Svend Robinson

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member just does not get it. I do not know if the hon. member has brothers or sisters, but if he is suggesting that his relationship with his brother or his sister is qualitatively the same as his relationship with his wife, that is a ludicrous suggestion.

We can look at other relationships of dependency, but the fact of the matter is that they are qualitatively different from the relationship that gay or lesbian people have with their partners.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yukon for the question and for her leadership on the issue of the question of the defence of provocation.

It is true that in some areas of the law there still exists a so-called gay panic defence. Unbelievably some courts have recognized the gay panic defence, which suggests that if a man is so traumatized by having a sexual advance made on him by another man that he takes that other person's life it is defensible. The member for Yukon is quite correct that significant challenges remain with respect to a defence of this nature.

With respect to the ongoing issue of violence and gay-bashing in our community, there are people who are beaten up simply because of their sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation. There are huge concerns about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered youth who still have levels of suicide, attempted suicide and alienation that are devastatingly high.

These are some of the other issues that we clearly must address. This bill is not in a position to address them, but when we speak of full equality we must recognize there is still a lot of work to be done in many of these areas and the whole area of affirmation of our relationships, the diversity of our communities and the education system.

Let us imagine children who are raised in an environment with a parent who has the kind of narrow intolerant views of some of the members on my right, those from the Reform Party. What kind of attitude or signal will that send to them about respect for gay and lesbian people in our communities?

There is still tremendous work to be done on the road to full equality.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, first of all let us look at this question logically.

There are heterosexual common law partners who have lived together for many years in a deeply committed loving relationship. Is the hon. member for Calgary Centre and the Reform Party seriously suggesting that if for whatever reason that couple does not still have a sexual relationship that somehow that relationship is not a genuine common law relationship? That is absolutely ludicrous.

In fact the Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Court of Appeal have talked about what is involved in a conjugal relationship and what are the generally acceptable characteristics of a conjugal relationship. This is from Justice Cory in M. v H. They include shared shelter, sexual and personal behaviour, services, social activities, economic support and children, as well as the societal perception of the couple. However, these elements may be present in varying degrees and not all are necessary for the relationship to be found to be conjugal.

The court said:

Certainly an opposite sex couple may, after many years together, be considered to be in a conjugal relationship although they have neither children nor sexual relations. Obviously the weight to be accorded the various elements or factors to be considered in determining whether an opposite sex couple is in a conjugal relationship will vary widely and almost infinitely. The same must hold true of same sex couples. Courts have wisely determined that the approach to determining whether a relationship is conjugal must be flexible....There is nothing to suggest that same sex couples do not meet the legal definition of conjugal.

That is what the courts have ruled. Frankly it is disingenuous of the member for Calgary Centre to suddenly raise these concerns about how we can establish the legitimacy of conjugal relationships and common law relationships when Reform did not ask one question when it was just about common law heterosexual relationships.

They were not asking at that point how to prove they had a sexual relationship or how to prove they were really living together in an intimate relationship. They did not care about that then. They certainly did not raise questions then about other dependent relationships when they extended this to common law relationships.

What Reformers really care about is that we are actually recognizing that the relationships of gay and lesbian people should be treated with equality, dignity and respect. That is what Reformers do not believe in because not one of them voted for equality even in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. This whole issue of looking at other relationships of dependency, economic dependency and emotional dependency, is one that I certainly have no objection to parliament examining carefully. Indeed, an argument can be made that there are relationships which should have benefits extended to them. I am pleased that the Minister of Justice has recognized this and I understand she is referring this issue to a committee for further study.

The case of a brother and sister who have lived together for many years and who are involved in a situation of economic dependence is something we can examine. In fact many of us are asking why benefits necessarily have to be extended on the basis of a relationship to another person at all. Many of us want to know whether we should look at another means of achieving the extension of benefits, whether they be health, dental or other benefits.

It is important to acknowledge what this bill does. It responds to the Supreme Court of Canada particularly in the M. v H. decision and the earlier decision in Miron v Trudel. It recognizes that where benefits are extended and where there are obligations for common law heterosexual partners, that justice and equality means that those same benefits should be extended to same sex partners. That is what this bill is addressing. The other issues in terms of other relationships will be addressed by committee and I look forward to that discussion.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues. In conclusion, Donna Wilson asked:

When is the government going to recognize that lesbians and gay men have a right to the same benefits and assistance available to all other tax paying citizens? When is the government going to be honest with all Canadians and let them know that the rights of lesbians and gay men have already been recognized in the courts? When is the government going to put a stop to fear tactics and lies about financial resources being depleted if benefits and tax credits are extended to lesbians and gay men?

This isn't a matter of “special” rights or privileges. It's about recognizing the fullness of diversity within our communities and facing the fact that Canadian laws need to change in order to reflect current realities and the equality of all citizens. It's about putting an end to homophobia and heterosexism. It is about action, not lip service.

It's time for the government to act and to end all forms of discrimination against lesbian and gay Canadians.

Donna speaks with eloquence and passion for gay and lesbian people across this land. They join with me today in commending the government and urging that the bill be adopted at the earliest possible time so that we can finally achieve much fuller equality for gay and lesbian people.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is with a sense of pride that I rise in my place today to congratulate the government in introducing this legislation.

The road to full equality for gay and lesbian people has been long, frequently difficult and turbulent. We are not there yet, but this bill advances significantly the gay and lesbian community on the road to full equality.

In achieving this important milestone I want to acknowledge the contribution of many Canadians.

I congratulate the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who has just spoken. He is an excellent MP, who has long fought for recognition for same sex spouses and who has introduced a number of bills to that effect.

I acknowledge the contribution of a deputy who is not here today, Shaughnessy Cohen, who tragically died in the House just after signing a letter to the Minister of Justice urging that the government move ahead to recognize the relationships of gay and lesbian people.

I acknowledge the work done by the labour movement, unions such as the CAW, CUPE, the Public Service Alliance, la CSN au Quebec, CUPW, the Canadian Labour Congress, and in particular my friend Nancy Rich.

There are those who have lived their lives openly and proudly, often defying the ostracism of people in their communities who rejected their relationships. They are the unsung heroes and those who we honour as our leaders. They include people like Jane Rule and her partner Helen Sonthoff, who just died, and Jim Egan and his partner Jack Nesbitt, who took to the Supreme Court of Canada the issue of the recognition of gay and lesbian relationships, who have celebrated their lives together for over 40 years, and who won a landmark victory in affirming the inclusion of sexual orientation in our charter of rights.

Others who have taken their fight to the courts include Nancy Rosenberg and her partner; Margaret Evans and her partner; Stanley Moore and his partner, Pierre Soucy; Dale Akerstrom and his partner, Alexander; Chris Vogel in Manitoba; Jim Bigney in Nova Scotia; and Delwin Vriend.

I could go on and on with the stories of heroes and those who have fought this courageous fight for full equality.

I want to acknowledge as well a former colleague from the House. I first raised this issue over 20 years ago when I was first elected as a young member of the House. One of my earliest allies was a Conservative member of parliament, Pat Carney. I want to acknowledge her work.

There are some who ask why the government is doing this. The government is doing this because we as parliamentarians and provincial legislators gave the courts the duty and the responsibility of interpreting the charter of rights. They did not seize that; we gave them that responsibility. Indeed, the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of Canada, has ruled that section 15 of our charter prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and, as well, that that discrimination includes discrimination in the relationships of gay and lesbian people.

EGALE, the national lobby group, the Campaign for Equal Families and other groups have advanced this cause before the courts, and legislatures in a number of provinces and jurisdictions have moved forward.

The Government of Quebec recently introduced an omnibus bill, and I wish to congratulate MNA André Boulerice in particular on his tireless efforts in this regard.

The Government of British Columbia has been one of the leaders in advancing the cause of equality, in particular attorney general Ujjal Dosanjh.

In Ontario former attorney general Marion Boyd brought forward Bill 167.

The legislation is a recognition by the government that it must move forward. It could fight every case in the courts, case by case, or it could do the right thing, the honourable thing, the just thing and say that yes, it recognizes that the courts have ruled. The courts have ruled that where benefits are extended to heterosexual common law couples, those benefits must as well be extended to those involved in committed, loving, same sex relationships.

As Justice Iacobucci noted in the case of Delwin Vriend v the Supreme Court of Canada:

In my opinion, groups that have historically been the target of discrimination cannot be expected to wait patiently for the protection of their human dignity and equal rights while governments move toward reform one step at a time. If the infringement of the rights and freedoms of these groups is permitted to persist while governments fail to pursue equality diligently, then the guarantees of the Charter will be reduced to little more than empty words.

That is what we are achieving today. It is a recognition that the guarantees of the charter must be made reality by changes in law, changes that involve both rights and responsibilities.

I am very proud to stand here today on behalf of my New Democrat colleagues to say that this caucus has supported from the very beginning, certainly over the full 20 years that I have had the privilege of serving here, full equality for gay and lesbian people.

The leader of my party, the member for Halifax, has been in the forefront of this struggle, both as a provincial member in Nova Scotia and now as leader of the party, and each and every one of my colleagues has worked for full equality for gay and lesbian people.

I stand here today not just as the member of parliament for Burnaby—Douglas, not just as a gay man, but also on behalf of my colleagues to say that we recognize and salute the government for this important contribution toward full equality.

I want to say a couple words about what this bill is not about. This bill is not about special rights for anyone. It is about fairness and equal rights. It is a recognition that gay and lesbian people pay into benefit plans and, up until very recently, have been denied the benefits that should flow. Indeed, outside the House stands a man with a sign saying “No special rights for homosexuals—Repeal Bill C-23”. Again, I emphasize, this is not about special rights.

This is also not about money. If anything, Reformers should be supporting the bill because it will help to reduce the federal deficit and debt. According to a study that was tabled in the Rosenberg case, an affidavit that was signed by a senior tax policy officer in the Department of Finance said:

—extending spousal tax treatment to same-sex couples would result in an overall cost savings to the federal government of about $10 million per year.

Those are the facts from the Department of Finance. It does not cost money to extend equality because in this particular legislation we are recognizing both rights and responsibilities.

In M. v H. it was recognized that one lesbian partner had financial responsibilities to her former partner which flowed from that relationship. It is clear that, to the extent those responsibilities are recognized, that will reduce the financial burden on the state as well. I would have thought that would have been something the Reform Party would have welcomed and supported.

This is not about special rights. It is not about extra money. Most offensively, in the Reform Party's characterization the member for Calgary Centre said “This is benefits for sex”. Let me say how demeaning, how dishonest and how offensive that characterization of the bill really is for the Reform Party to say it is benefits for sex.

Let us look at this for a minute. The member for Calgary Centre said “How do we prove they are actually partners? How do we prove they have actually been involved in a sexual relationship? What if they are trying to scam the system?” I remind the House that for some years now common law heterosexual relationships have been recognized. I have not heard the Reformers say “No, no, do not recognize those relationships because we cannot prove that the man and woman are involved in a sexual relationship. We cannot prove that they are really committed to one another”. No, they have been silent about common law heterosexual relationships because they know that many Canadians are involved in those relationships and they are not challenging those relationships.

The Reformers do not have the intellectual integrity to recognize the complete bankruptcy of their argument when they say “How do we prove this?”

Then the member for Calgary Centre said “All you have to do is shack up with somebody for a year, have sex with that person and you will be recognized”. That is a totally false argument because the Supreme Court of Canada and the Ontario Court of Appeal have both talked about what a conjugal relationship means. Does it just mean living with somebody and having sex occasionally? No, it does not. Some conjugal relationships involve no sexual relationship at all. They are very clear about that. Some heterosexual couples are actually in loving, committed relationships and they do not have sexual relations. I know the member for Calgary Centre might find that an incredible revelation. That is amazing, is it not? Yet, those are conjugal relationships according to the courts.

The suggestion that benefits for sex is what this is all about trivializes and diminishes the quality of gay and lesbian relationships. My relationship with my partner, Max, is not just about living together and having sexual relations. Of course that is important, but it is much deeper and much more profound than that, and that is what makes, ultimately, a conjugal relationship. We share our lives, the good times and the bad, in sickness and in health. We share the ownership of our home. We have a joint bank account. We are beneficiaries in one another's wills.

There is a deep emotional commitment in that relationship which is trivialized and demeaned and denied by the kind of suggestions by the member for Calgary Centre. We are saying that these relationships should be recognized and affirmed and celebrated in this country and not denied any longer.

I would note as well that each and every one of those members of parliament who is now speaking out against this bill is saying that they should oppose this bill because it does not go far enough, it does not recognize other dependent relationships like two sisters living together or two elderly gentlemen sharing a home. Without exception each and every one of those members has spoken against basic equality for gay and lesbian people. That is their agenda. They do not believe in it.

Every member of the Reform Party in the House today who was in this House during the vote on the Canadian Human Rights Act amendments, Bill C-33, voted against that bill. They do not believe in equality and let no one be fooled into suggesting otherwise. That is their agenda.

Of course it is true that there is still not full equality. There is still much to be done. This bill does not deal with the immigration law for example. There are Canadians who fall in love with other Canadians and there are some who fall in love with citizens of other countries. I appeal to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to move forward quickly to recognize the relationships of gay and lesbian people in the new immigration act which will be tabled shortly. We must look seriously at the provisions of the criminal code with respect to hate literature as well.

And yes, dare I say it, we must also recognize that couples who wish to involve themselves in committed loving relationships and have those affirmed by the state in marriage. That too is part of equality.

There are members on all sides of the House who say that no, marriage cannot be extended to gay and lesbian people as this would be the death of marriage, the downfall of the moral fabric of society. Is marriage really that fragile? How on earth would it threaten the marriage of the member for Calgary Centre or the marriage of the member from Ontario to recognize and affirm the relationships of gay and lesbian people who choose to marry? That will come as part of full equality. In the Netherlands the government has recently tabled a bill to extend those rights as well.

I want to close by reading from a letter from a woman who speaks far more eloquently than I, with far more power and passion about what it has meant in her life to have her relationship denied full equality and why this bill is so important. I am proud to say that her name is Donna Wilson. She wrote a letter in 1996 to the Prime Minister saying this:

Dear Prime Minister:

On October 30, 1995 my life partner of more than 13 years died. She was diagnosed with ovarian cancer less than seven months prior to her death. Before that she was an active, healthy 48 year old woman.

We shared everything as life partners. We were emotionally and financially interdependent. Every aspect of our lives was connected, inter-related. We celebrated our lives together and were embraced by family, friends and many diverse communities.

We shared in the parenting of two children. I continue to care for them and support them as a co-parent myself and also on behalf of their mother who has died.

Our relationship was rendered invisible time and time again by the laws in our country. We lived without the supports and benefits available to the vast majority of Canadians. There were no tax credits or benefits available to assist us as a couple or a family. There was no recognition of the value of our relationship, our family and our contributions to Canadian society.

Even now I'm not considered a widow or survivor and I'm not eligible to receive my partner's pension. I know the same devastating grief as every other widow and I share the same financial fears and insecurities as many who survive the death of a spouse or life partner.

After my partner died I contacted the office of the Canadian pension plan. With great pain I explained my circumstance. The woman at the other end of the phone expressed no condolences, no compassion. Instead, she stated that I wasn't eligible to receive pension benefits since “there was no surviving spouse”. When I restated that I was the surviving spouse she asked for my name and “the name of the deceased”. Two women's names confirmed it. “There was no surviving spouse”.

Our 13 plus years together in a committed relationship meant nothing. My partner's wishes meant nothing. My needs as a survivor meant nothing.

Throughout her life my partner was committed to employment that contributed to the lives of others. She paid into the Canadian pension plan. She wanted her pension contributions to be available for me, to assist me with recovering from care giving and to heal from grieving. She wanted to provide for my well-being as we had done for one another and our children throughout our relationship. She didn't want me to have to worry about moving right away and all the other things that many survivors/widows need to consider.

Prior to my partner's death we discovered that her RRSP could not be rolled over into mine even though we were life partners and I was the designated beneficiary. My partner was very distraught to learn that upon her death our retirement savings would be deregistered and taxed at a high rate. She was angry that our retirement savings could not remain as such whereas a heterosexual couple, even a common law couple after only one year, would be able to roll over RRSPs from one spouse to the other.

My partner's outrage, sadness and concern motivated her to file a human rights complaint....

I am currently preparing my partner's income tax return.

She points out that she will be responsible for paying taxes on almost half of her RRSP. It is a painful process in the midst of grieving. She said:

We hear so much these days about the need to take personal responsibility for ourselves in preparing for retirement. My partner and I were doing just that. Instead of being assisted by the government to prepare for later years it has now been made more difficult.

Under the law all Canadians pay taxes. We contribute to pension plans. We contribute to the welfare of others. Under the law lesbian and gay Canadians are denied the benefits and assistance associated with these contributions. And, under the law, our taxes and pension contributions assist and subsidize the privileged majority.

Madam Speaker, I wonder if I might seek the consent of the House for one more minute just to finish reading this letter.

[Petitions, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians from across the land on the issue of nuclear weapons policy.

The petitioners note that the Government of Canada has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since 1969 and has committed to pursue negotiations in good faith to eliminate nuclear arms from the planet.

They point out that the International Court of Justice stated in a 1996 advisory opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons that the threat would be contrary to the principles of international humanitarian law.

They note that Canadians are concerned about this and they call on the Government of Canada and parliament to advocate the adoption of the report of the standing committee on foreign affairs, the full and prompt implementation of the report's implementations, and the harmonization of existing government positions and programs with the spirit and intent of the report of the standing committee on nuclear weapons.

[Sudan, February 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and is on Sudan.

The minister's envoy, John Harker, has said that there can be no peace in Sudan while oil revenues keep flowing to that brutal regime.

Why has the minister rejected the call by Harker to take all necessary steps to stop oiling the war machine and to cut off the oil revenues? Why is the Liberal government shamefully lining up with Talisman to put corporate oil profits ahead of the human rights and the human lives of the people Sudan?

[Public Works, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

Last week the Barrett Commission in British Columbia urged the federal government to finally join in assisting the owners of leaky condominiums who face average repair costs of $25,000 per unit.

When will the minister finally join the Government of British Columbia in responding to this economic and social disaster with grants, with tax relief and with no interest loans to the province of British Columbia? When will he finally listen to the people of British Columbia?

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 8th, 2000]

How many Kosovar refugees came to Canada since March 1999 and how many have since returned back to Kosovo?