Madam Speaker, we have before us today Bill C-23. Sociologists and others who are expert in societal ethics, such as the Canadian religious and academic community and those who have achieved national prominence through their defence of the institution of the family, are all concerned about the basic societal significance of this bill. The gay and lesbian political groups are happy. However, it has become clear to me from the constituents who have contacted me that this bill does not have much legitimacy in my community.
The government members claim that their hands are tied by the courts and that they are just doing the housekeeping in law that is necessary to accommodate what the supreme court has already decided. Nevertheless, the point is that it must be parliament that makes Canadian law and the courts should interpret, not the other way around. The court was wrong to read that in at section 15(2) of the charter.
The bill is summarized as follows on the second page of the bill:
A number of federal Acts provide for benefits or obligations that depend on a person's relationship to another individual, including their husband or wife and other family members. Most of those Acts currently provide that the benefits or obligations in relation to a husband or wife also apply in relation to unmarried opposite-sex couples who have been cohabiting in a conjugal relationship for at least one year. Some of those Acts provide for benefits or obligations in relation to certain family members of a person's husband, wife or opposite-sex common-law partner.
This enactment extends benefits and obligations to all couples who have been cohabiting in a conjugal relationship for at least one year, in order to reflect values of tolerance, respect and equality, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There was a last minute insertion in the bill at the beginning that will not appear in the text of the 68 statutes that the bill amends. In that section it says:
l.l For greater certainty, the amendments made by this Act do not affect the meaning of the word “marriage”, that is, the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
The bill then goes on to insert the new definition of common law into 68 statutes, which reads as follows:
“common-law partnership” means the relationship between two persons who are cohabiting in a conjugal relationship, having so cohabited for a period of at least one year;
We must then understand what conjugal means, and that will be for the courts to interpret in the future. My understanding can be deduced from several sources, such as Black's Law Dictionary , which says:
“conjugal” of or belonging to marriage or the married state; suitable or appropriate to the married state or to married persons; matrimonial; connubial.
There is also the definition in Black's dictionary of the word “consortium”. It says:
Conjugal fellowship of husband and wife, and the right of each to the company, society, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation. Damages for loss of consortium are commonly sought in wrongful death actions, or when a spouse has been seriously injured through negligence of another, or by a spouse against third person alleging that he or she has caused breaking-up of marriage.
What we have are financial benefits and federal social programs based on what people will claim about their undocumented, private sexual behavioural associations, rather than on family dependency, economics and the legal and perhaps even religious contract of marriage.
I refer to another reference book that is on the clerk's table before me here in the Chamber. It is called the Bible, translated into English and published in 1611 at the request of King James. It is foundational to all our law, and I note in Corinthians I 10:23, in relation to what is acceptable to partake of, it outlines a principle which may apply to the bill. It reads: “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not”. To put it another way, the new international version says “Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial: everything is permissible, but not everything is constructive”. Moreover, I paraphrase by saying that courses in life might be possible but are not recommended.
Despite denials during the last parliament and during the last election, the Liberals have indeed steadily moved to enhance the complete social condonation of the gay-lesbian lifestyle. Instead of clearly outlining that particular political agenda in their platform policy and seeking a political mandate for such aims, they have been less than honest with Canadians and have brought it to the country by stealth, which they have often denied they were doing. It seems now they no longer make any pretence about their longstanding political agenda, despite the past denials. Consequently, there was no basic political consent in this country to do this.
The bill is very prescriptive in nature, telling average Canadians what is good for them, and it strikes at the heart of what family has meant to Canadians.
Canadians need to wake up and read the label on the bottle of what is being prescribed as medicine for the country. The elites make astounding prescriptions, such as the Law Commission of Canada when it pronounces, revealing its low regard for average Canadians' opinions and the democratic will to be expressed in the House of Commons. They said at the justice committee:
However much we are committed...to undertaking the broader inquiry, we also believe that legislation like Bill C-23 merits enactment today. However much we believe in the need for Parliament ultimately to strive for its legislative “best”, we also believe that there are times (and this is one of them) when it should proceed to enact what is, constitutionally, a legislative “good”.
This new, Liberal government created and staffed law commission arrogantly pronounced on our democracy and the worth of the House with that statement, and it is appalling. It is like the condescension to Canadians evidenced by the Nisga'a bill, or what the government did to Canadian human rights at the University of British Columbia when our nation hosted some oppressive foreign dictators. It is more of “we know best what is good for you, and by the way, do not think for yourself to disagree”.
We need to build community consensus on these things. Parties need to declare during elections these kinds of matters and seek mandates. If they will not, certainly it is only the Canadian Alliance that would change the system and put the power into the hands of citizens to give them the ability to seek community support and drive the public agenda through a local initiatives law process.
Basic issues can be settled in line with what Canadians really want, not by fighting politicians or receiving Liberal style condescending coercion. Rather, the social concepts must submit to the Canadian marketplace of ideas where neighbour can convince neighbour in discussion, knowing in advance that their discussion has real power, and where the disciplines and moderating limits of democracy and the ballot box can more fully work.
No one should be discriminated against in basic human rights. However, we discriminate all the time when we define limits of access to programs and benefits, such as the age discrimination against me to receive the old age pension. I am too young.
There has been a deliberate confusion between rights and benefits. People desire to eliminate real discrimination when they find it, but they can be socially conservative and traditionalist in their outlook and yet not be socially intolerant or discriminatory.
Traditional marriage is seen as very special, if not sacred, by all major religions of the world, and the bill is seen as demeaning those ideals. Yet Canadians want to be fair, non-discriminatory and certainly not mean-spirited.
I will be voting against the bill because I do not believe it is supported by most of my community, and they cannot be labelled as prejudiced when they make that decision.
On June 8, 1999 parliament passed a motion to take all necessary steps to preserve the definition of marriage as the union of one man and woman to exclusion of all others. It is time for the government to act on this directive and clearly and effectively define marriage in legislation. It is unfortunate that the Liberals chose to disregard the recognition of the institution of marriage in legislation.
Common law status will now have wide interpretation. Formerly in law the standard has been at least two or three years of living as if married. The change to one year will have unforeseen social effects. One disadvantage of the definition of common law partner is that its very flexibility gives rise to uncertainties in its application, uncertainties that may require intrusive inquiries into the intimate details of people's lives for their resolution.
This bill may soon become known as the end of marriage act. An interpretation clause of marriage in an omnibus bill will likely have little future legal weight. Therefore, this amendment does not truly preserve the traditional concept of marriage in legislation. If the government were serious, it would attach the definition to all statutes whenever it adds the new definition of common law.
However, I doubt they are sincere, for this amendment is a political move by the Liberals to try to deflect legitimate concerns about marriage being made meaningless in public policy. The public is presently not accepting outright gay-lesbian marriage, but we are getting there by stealth. Maybe the public will want it someday, but whatever happens, it must be democratically legitimate, not proscribed.
The bill has many internal flaws and it does not have the support of my community. Consequently, Canadians will have to defeat this government so that we can fix this bill, like so many other measures the Liberals have propounded, for they do not reflect basic Canadian character and mainstream values.