Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Burnaby--Douglas for his initiative in presenting his bill to allow marriage between persons of the same sex.
In my opinion, it is high time we put an end to this anomaly, this discrimination which spoils the reputation of Canada and that of Quebec by expressing our collective will to fight against discriminations of all sorts.
According to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms already recognizes the equality of gays and lesbians. Therefore, how can we explain that the legislator refuses to grant same sex couples the right to marry legally? We are talking here about civil weddings of course, and I think the member explained that quite clearly in his presentation.
Last year, passage of Bill C-23 repealed almost all explicit references to the gender of partners in federal statutes. As far as we know, there are only four acts left where partners in a couple are specifically defined as heterosexual: the Divorce Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Criminal Code and the Canada Shipping Act.
What the member is asking for would require very little effort on the part of the legislators. A few amendments would suffice to put an end to this incredible discrimination.
I listened to representatives of the Liberal Party and the Canadian Alliance mention various legislative objections to passing this bill. I do not think that is what is at issue.
If a certain number of amendments to legislation must be made in order to meet the bill's objectives, we will make them but I think the crux of the matter is whether or not Canadian parliamentarians are prepared to remove this obstacle, this discrimination, in order to allow same sex couples to be married in a civil ceremony.
In my opinion, the legal arguments should naturally be consistent with our vision of respect for the freedoms and equality of all citizens of Canada and Quebec.
What is really at issue here is our concept of citizenship. Is every member of society, regardless of religion, political beliefs, sex or sexual orientation entitled to the same treatment, rights and obligations? This is where we must respond in the affirmative by making civil marriage open to same sex couples.
I am referring here to a dissenting opinion by Justice L'Heureux-Dubé, who said in a ruling concerning a civil marriage case:
Given the marginalized position of homosexuals in society, the metamessage that flows almost inevitably from excluding same-sex couples from such an important social institution--
She is referring here to civil marriage.
--is essentially that society considers such relationships to be less worthy of respect, concern and consideration than relationships involving members of the opposite sex.
I share this view entirely. In response to this comment by Justice L'Heureux-Dubé, it seems to me that we must make it very clear that citizenship as we understand it in Canada entitles one to the same rights, obligations and institutions, including civil marriage.
As I mentioned earlier, I think it is time to end this discriminatory situation, which reflects poorly on Canada.
Obviously, there is nothing preventing same sex couples from living together. This, I think, is what many of them decide to do, as do many heterosexual couples now.
However that is not the issue. It has to do with whether or not they will be given access to the institution of marriage if they so wish. Some people decide that they do want to marry. I do not see why the fact that they are a same sex couple should prevent them from being able to marry if they choose it freely. Marriage would provide them with some additional protection under certain statutes.
More fundamental, in the context of a relationship between two persons, the decision to marry can improve the quality of the relationship. This reflects their perception.
Let me give a personal example. I lived common law with my wife for several years. There came a time when we decided to marry. We felt that marriage would strengthen our commitment to each other. It meant something more than being in a common law relationship. This was our perception of the situation as a couple. There was no institution preventing us from having a civil wedding, and that is what we did in the end. This year we celebrated our 10th wedding anniversary.
As I see it, the situation is the same for same sex couples. They must have the right, if they so choose, to marry if they think that it will improve the quality of their relationship. Once again, I repeat that it is up to the couple to decide. Granting gays and lesbians access to civil marriage reflects what society believes. Clearly, the law is totally outdated on this score.
In a Canada-wide poll conducted in June by Léger Marketing, Canadians were asked if they believed homosexuals had the same rights as other Canadians: 75.7% answered yes. Thus, more than three-quarters of Canadians believe that homosexuals deserve to have all of the rights available in our society.
As concerns civil marriage more specifically, 65.4% of people said they agreed that same sex couples should be able to marry under our laws.
On a personal level, this is a commitment or a position I have had for over 15 years at least. As for unions, as the secretary general of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux since the early 1990s, I fought for the removal from collective agreements of all existing discrimination with regard to same sex couples. We worked hard at that, which led to passage of legislation on this subject by the National Assembly. I think we have to follow that logic through to its conclusion and give same sex couples access to the institution of civil marriage.
During the election campaign I also made a commitment to ensure that gays and lesbians had access to all the civil rights in Canada, including the right to get married. In my case, this is tied in with this notion of citizenship, which I find extremely important. I share the opinion of the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas that, following the events of September 11, Canada must become even more exemplary with regard to the defence of rights and freedoms. What we are doing here is, first and foremost, fighting for rights and freedoms.
I will conclude by saying that two of my three children are still rather young and I do not know yet what sexual orientation they will choose. No matter what their choice will be I hope they will not become social outcasts and will have access to the same rights as all the citizens of Canada.