taxpayers will have no opportunity whatsoever to have a say. There has been no consultation with society. It is time the people were allowed to lay out the kind of society they want to live in in this land. The government has failed to do that on every count.

I am pleased to see the Indian affairs minister here today. I am waiting and wondering when the day will come when we can begin legislative work that will help put an end to the massive suicides by poverty stricken people on reserves across our country. It goes on and on year after year. People do not want to live in that kind of society.

Why are we not spending our time bringing forward legislation to deal with the real problems facing real people in the real Canada? These kinds of problems are being created through an initiative of trying to bring popularity to whatever it is that the government stands for. Lord only knows what the Liberals stand for any more. I do not know. They talk a good talk but they never walk the talk.

I am waiting for solid legislation from the justice department to deal with crime and make our streets and communities safer. Instead, I look at a piece of flawed legislation and I have not the vaguest idea what it will mean in the future. Personally, what it could mean frightens me. That has to end.

As one of the speakers said earlier, it is time that the people on that side of the House got the intestinal fortitude to stand up for the people they represent, the people who sent them to this House, instead of standing in their place and voting for a piece of legislation because they have to. Government policy will not stand for them objecting to a piece of legislation coming from that side of the House.

I admire those who have the courage to speak up for families, to speak up for marriage, to speak up for what they feel is right and to bring forth the views of the people they represent, the 110,000 people or more in their ridings.

Instead, here we are spending hours debating a piece of legislation that we know the Liberals will ramrod through, because that is how they operate. There will be no free vote. There will be no consultation with the public. The Liberals will do as they are told, as usual. The mighty powers of Ottawa have spoken. Sheep should rise and vote the way they are supposed to. Never mind what the people say in the ridings. Never mind what the people across the country say about the kind of society they want to live in. Members opposite write it and then they send it to the courts and let the courts make the law.

Personally, I can assure the House that the people of Wild Rose are absolutely sick and tired of these unelected judges across our land making the laws for our land. They want it to end and so do I. It will take courage. It will take some initiative over there. Never mind the elites of our wonderful country. We are tired of the elites. What about the people? What about the guys who pack their lunch and go to work every day to try to make enough money to keep sending here so we can do our work? We are not accomplishing anything except creating more and more problems because we do not have the courage to define what we mean by conjugal or define what we mean by marriage in all the laws of our land. Instead, we put forth an omnibus bill like this and we all wonder where we are at.

This government ought to be ashamed of itself for its lack of initiative to solve the problems facing our country. The sooner we get rid of people like that the better off this nation will be. I will be here to cluck.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to enter into the debate. I am pleased to see that some people are having a moment of enjoyment. However, if people across the country had ever been given the time to really study this bill, like the old poem, there would be no joy in Mudville, there would be no joy in Canada from coast to coast, from the rural areas to the cities. If Canadians ever found out what this bill will do to the sacred institution of marriage that has been preserved in history the bill would be soundly and totally rejected.

I know I have been called a bigot for believing in this. I have been called worse names. I am not one who hates. I was brought up not to hate. I may see a drunk tumbling from the bar at midnight but the only thing I hate about that is what may happen to his children at home and eventually to him. I hate what he is doing but I certainly do not hate.

I know members would like to see me here next week but if I went home to my constituency and gave any indication whatsoever that I would be supporting this bill, I probably would not make it back. If somebody wants to give 98%, I will top that. Canadians are, thanks to their members, totally irate about this sneaked in legislation.

I met with some lawyers last Saturday night and asked them what they thought of this. They said that beyond a doubt it was the loosest piece of legislation that could ever possibly be made. It is not so much about what is not in the bill but about the people who are not protected in the bill.

Let us take a look at my own family. My wife's oldest sister stayed home and looked after her parents. She never married. She does not qualify for any benefits according to this bill. I have a niece with four children whose husband left her almost three years ago. According to this bill, if he was killed in an accident or where he works, his wife and family would not be the beneficiaries.

This government hates marriage. Let me give members an example of what happened in a city in my riding. An accident took the lives of six men just like that. In other words, six widows are made just like that. This bill was never once discussed with the provinces across Canada with regard to the workmen's compensation legislation that every province has. These widows then became beneficiaries of workmen's compensation for the rest of their lives. When three of them re-married, they were cut off from those benefits. The other three just lived with a partner.

There are so many things about this bill that will drive Canadians crazy unless they have an opportunity to take a look at it. I doubt if the justice department of any province was consulted on this bill. If we can talk about 68 federal acts, what about all the provincial acts? There will be that many provincial acts.

So far on social issues, the pornography issue has been the greatest. People have been phoning, writing, faxing, and so on. Guess what is coming second and may overtake it? This bill, Bill C-23. It will overtake it because Canadians are gradually getting to know what this bill is about. A word is placed in a bill and on the side of the bill there is no definition. We see the word conjugal with no definition. We see the word spouse and it can mean almost anything.

The government ought to be ashamed of itself by putting a time restraint on the passage of this bill. I do not know where its constituents are. Are my constituents different from the rest? Not on your life. They may be more intelligent, and they know what is going on with this bill.

I was very pleased on the first free vote that there were enough members opposite who had enough intestinal fortitude to stand and be counted. Let us hope that before this night ends and before this bill comes to the last and final reading that the government has enough courage to say “We had better put a month into this. Let us get the information out. Let us get the judicial people into each of the provinces. Let us throw it out so that people can really examine this bill”.

Has it got the courage to do that? Let us wait and see.

The pornography case has gone to the two lower courts and has been upheld. The question now is, what would happen if the judgment by the supreme court were in compliance with the two lower courts? What would the government do then?

The bill could not be rewritten because it would be too clear to rewrite. Would it have the courage to use the notwithstanding clause for the protection of Canadian children?

I ask that question and I ask one favour. Would the government consider allowing a time period of one month to put this bill out before the public, not just the parts the government wants, but the whole bill, and then bring it back to the House? That would be fair for democracy, it would be fair for society and it would give some credibility to this institution.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on a few of the points raised in the debate this afternoon: first, the question of the meaning of the word conjugal in the legislation; second, the amendment to include the meaning of marriage in the interpretive clause; and third, comments made by members across the way, in particular one to the effect that only married couples, not even common law opposite sex couples, should receive benefits under this legislation.

With respect to the definition of conjugal, I would like to read from a brief presented by the Canadian Bar Association to the committee. At page 6 of the brief it reads:

Concerns have been expressed on two fronts with respect to the use of the word “conjugal”. First, there is a concern that benefits are being based solely on sexual activity. We note, however, that this terminology is not new in the law. Most legislation currently defines heterosexual common-law spouses in terms of whether there is a “conjugal” relationship. We would also suggest that a “conjugal” relationship has been defined by the courts to include more than just sexual activity. Second, some have questioned why benefits are not being granted to those cohabiting in non-sexual, familial relationships. However, this Bill is principally intended to remedy the government's failure to extend rights and obligations to gay and lesbian couples living in conjugal relationships when it extended such rights and obligations to heterosexual couples living in similar relationships.

Governments may wish to discuss extending rights and benefits to non-sexual relationships, but that is an entirely different question. The CBA has no position on whether benefits should be extended in this manner. However, it does believe that this Bill should pass now, with consideration being given to extended family relationships after thorough consultations on the public policy implications.

That is exactly what is happening. The minister has referred the question of extending benefits to persons who are in positions of dependency to committee. The government intends to pursue that matter as suggested in the brief of the Canadian Bar Association, after holding consultations on the full public policy implications.

Much has been made about the definition of conjugal, but as the brief from the Canadian Bar Association sets out, this has been used in the heterosexual context for quite some time and is a system that has been functioning without any undue hardship, so it is difficult to understand why it should be such an issue in the context of Bill C-23.

The second point I wish to speak to deals with the government's amendment to include in the interpretive clause the meaning of marriage.

I understand that some members opposite have made reference to a legal opinion obtained from Mr. David M. Brown, who is a partner in Stikeman Elliott's civil litigation department in Toronto, who practises commercial and corporate litigation and administrative law. In that opinion Mr. Brown indicated that if parliament, by introducing this amendment, was trying to make marriage, as a matter of federal law, the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, this amendment would not do that. I submit that was never the intent of the amendment.

At the outset, in tabling the bill, the Minister of Justice made it quite clear that Bill C-23 would have no impact and no effect upon marriage. That was the government's position and that remains the government's position. This amendment has been added for greater clarity in the interpretation clause because the issue was raised by the opposition, by others and by witnesses at committee who felt that Bill C-23 would somehow affect marriage.

Bill C-23 would not affect marriage, and that was not its intent. Bill C-23 also would not affect the five principles of the Canada Health Act. However, there is no amendment in the interpretation clause to say that Bill C-23 would not affect the five principles of the Canada Health Act because no one at committee, in the House or elsewhere has alleged that it would. An amendment is being inserted by the government in the interpretive clause of Bill C-23 to the effect that it would not affect marriage because of the allegations made by some that it would.

It is obvious that the common law case law has provided the meaning of marriage. That case law remains in place, so the state of the law has not changed. It never was the intention of the government in introducing Bill C-23 to change it.

The third point I wish to raise deals with comments made by members opposite that federal laws should only recognize married couples, as they would support committed relationships that would be the best to raise children. In other words, common law couples of the opposite sex with children should not receive these benefits. The obvious difficulty with that proposition is that by extending benefits to married couples only would effectively reintroduce the concept of illegitimacy which Bill C-23 removes from our law.

The Government of Canada continues to emphasize the importance of families and the importance of supporting families, most recently in the last Speech from the Throne. The government wishes to aid all families with children—married couples, common law couples and lone parents—so that the children will not be discriminated against. That is what we should bear in mind, the well-being of the children.

To suggest that children who are being raised by lone parents or by common law parents be ignored and that benefits be given to married couples only risks disadvantaging some children. This would be as if the government were reintroducing the notion of illegitimacy, recognizing only legitimate children.

The second point would be that if obligations in Bill C-23 and other federal statutes were limited only to married couples, this might open the government to accusations that the law actually discriminates against married couples. In fact the Income Tax Act was amended to include common law opposite sex couples, not because common law couples asked for that change but because married couples complained that they were paying more taxes than their common law equivalents.

One example would be that it would make sense for the government to continue to apply the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to married couples only, as is currently the case. The effect of Bill C-23 would be that the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act would apply to all couples, common law opposite sex couples and common law same sex couples, in addition to married couples.

At the present time any transfers of property just before someone files for bankruptcy are reviewed to see if they were intended to defraud creditors where someone was married, but not where they were in a common law relationship. Bill C-23 would have the effect of bringing equity to all of those relationships.

It is important to bear in mind that indeed the purpose of Bill C-23 is to apply equity to all relationships, whether they are same sex common law, opposite sex common law or married couples.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the member brought forth some very interesting things which are of great importance, I wonder whether we could have unanimous consent for five minutes to ask questions and make comments.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent for five minutes of questions and comments?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.