Roger Gallaway

[Justice, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The minister should know what court orders are being made requiring non-custodial parents to support their adult children as they study for a masters, bachelors or even a Ph.D degree.

I would like the minister to tell the House whether the 1996 child support guidelines were intended to create a class of adult graduate students who are still supported by court order as children of a marriage.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for those questions. On the question of housekeeping I totally agree. I recall in the last parliament we amended the federal rights act regarding employees of federal institutions. That was also regarded as an attack upon the institution of marriage. Even in my moments of free association I could not make that connection. As I pointed out, there are provinces that have already enacted similar legislation.

In the case of the earlier legislation we were 12 years behind some provinces. We were 10 years behind good old Ontario and 12 years or thereabouts behind the province of Quebec. It is housekeeping. We are getting caught up although in this case we are not terribly behind in terms of the pack.

With respect to the other point made, this is about a societal shift. We have become more aware of society saying that people who are labelled homosexual or lesbian are part of society. They are just as important and equally vital to society. They should be recognized as part of society and extended the same benefits and obligations as those we extend to others who happen not to be homosexual and happen to be something called heterosexual.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for those questions. There is a certain level of fear that is not based upon any reality.

Let us look at this piece of legislation in a continuum of time. Who would have thought 30 or 40 years ago that we would be in this place talking about something that is popularly referred to as gay rights? Who would have thought 25 years ago that there would be a movement not just in Canada but on this continent that would be called the gay rights movement? It was inconceivable, but we have to recognize that society is changing, certain values, beliefs and attitudes. Attitudes tie into the belief system and value system.

Marriage is a relatively old institution. The basic institution called marriage will not be undone in this place or in a provincial House because of a social movement which may have started 20 years ago or because of changes in attitude toward people who are generally referred to as homosexual or lesbian. That will not destroy the institution of marriage.

There is concern expressed that one day the nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada will wake up and say that this has been around for 20 years, that they have read about it in newspapers and that they will undo marriage. The supreme court is not about to undo marriage. The only way that marriage can be undone is through the collective action of this House and the 10 provincial houses.

When a man and a woman are about to enter into a marriage, who lays down the regulations about who can marry? It is the provinces. They dictate everything from who is qualified to perform a marriage. I cannot perform a marriage but I have some friends in the clergy who are licensed to do so.

The provinces also lay down degrees of consanguinity which deal with my being unable to marry my sister or my first cousin. The idea that this place or the nine justices down the street will wake up one day and say that marriage is over after eons of civilization is slightly paranoid. Marriage is defined not only by the courts but most recently reaffirmed in the House a year ago. There is a conspiracy theory, which is the toughest to deal with. There is an ongoing whisper campaign that somehow we will overturn it.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak in favour of Bill C-23.

The provisions of the bill are not only a reaction to the recent supreme court decision but, I would suggest, also reflects the need to acknowledge the contemporary reality of relationships that are not exclusively unions between men and women. I think the spirit of the bill is closely tied to a sense of fairness, tolerance and equality.

I will specifically address a few points that require some clarification. First, there is a misconception that the bill alters the institution of marriage and the definition of spouse.

Second, the bill simply brings the federal government up to date with other governments and the private sector in expanding benefits and obligations to adults engaged in same sex common law relationships.

Third, it is wrong to think that extending benefits will create added or undue physical burdens on the federal treasury and the taxpayer.

Finally, I think it is necessary to point out that the supreme court recently made a ruling that suggested that the federal government might enact statutes that are compatible with that court's rulings and the charter of rights specifically.

The bill and the legal interpretation confirm that changes the bill would bring would not alter the definition of marriage. Marriage would still be defined as the union between a man and a woman with all its past and contemporary legal applications intact. We should point out that Canadian courts, academics and ordinary citizens have continuously reaffirmed the first 1866 British court case definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

I would like to digress here by saying that there was also a 1970 House of Lords decision on this very point, the case of Corbett v Corbett, where the individual, who appeared to be a woman had in fact been a man. On the basis of genetics, the court decided that a man was always a man notwithstanding what he appeared to be otherwise. To this day, Canadian courts have upheld the constitutionality of this definition.

Similarly, under the legislation the term spouse will only refer to a married man and woman. Marital status will remain unaltered. Any existing federal statutes that include the term spouse will still only apply to married couples. It is wrong to suggest that the provisions of Bill C-23 will alter the existing legal definitions with respect to the term marriage and all that that entails.

I suggest that some would try to use the legislation so that it might have the effect of turning back the clock to a time when social prejudice forced same sex relationships into the shadows. I would like to think as a society we pride ourselves on openness and compassion and that to ignore reality that is as old as time is not appropriate.

I think of one province in particular. An individual who taught in a school was given high approval ratings as a teacher until such time as it was learned by his employer that the individual was in fact gay. The terms of his dismissal were exclusively on the basis of his sexual orientation. In that province it was allowed to pass because, as I understand it, there was no legislation to protect the individual. I would think as a contemporary society and as a federal government we are long past that.

I am also told that public opinion surveys indicate that Canadians by a two to one margin believe that same sex couples should have access to the same benefits and be subject to the same obligations as any man or woman presently engaged in a spousal or opposite sex common law relationship. I ask those who are opposed to the bill to canvass their constituents to gain an accurate composite of opinion in their constituencies.

I understand there are people who are opposed to the bill. I think that in the House most who oppose it do so on the basis of belief systems and value systems. We have to look beyond our own individual belief or value systems to the wider, larger picture.

It is also reasonable to expect that same sex couples should be treated in the same way as other conjugal relationships. The time is long past when it was acceptable to characterize same sex relationships as deviant or odd, as some people would call them, or acts of rebellion against social conformity. Same sex relationships for some are just as natural and regular as other types of relationships and it is not for us to treat them otherwise. That opinion reflects my views on the matter.

Last year in the city of Sarnia in my riding there was the first gay pride parade. I was approached about participating. I had no problem whatsoever; I am not so insecure as to be afraid of a gay pride parade and I participated in it. The shame of the whole thing was that not one other elected person in my riding was present, municipal or provincial; they could not find a councillor, a mayor or anyone who would go in the parade. There were 500 people in the city of Sarnia who participated in that parade. I was quite proud to be there.

I am not so insecure as to think that if I went to the parade that somebody would start a whisper campaign. My mother said to me that if I went to the parade, people may say things about me. The next day I happened to go to another event at the Polish Combatants Association. I called my mother and said that I was concerned that people were starting to whisper saying they thought I was Polish.

My children who are in university and below were quite proud of me that I would go to the gay pride parade. In this country there is a continuum of opinion, but I think a part of it is related to age. Young people understand that there is equality in this country, that we are not all made the same and that we cannot all be the same. It is like fingerprints; no two are the same. In this continuum of relationships, one could argue in this continuum of sexuality, young people inherently understand that if somebody is different from someone else, it is not a big deal. It is not a criterion on which we want to discriminate or even to point out differences.

My children were quite proud that I would participate. I felt it was important to show everyone that alternative lifestyle choices are in some respect mainstream, no big deal, or nothing to get upset about and that they crosscut every facet of social identities. Alternative lifestyles, although not perhaps my lifestyle, are valid. There is no legal, social, fiscal or political reason to treat those choices as anything else but legitimate.

Bill C-23 is being described by some, and it is fair to make comment, as trend-setting or innovative because several provincial governments, including good old Ontario, that hotbed of liberal thought, British Columbia and Quebec have similar same sex laws. Also, in my riding private sector companies such as Dow Chemical have had them for a number of years. Large corporations in particular have been extending benefits to same sex couples for some time.

There has also been some expression of concern with respect to the confusion between federal and provincial laws, in other words, the federal statutes would in some way cause confusion with the provincial statutes. I fail to understand how this would be the case because proposed federal legislation will only affect existing federal statutes. Provincial laws fall under corresponding provincial jurisdiction.

Just as the proposed federal legislation will not impact on provincial jurisdictions, it will not affect private sector companies nor non-governmental organizations. In fact over 200 companies and organizations in the private sector have already extended benefits to adults in same gender relationships, as have many municipalities, quasi-governmental organizations such as some hospitals and other public or municipal institutions such as libraries.

Bill C-23 brings us up to the same level of benefit coverage that is available in several other provincial jurisdictions and in the private and municipal sectors. Even if the supreme court ruling had never been handed down, I would suggest it would have been odd that the federal government not introduce legislation similar to what is included in Bill C-23.

There has also been some talk that by extending benefits to same sex couples, an undue fiscal burden would be placed upon the federal government. This legislation aside, certainly when legislation is introduced for which there may be a fiscal implication, it is a fair question to ask having regard to the cost of a piece of legislation, having regard to the sector of the population which may be touched by the legislation, what the overall cost is, what it means to the taxpayer, the taxpayer being somebody whose sexual orientation is not even known. It is important to study fiscal implications of any bill regardless of a person's sexual orientation.

In this case, if we take the time to examine the bill and consider the overall ramifications, we come to the conclusion that the changes would be revenue neutral. It is important to remember that while the provisions of Bill C-23 extend benefits, which is one thing the public has latched onto, they also extend obligations to same gender couples. Any financial gain a couple would have gained would likely be offset by a higher taxation obligation, as a different status would require such things as income to be assessed jointly rather than separately.

I am sure there are cases where one could make the argument that in a particular instance there is a benefit to this. But we are talking about the overall envelope and what the Department of Finance has studied and what it has concluded.

Another example of obligation is how the GST credit can be claimed. Currently two individuals involved in a same sex relationship can individually claim two separate GST credits and file two separate income tax returns based on separate individual incomes, increasing the combined value that their credits are worth. Under the bill this practice would not be permitted. Extended benefits would likely beget higher total taxation obligations. In this case any extra money flowing out of the treasury to cover the cost of extended benefits would be recouped by the added money that would come in on the revenue side. All indications are that this is a revenue neutral matter.

What would cost taxpayers money would be the ensuing legal costs of contesting personal discrimination suits that could be launched because of federal government refusal to conform with the charter of rights and freedoms. Those who oppose this legislation might address this concern. There is a rising awareness in this country of the importance of the charter and of its application in a myriad of situations, this general round being one of them.

This brings me to my final point. I would respect anyone's right to oppose this bill but we should consider the consequences of not proceeding with it. I want to emphasize that I understand that there are people who see this from a different perspective. I appreciate that. I might have been the same way at some point in the past. I understand people's right to oppose this because of their religious beliefs and value system. I completely understand that. I am not saying that mine is superior to theirs. I just think that at the moment this is where the mainstream and the majority of Canadians are.

Bill C-23 fits in with the overall philosophy of fairness that the government ascribes to. We must not lose sight of last year's supreme court ruling that gave effect to this bill. It prodded it along. In M v H the supreme court ruled that governments cannot limit benefits and obligations to married and opposite sex common law relationships. If this bill had not been introduced, or if the House chooses to defeat it, we must understand that the federal government's general operations would run afoul of this constitutional obligation as laid out by the charter.

Our constitutional system demands that its governments strictly adhere to its precepts and that includes the charter of rights of freedoms. It would not be able to operate indefinitely without doing so. One can argue that if it did, a constitutional crisis could develop. That might be taking it a distance, but it undermines the respect for the charter. No government can operate outside the constitutional box for that long. For this reason Bill C-23 is necessary.

I would like to think that this is not a piece of legislation that has been ordered, that the supreme court has held a gun to our head saying that we must do this. The supreme court is there to tell us whether a piece of legislation is consistent with the charter, whether it is consistent with the spirit intent of the charter, and whether a particular piece of legislation which is sensitive to the rights of minorities in this country, stands up to that very important standard as laid down in the charter. The bill simply brings us into line with what the supreme court has interpreted.

It is fair for some people to say that the Supreme Court of Canada should not be telling the Parliament of Canada what to do, and I agree. In this place we can ultimately decide what we are to do, but we should be mindful of the charter. Unless there is some overriding reason to opt out of the charter, and I suggest that would have to be a very severe case, we should be mindful at all times of the rules of fairness, equity and equality. The only way we could ever get out of it is by invoking the notwithstanding clause and in this case it would a no-go, a drastic response.

If we were to operate indefinitely by invoking the notwithstanding clause every time certain interests suggest we should, we would end up undoubtedly questioning the legitimacy of the charter which guarantees the rights we hold very close as a democratic society and as citizens of Canada.

Some might choose to diminish the supreme court ruling by trotting out the bogeyman of judge made law or by saying the supreme court interpreted the charter in the wrong way and therefore the House can ignore it, just disregard it.

This line of thought is extremely dangerous. By deploying such characterizations critics are effectively delegitimizing the entire judicial system by suggesting that some legal rulings are not as sound as others. For our constitutional system to work we must faithfully accept that rulings made by the Canadian judiciary are sound and appropriately reflect the present meaning of the constitution.

I reiterate that there may be some point in the future where the supreme court makes a ruling that flies in the face of all logic, flies in the face of where we are as a country. There may be that odd ball exception every 10, 15, 50 or 100 years where the notwithstanding clause could be invoked, but this is clearly not the case.

I am grateful for having had the opportunity to address the House on this matter. I hope by offering my views on Bill C-23 that I have been able to allay some concerns people in my riding have expressed to me. I welcome any questions or comments at this time.

[Petitions, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this morning to present identical petitions containing about 10,000 signatures. They call on the federal government to not impose a tax on video rentals.

[Treasury Board, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

A large number of industry and commercial groups state this government's rules concerning cost recovery are not transparent, are usurious, generally unfair and an additional burden on the cost of doing business in this country.

Will the minister lend her support to a parliamentary committee study which would examine all government departments and agencies and how they recover costs?

[Divorce Act, October 28th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-281, an act to amend the Divorce Act (child of the marriage).

Mr. Speaker, the objective of this bill is to declare that a child who has reached the age of majority is not a child of the marriage within the meaning of the Divorce Act by reason of only being enrolled in a program of studies at the post-secondary school level. Accordingly, a court would not be able, except for some other reason, to make a child support order in order to cover all or part of the child's post-secondary expenses if the child has reached the age of majority.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Competition Act, October 28th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-276, an act to amend the Competition Act, 1998 (negative option marketing).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to give first reading this morning to this bill, which would amend the Competition Act to deal with negative option marketing.

I would point out that this bill dovetails with a report released by Industry Canada under the office of consumer affairs which identifies this type of marketing as being the area in which a number of industries have targeted growth. This is simply intended as a measure of consumer protection.

I would also point out that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-393, which existed on the order paper at the time of prorogation. I would ask, pursuant to Standing Order 86(1) and 92(1), that it be reinstated at the same stage at which it existed at the time of prorogation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Division No. 549, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will vote yes.

[Main Estimates, 1999-2000, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I know what the hon. member is saying in his question. The total benefit package for a senator in terms of cost to the public is about $100,000 plus travel which includes 64 return trips and a VIA Rail pass. It is quite a large number of dollars. The answer is that the only other person in this country who probably has an equivalent lifestyle is someone who has won a very large lottery. That is the only person I can think of.