Lynn Myers

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Did you not get 6% in Windsor—St. Clair?

[Workplace Safety, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on April 23, the day after Earth Day, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment a question about government initiatives to keep the earth a healthy place for all to live.

Over 100 years ago the idea of protecting the environment simply did not exist. Technology was advancing rapidly and North American factories were booming. We did not know to what extent we were harming the environment, the ozone layers, the water and the wildlife. We now know that such careless activity can ruin our beautiful planet.

Our thinking patterns have evolved considerably in the last century in various fields including the environment, but we still need to go further. With the new millennium around the corner we must continue to think seriously about this important issue. This is obviously very important for future generations.

Canadians think this is an important issue. I do as well. I think all members do. As the Minister of the Environment indicated in an interview recently, polls suggested over 90% of Canadians are concerned enough about the environment to do something economically to change it or to change their lifestyles to better the situation.

The environment is still a top of the mind issue for Canadians. I would argue that it is or should be top of the mind around the world. Canadians and other global citizens want, need and expect a strong commitment to environmental protection.

Many studies have shown that our health is directly linked to the quality of our water, our soil and our air. We must work hard to ensure that these resources stay clean for all humans. Canada already has a great reputation for being a leading country when it comes to the environment. We are known across the world as producers of safe, healthy and nutritious food. Our collective care about the safety of our food has made Canada among the safest producers in the world. We must continue to improve and modernize the methods we use.

Furthermore, Canada has a large portion of the world's freshwater. We work hard to keep this water clean, but once again we must continue to advance these efforts to ensure that our lakes and rivers can continue to be used by our children and generations to follow.

Government must take action in this area. We know the environment is very precious to all. It is a necessity for human life. Too many species now reach extinction every day. Too much air, water and soil is being polluted. Although Canada is one of the world's leaders in this area we need to continue to work hard at saving and protecting the environment.

Furthermore, our government must work to involve other countries in the struggle to save the earth. The world sees Canada as a protector of human rights and a leader in finding solutions to problems affecting other lives. We need to use this kind of approach in the environmental area again.

I ask the parliamentary secretary to take this opportunity to explain to all of us what the government is doing to ensure that the earth's environment is being protected, especially as it relates to water. What is Canada doing and what will we continue to do to make sure the earth will remain a beautiful, clean and healthy place for all of us to live?

[Workplace Safety, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that the government is committed to promoting the fundamental right of Canadians to a safe and healthy work environment and to considering new ideas and suggestions which would help us to meet those commitments.

The motion being presented is certainly worthy of note and interesting to consider. I am therefore pleased to join this debate and to share some of my thoughts on the motion and the amendment before the House.

From the tone of the debate on this motion so far, it seems that members on all sides of the House share a concern for Canadian workers. We know that to be true. Certainly it is an important issue that we on the government side share. We also share a desire to see safer and healthier workplaces. We want to reduce the cost of workplace accidents and illness in both human and economic terms.

Every year approximately 800,000 workers are injured or contract illnesses while doing their jobs. Millions of work days are lost because of illness or injury. Accordingly the cost to the Canadian economy runs to an estimated $10 billion annually. There is no question in both human and economic terms these costs are too high and require our attention.

While we may be in accord on the desire for change, we need to look at possible solutions a little more carefully. For example, Motion No. 455 asks that we amend the appropriate federal statutes including the Criminal Code. This is easier said than done. Proposals to amend federal statutes relating to labour matters can have far-reaching implications and we need to look more carefully at them.

It is true that it is within federal power to create new offences under the Criminal Code, but we have to be cognizant of the fact that such changes could infringe on the jurisdictions of the provinces and territories to legislate in areas of workplace safety.

Members of the House are well aware of the sensitivity of federal-provincial concerns in areas of economic and social policy. I dare say we would not want to initiate any changes to federal legislation which would have an unattended impact. In this case, for example, while the intent of the motion is one thing, the impact of the changes it proposes is quite another.

Since amendments to the Criminal Code that have implications for provincial labour jurisdiction would require the support of the provinces and territories, we need to know how we to obtain that kind of support. We need to study this aspect very carefully.

To start with, we need to look at what legislation is already in place such as under the Canada Labour Code, for example. As hon. members will recall, legislation concerning occupational safety and health in the federal jurisdiction is part of the Canada Labour Code.

The code covers a broad range of industries under federal jurisdiction. The best examples are railways, highway transport, telecommunications, pipelines, shipping, radio and television broadcasting, banks, and a few other areas. In addition, the code covers employees of the federal public service including employees of some 40 crown corporations and agencies.

Part II of the Canada Labour Code is of particular interest to us because it deals with occupational health and safety. It is under part II that we already have legislation in place to deal with workplace safety, at least in the federal jurisdiction. This legislation is intended to prevent accidents and injuries to health arising out of, linked with or occurring in the course of employment which is subject to federal jurisdiction.

In other words, part II of the existing Canada Labour Code already includes provisions for standards for workplace safety as well as sanctions and penalties for those who are found to be in contravention of the code.

As we consider this issue it is very important to look at what is already in the Canada Labour Code, specifically part II of that code. Even if we eventually look to solutions beyond the Canada Labour Code, we will need to keep in mind the three principles set out in the code as fundamental rights of workers.

These are the right to know about known or foreseeable hazards in the workplace, the right to participate in identifying and resolving job related safety and health problems; and the right to refuse dangerous work if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that a situation constitutes a danger to him or her or to another employee.

The code also includes a set of occupational safety and health regulations that prescribe standards and procedures for both employers and employees to follow. Part II of the labour code says that corporate executives and directors will be held accountable if these standards are not met. If company directors and officers are found guilty of an offence under the labour code, they will be liable on a summary conviction to a fine of up to $100,000. For a conviction on indictment the labour code calls for a fine of up to $1 million and/or imprisonment for a term of up to two years.

For the federal jurisdiction we already have sanctions in place which govern workplace safety issues and hold corporate officers and directors liable for their actions in cases of negligence or wrongdoing. Although we have legislation in place under the Canada Labour Code, we must recognize that it does not cover the majority of workers in Canada. It only covers those who fall under federal jurisdiction.

It is fair to say that we have more work to do in the area of legislating workplace safety. Instead of referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as proposed by the member, I would prefer to see the matter referred to the Minister of Justice for further study. In other words, I cannot support the Motion No. 455 as proposed and I think the majority of Canadians in reviewing this matter would agree with my position.

[Division No. 538, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of co-operation I rise on a point of order to seek unanimous consent that the House apply the vote just taken to the four remaining.

[Division No. 537, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to apply the votes in the manner that was just done consistent with the next five?

[Crohn's And Colitis Foundation Of Canada, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada is a voluntary, not for profit medical research foundation dedicated to finding the cure for Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis and inflammatory bowel disease. There is no known cause or cure and there are an estimated 100,000 men and women in Canada suffering from IBD. People are most frequently diagnosed between the ages of 15 to 25.

The CCFC funds educational programs for health professionals, IBD patients and their families. To date the CCFC has invested more than $21 million in major research projects.

This year marked the 11th time 260 M & M meat shops fired up their barbecues in their various communities in Canada for the annual fundraiser. This event nationwide raised $702,000 this year, which now totals an astounding $4 million. I congratulate the M & M meat shops across Canada for doing all that they do in this area.

[Criminal Code, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to an issue of concern certainly to the residents of Waterloo—Wellington, but also to the people of Canada and all members of the House. It is the issue of addressing the needs of victims of crime within the criminal justice system.

Bill C-79 is an act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime) and another act in consequence. It was tabled by the Minister of Justice on April 15, 1999. The bill has been widely supported by the public, by victim advocates, by service providers and by members of all parties in the House.

The history of Bill C-79 predates its introduction in April. The amendments to the Criminal Code were shaped by the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights which thoroughly reviewed the role of the victim in the criminal justice system.

It is important to note that the recommendations for Criminal Code amendments were unanimous. These recommendations were based on the submissions of victims of crime, victim advocates, victim service providers and many others who were actively involved in and knowledgeable about our criminal justice system.

These amendments demonstrate the commitment of the Government of Canada to engage the people of Canada in discussions on important issues. It also demonstrates how parliamentarians can work together collaboratively to achieve shared goals and to work together in the interests of all Canadians.

Over the past decade we have witnessed many improvements to the criminal justice system to ease the burden of victims and witnesses. Clearly there remains room for further improvement. While laws, policies, programs and services are available, Canadians are largely unaware of the current initiatives.

The standing committee, in its wisdom, in its review of the victim's role in the criminal justice system, carefully examined the current legislation of both the federal and provincial governments before identifying gaps and recommending change. The Criminal Code amendments in Bill C-79 build upon the existing provisions regarding the victim impact statement, the victim surcharge and the various provisions to make it easier for victims and witnesses to provide their testimony.

The amendments also enact new provisions to address the concerns of victims regarding their safety, to enhance and expand the opportunities for their views to be considered and to encourage the provision of information to victims.

Before highlighting the key provisions of Bill C-79, which I am certain all members are familiar with, I would emphasize that the Government of Canada regards a response to the needs and concerns of victims of crime as an ongoing process. Bill C-79 amendments are part of that process, not the beginning nor the end.

As I indicated, many initiatives have been taken to reform our laws to improve the situation for victims of crime, including the sentencing amendments in 1996 which required judges to consider victim impact statements, and the amendments in 1997 to govern the production of personal records of sex offence complaints and complainants.

The government will continue to be responsive to the needs of victims of crime. We will be looking to all members of the House for their continued support for current and future initiatives.

Bill C-79 amendments will implement the unanimous recommendations of the standing committee. They will improve the existing provisions and enact new reforms. While these amendments will enhance the voice of victims of crime in our criminal justice system, they will not, I repeat, will not in any way infringe on the rights of persons accused of crime.

The provisions have been carefully drafted to ensure that all rights are respected. Moreover, the preamble emphasizes that the rights of both victims, witnesses and accused persons are to be accommodated and to be reconciled where possible.

The amendments deal with several needs identified by victims: the need to enhance the victim impact statement provisions; the need to expand protection for victims and witnesses to facilitate their participation in the process; the need to ensure that the concerns of victims and witnesses regarding their safety and security are taken into account when determining whether an accused person should be released on bail and the need to revise the victim surcharge provisions.

These are important changes and certainly worthy for the House to note. The victim impact statement amendments further expand the current regime which provides that the judge consider any impact statement prepared at the time of sentencing the offender. As a result of the amendments where the victim wants to read the statement to the judge at the time of sentencing they shall be permitted to do so. This opportunity to present their statement will ensure victims that in addition to the requirement that the statement be considered it will be listened to by the judge and anyone else present in the courtroom at sentencing, including the accused.

The amendments will also address a significant concern of victims that they did not now know about the opportunity to make an impact statement. I think that is also important in terms of its change and what it represents.

The code will now require that the sentencing judge ask whether the victim has been informed of the opportunity to prepare and submit a victim impact statement. The judge may adjourn the sentencing hearing to permit a victim impact statement to be prepared in appropriate circumstances.

I also want to point out that the victim surcharge provisions will be significantly reformed to place the obligation to pay the surcharge squarely on the offender as a consequence of conviction. The amount of the surcharge will be fixed at a mandatory minimum amount. The judge, however, will have the discretion to impose an increased amount in appropriate circumstances or to waive it completely where the offender establishes that a payment of this additional penalty would cause undue hardship.

The new surcharge regime will result in a significant increase in the revenue available to provinces and the territories to help victims. Moreover, the victim surcharge is a way for offenders to account to victims of crime as a group and to acknowledge that victims need assistance and services.

The amendments will also address the need for the victim's safety to be taken into account when an accused person is being released on bail. As a result of these amendments, the responsible judicial officer, whether it is the officer in charge, a justice of the peace or a judge, may then consider the safety and security of the victim in any decision about an accused's bail.

In addition, where an accused is released pending trial, the judge must consider including as a condition of bail that the accused abstain from any direct or indirect communication with the victim. Any other condition necessary to ensure safety and security of the victim can also be specified.

To address the difficulties faced by certain witnesses during their testimony because of their age, disability, the nature of their victimization, amendments have been included to do the following: to extend to the victims of sexual or violent crime up to 18 years of age protections which restrict personal cross-examination by self-represented accused persons, by providing for the appointment of counsel to conduct the cross-examination. It also permits a victim or a witness with mental or physical disability to have a support person present while giving testimony. Finally, it permits a judge to restrict publication of the identity of a wide range of victims or witnesses where the victim establishes a need for the order and where the judge considers it necessary for the proper administration of justice.

This provision will codify the prevailing common law and procedure as established by the Supreme Court of Canada and will fully respect the need to balance the rights of the victim, the accused and the public.

These amendments will significantly improve the experience of victims of crime within the criminal justice system. We know that our work is not over and that much more can be done to encourage the expansion of services for victims, and to encourage the provision of information to victims of crime and to all Canadians about our criminal justice system, and to bring forward necessary reforms where needed.

Bill C-79 amendments are necessary and reasonable reforms. For the 10 years that I sat on the Waterloo regional police service as chairman, we very much valued the importance of victims and the role they play in the criminal justice system.

I view these amendments to Bill C-79 as a great improvement in this area, and I do so on behalf of the residents of Waterloo—Wellington and all Canadians. I thank all hon. members in the House for their support of these amendments and for their concern for the victims of crime. This is a very important issue that we must deal with expeditiously.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Scarborough East.

We have before the House third reading of Bill C-78, an act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.

The proposed amendments touch the full range of pension operations, benefits, contributions and plan administration. The underlying thrust of all these proposed amendments is to ensure the long term sustainability and stability of the Canadian public service pension plans.

I propose in my comments to direct my remarks to one particular aspect of these amendments, and that is the proposed changes to employee contribution rates. Before I discuss the proposed changes it is important for me to give a brief overview of the existing contribution rate provisions.

A review of the existing legislative provisions will provide a rationale and context for the proposed amendments. Under the existing legislative provisions employee contributions to the Canada pension plan, the CPP, and the public service pension plans are now integrated. What does the integration mean? It means the existing integration feature is such that the total contribution rate for an employee is 7.5% of pay composed of both the contributions to the CPP and the public service pension plans.

For an employee earning the average wage the contribution of the public service plans would be 7.5% minus the CPP contribution rate, currently 3.5% of pay, which then equals 4.0% of the pay. To the extent that the CPP contribution rates increase there is an equivalent decline in public service pension plan contribution rates to preserve the constraint that the maximum pension contributions equal 7.5% of pay. In the past with periods of relative stability in contribution rates this integrated formula has served the public service pension plans well.

However, under the integrated contribution rate structure the increase in CPP contribution rates beginning in 1987 has distorted the distribution of employee contributions going to the CPP and the public service pension plans. Under the integrated structure the impact of increases in CPP rates has been such that for employees earning the average wage contributions to the public service pension plans have declined from 5.7% of pay in 1986 to 4.0% of pay in 1999.

To reiterate, over the past decade individual employee contribution rates for the CPP have gone up while those for the public service pension plans have declined. What are the implications of this shift in the distribution of employee contributions between the CPP and the public service pension plans?

To this point I have discussed only employee contribution rates. On the other side of the coin I will discuss a little about employer contributions, that is the contribution of the federal government in its role as employer.

Existing legislation for the public service pension plans is such that the employer must ensure that the various accounts for the public service pension plans are credited with an amount equal to the total cost of entitlements accrued by employees in that year. In other words, the federal government is responsible for the total costs of the plan in a given year less the employee contributions, and as a consequence the declining employee contribution rates. The federal government and by extension all taxpayers have had to shoulder an ever increasing share of the cost of employee pension plans.

I will use the pension plan under the Public Service Superannuation Act as an example. Over the last three decades the financing of that plan has averaged approximately 60% employer funding and 40% employee funding. More recently that distribution has shifted rather dramatically.

For 1999 the distribution is approximately 70% employer and 30% employee. Next year in the absence of any changes to the legislation it is projected that the distribution of the financing of the PSSA plan will shift to approximately 75:25, and by the year 2003 it will be an 80:20 split.

The ongoing shift in the cost of the pension plan to the employer is simply not sustainable. It clearly puts the sustainability of the existing plan at risk unless changes are made. It is our intention to introduce the necessary changes to the contribution rate structure to preserve the long term sustainability of the public service pension plans. With the amendments proposed in the bill contribution rates for the public service pension plans and the Canada pension plan will no longer be integrated. In other words, the public service contribution rates will henceforth be set independently and there will be no overall maximum contribution rate.

In addition there will be a two tier contribution rate structured to more directly match contribution rates with different benefit accruals below and above the average wage as defined by the CPP. The government recognizes that there will be a financial impact on employees as a result of these changes.

In order to facilitate the movement to a long term sustainable pension plan environment, the government is proposing to freeze employee contribution rates to public service pension plans over the period 2000 to 2003 inclusive. Over this period employee contributions on earnings below the average wage as defined by the CPP will continue at the present 1999 rate of 4%. Contributions on earnings above that average will continue at the present rate of 7.5%.

It must be understood however that even though federal employees will thus be spared any increases in contribution rates for their public service pensions from 2000 to 2003, they will nevertheless be subject to the Canada pension plan rate increases schedule for that period, the same CPP rate hike and increases to which all Canadians alike will be subject. Through integration of contributions federal employees in effect have been sheltered from such increases in the past. Now they will have to pay them like all the rest of us.

Fortunately the CPP rate is scheduled to stabilize in the year 2004 as a result of good government planning. What will be the public service plan rates then? They will rise in 2004 after being frozen for four years. Maybe not. Maybe possibly but not necessarily. That is important to note.

For the year 2004 and beyond the Treasury Board will set the contribution rate structure with the intention of returning the cost sharing ratio gradually to the historic average of approximately 60:40 between employer and employees. The employer would continue to assume the larger share.

Employee contribution rate increases may or may not be necessary from 2004 on depending on a number of variables. However, any necessary increases would be gradual. For example, members of the pension plan under the Public Service Superannuation Act can rest assured that no increases in their public service pension contribution rate will be greater than an additional 0.4% per year after 2003. If an increase proves necessary in 2004, the contribution rate will still not be more than 7.9% of the employee's salary. That is the previous rate of 7.5% plus the maximum possible increase of 0.4%.

PSSA plan members can rest assured under the amended legislation that their employee's share of current service costs for their pension plan would never exceed 40%. In other words their contribution rates will not be increased beyond the point where they are paying their historic average cost share of 40%. The historical average therefore will also be limited under the amended legislation.

As for members of the other two public service plans under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, it has to be noted that the cost share between employer and employee is not the same and that the employer is paying the larger percentage of the cost. However, the legislation will provide that the contribution rates of participating members to these plans will not exceed those of PSSA members.

Amendments to the contribution rate structure are one component of the package of changes required to ensure the long term sustainability of the public service pension plans. The bill provides as part of the comprehensive package of amendments the required changes in the contribution rate structure to ensure that the public service pension plans will be sustained over a long period of time. I think that is important to note and I would ask all members to vote accordingly on this very important bill.

[Harriston Kinsmen Club, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Harriston Kinsmen Club, a service club in the town of Harriston, located in my riding of Waterloo—Wellington, recently celebrated its 40th anniversary.

This club does a great deal of fundraising and its efforts, which include helping to create much needed park and recreational facilities, contribute greatly to the community.

Like many other community groups and volunteers the people in this club in particular contribute significantly to the fabric of Canadian society. They make our communities a better place in which to live.

I urge all Canadians to support their community service clubs. I congratulate the Harriston Kinsmen Club for the many contributions it has made to our community over the past 40 years. We wish it many more years of success.

[Division No. 425, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-78 before the House today and the changes it makes with respect to pensions and other matters. It is important to have this kind of debate so all Canadians can understand fully what we as a government are trying to accomplish in this all important area.

I want to talk a bit about the area of investment of funds and management of surpluses with respect to the bill. As we have heard repeatedly in the House, and I think it is worth repeating once again, as a government we are trying to improve the rates of return and reduce pension costs. That has been noted in a way which is very meaningful for everyone who will be impacted by the legislation.

In the past Canadian taxpayers have covered the deficits in the plans, but the legislation will now authorize the government to debit the existing surplus of $30 billion over a period of up to 15 years. I think that is in keeping with what the majority of Canadians want to see happen. It is important that we underscore that yet again today.

In addition, the independent board of directors will be authorized to manage future surpluses either by reducing contribution rates or by withdrawing amounts from the pension funds. Based on the board being put in place, it is important to note as well that it is certainly in keeping with overall government policy.

I want to talk about same sex survivor benefits. As members know, pension survivor benefits will be extended to same sex partners. Federal employees who have same sex partners should have access to the same pension entitlements and be subject to the same obligations as their colleagues.

It is important to note that there is no radical agenda at work here. The amendments do not redefine marriage, for example. Nor do they legalize same sex marriage. That is not what is at play here. It does not do much good to have members in the House indicate that this is the case. It is not and it is important that we speak on the record accordingly.

We are simply keeping federal pensions in line with court decisions and trends elsewhere in the public and private sectors. Provincial pension plans in Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Ontario and New Brunswick have been similarly amended as have those offered by companies such as Sears, Dow Chemical, Shell, Levi Strauss and others.

The courts are not setting the agenda. That too is important to understand. We believe it is for the courts to make rulings and for the government to make policy. This is appropriate legislative action then to eliminate a provision which has been identified as discriminatory by the courts. It has been estimated that the amendment will see an increase of less than 2% in the number of persons entitled to survivor benefits under the plans. The cost has been estimated at approximately $5 million per year.

I also recap, based on retirement and other benefits, that the retirement benefits will be calculated on the average salary during the best consecutive five years rather than the current six. Life insurance benefits under the PSSA will be improved, including a 25% reduction in premiums. Though not part of this legislation, a dental plan will be established for pensioners by Treasury Board after consultation with employees and other member representatives. It is important to have that on record in a clear and concise fashion which Canadians can and will understand.

I will talk a bit about what it means to be a survivor and what that term means. I will also talk a bit about the phrase, relationship of a conjugal nature, and the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Egan and Nesbit, a judicial ruling of which we in parliament have to take note.

Under Bill C-78 a survivor is defined as a spouse of a plan member at the time of the plan member's death, or the person living in a common law relationship with the plan member for at least one year at the time of the plan member's death.

The courts have been very clear on the issue of discrimination based on sexual orientation. They have indicated that discriminatory language must be removed. Under Bill C-78 words referring to the opposite sex have been taken out. This is in keeping with recent court decisions on the issue of providing employment related benefits to same sex partners.

A key decision in the federal court in Moore and Akerstrom directed Treasury Board as the employer to extend benefits to same sex partners in the same manner as it did to opposite sex partners living in a common law relationship. Treasury Board could not create a separate category for same sex partners because that would have the effect of perpetrating harmful stereotypes.

So it is that Bill C-78 contains neutral language which draws no distinctions between same sex partners living together and partners of the opposite sex living together, while maintaining a distinction between married spouses and individuals living in a common law relationship.

Bill C-78 strikes a balance between the courts and what they have said, what is necessary with respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and what is required to maintain the distinction between legally married spouses and two people living in a common law relationship. The definition of a survivor in Bill C-78 follows the guidance provided by the court on precisely this issue.

I elaborate further on the use of the word spouse. It is preferable from a drafting point of view to avoid cumbersome constructions such as repeating the words spouse and common law spouse in the statute. The use of the word spouse as is currently used is appropriate in the case of same sex partners as it would misrepresent their relationship as per Iacobucci in Egan and Nesbit. A term defined such as survivor in Bill C-78 keeps the drafting simple.

I want to speak as well on conjugal, the recognition of common law relationships for the purpose of survivor benefits. It has been a feature of the public service pension plans for many years. These types of relationships are also recognized in other legislation both federally and provincially such as the Income Tax Act and family law.

Generally speaking legislation does not refer to a common law relationship. As a rule legislation sets out the test that has to be met in order to establish the existence of such a relationship. It is important to highlight that the courts have provided direction by setting out the recognized elements of a common law relationship.

Factors looked at by the courts include various elements of cohabitation and conjugality such as a commitment of the two individuals to each other and financial contributions to the necessities of life, et cetera. They looked at the attitude and conduct of each of the partners toward members of their respective families, how the families behave toward the partners, and how the partners present their relationship to the community.

As well, when a word has been considered by the courts, what has been judicially said is incorporated into the meaning of the word as used in the legislation. Courts have extended the meaning of conjugal to cover individuals living in a common law relationship and more recently have extended the meaning to include same sex partners living in a common law relationship.

In Rosenberg, a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal on provisions of the Income Tax Act dealing with the registration of pension plans, the court amended the definition of spouse which refers to a person living in a conjugal relationship with the taxpayer to include same sex partner of the taxpayer.

Provisions of Bill C-78 refer to “a relationship of a conjugal nature” in order to capture the judicial meaning of conjugal in reference to same sex partners while ensuring the bill does not go beyond what the courts have said. For these reasons it is necessary to define the word conjugal in the legislation in this manner.

From a legal point of view physical intimacy is not considered the essential element in establishing the conjugality of a relationship. Rather, from a legal point of view the courts have focused on the existence of a committed monogamous relationship in assessing whether a conjugal relationship exists. It is in keeping with Bill C-78 and provides that only one person living in a common law relationship with a plan member will be recognized at the time of the plan member's death. There are no provisions for the payment of more than one survivor benefit to more than one common law partner.

I want to look at the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Egan and Nesbit, a very important decision and one that we in the Parliament of Canada are now obliged to follow and to recognize in terms of what it represents. It is important to note that under the finding of discrimination five justices of the Supreme Court of Canada in four separate sets of reasons found that the definition of spouse infringed section 15 of the charter based on sexual orientation.

In conclusion, I note that this is a very important issue and certainly one that we as a government take very seriously. In the great scheme of things and in the great balance of fairness and equity, it is important we make sure that Bill C-78 is put in place in an effective manner in keeping with what Canadian society is all about.