Madam Speaker, we are debating the modernization of benefits and obligations act, an act that was sponsored jointly by the Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The bill is part of an ongoing commitment by the Government of Canada to ensure that its policies and programs continue to reflect the values of Canadians, values that are enshrined in the charter of rights and freedoms.
As many members are aware, the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear that governments must treat unmarried opposite sex and same sex couples equally. When the bill is passed it will amend legislation to recognize the principle of equal treatment for all common law relationships. Same sex partners will be included in the new definition of common law partners and they will be granted the same benefits and obligations as opposite sex common law partners.
I also point out that the legislation changes will preserve the fundamental importance of marriage in Canadian society. The definition of marriage will not change. It is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.
The bill will amend 68 federal statutes affecting 20 federal departments and agencies. The proposed changes are about fairness. Same sex couples in committed relationships should be entitled to the same benefits and obligations as their unmarried opposite sex counterparts.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in its May 1999 ruling in M. v H., has made it clear that governments cannot limit benefits or obligations to opposite sex common law relationships. The proposed changes will ensure that federal laws again reflect the values of Canadians which are enshrined in the charter.
The proposed legislation does not affect the definition of marriage. In fact, a few European countries have limited the recognition of same sex relationships but a clear distinction is maintained in law between marriage and same sex relationships.
Several provinces have already begun to amend their legislation. Since 1997 British Columbia has amended numerous statutes to include same sex partners. In June 1999 Quebec amended 28 statutes and 11 regulations to grant to same sex partners the same benefits and obligations that are available to opposite sex common law partners.
In October 1999, again to comply with the supreme court ruling in M. v H., Ontario passed omnibus legislation to bring 67 statutes into compliance with the ruling.
At present more than 200 private sector companies give benefits to their employees' same sex partners, as do many municipalities, hospitals, libraries and community and social service institutions across the country.
The bill does not preclude discussion, which has already started, on whether or how to acknowledge the nature and reality of many different types of dependent relationships. Dependency is a very complex issue with far-reaching consequences for individuals and society as a whole. A number of adult Canadians currently reside with elderly parents, siblings or other relatives. Although many federal statutes currently extend limited benefits and obligations to family relationships, further study is needed to determine if would be appropriate to treat family relationships as similar to married and common law couples in all or at least in some circumstances. While benefits which reflect dependency would likely be welcomed, it is unclear whether the accompanying legal obligations should be imposed on individuals for those relatives with whom they reside.
For example, eligibility for a guaranteed income supplement under the old age security is determined on the basis of combining the income of both persons, which might result in reducing benefits for some elderly persons who live with relatives. As another example, if an adult lives with an elderly parent for many years and then leaves, should that adult remain legally responsible to pay support for that parent because they were once in a dependent relationship?
Other issues that would need to be resolved include how dependency relationships would be defined and what relationships would be allowed. Would individuals be allowed to self-declare their relationships, or would the government require proof of some kind? Would relationships of dependency apply to any two people who live together or to unlimited numbers as long as they are under the same roof? Would the government exclude any relatives, as France has done, or exclude only opposite sex common law couples, as Hawaii has chosen to do? There are many issues yet to be resolved.
Our objective in considering changes to the system should be to encourage rather than discourage people to take care of each other. We must be careful to ensure that any legal changes would not impose obligations that act as barriers to people supporting each other.
The possibility of creating a domestic partner registry is also of interest to some. However, there are several concerns with a registry which would require further study.
There are privacy considerations since a registry would be open to the public, as are registries for births and deaths, which might result in people being forced to have their relationship publicly known. As well, there are no guarantees that such a scheme would protect the most vulnerable in a relationship, for example, where one partner might refuse to register in order to avoid legal obligations on the breakdown of that relationship.
Most important, if such a system were created at the federal level it would have limited utility as it would only apply to areas of federal jurisdiction. In Canada, where the many pieces of legislation that grant benefits and impose obligations are divided between or shared among the federal, provincial and territorial governments, a registry would require the unanimous agreement of all levels of government on the relationships to be recognized. This would be necessary to help assure Canadians that a registry would work effectively, efficiently and fairly.
These changes are balanced. Obligations as well as benefits will be conferred on same sex couples. As a result, the fiscal impact of these amendments will be minimal, if any. Clearly, this is not a cost issue.
Many here today have expressed concern that the Government of Canada is deferring to the courts on this issue and that the supreme court is overstepping its proper role. It is important to remember that the court is performing the role given to it by elected representatives of all Canadians through the introduction of the charter. There is no question that the role of the courts in interpreting the charter has given them both a higher profile and a direct influence on the daily lives of Canadians. However, at the same time, the charter also maintains the equally important role of parliament in determining important questions of social policy. I assure the House that this role is taken very seriously by the government.
The bill is about fairness. It is a balanced and responsible approach to the issue.
I wish to emphasize, because it is very important to my constituents in Erie—Lincoln, that there is nothing in the bill that alters the definition of marriage. The House will remember that we passed a motion to that effect last June, the definition being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. The bill maintains a distinction between married and unmarried couples and no changes are made to the legal definition of marriage.
The term spouse in the federal legislation will refer only to married persons and the term common law partner will refer to those in same sex and opposite sex common law relationships. As pointed out, the bill extends both benefits and obligations to common law same sex couples.
Given the potential impact on individuals, as well as on government programming costs of creating a system of benefits based on broader principles of dependency, the issue again will require further study and consultation.
However, our objective is clear: We wish to encourage rather than discourage people to take care of each other. We must be careful to ensure that any legal changes will not impose obligations or barriers to people supporting each other.
