John Bryden

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, we have just heard an example of the rhetoric of intolerance. It is the proper place of this place to define things in law. That is our job. That is what we are here to do. It is my right. I was elected by my constituents to do exactly that.

If the member had been here when I spoke earlier, she would have heard me say that the danger, and why we have to intervene and make these definitions, is that if we do not the courts are likely to extinguish the rights of children.

I am not sure in my conscience that, all things being equal, a child should have a homosexual couple as parents. I am willing to acknowledge that homosexual parents can be good parents. I am willing to give the officials the discretion to make them parents. However I am not willing to give them the right of being parents because, in doing so, we extinguish the rights of children. I cannot do that. It is my place to define the law to make sure that the rights of children are protected.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, this motion arises out of the controversy that followed various supreme court decisions and various other court decisions that were intended to extend various benefits to same sex couples.

I really believe that the controversy is an empty controversy if we as legislators apply ourselves to a few relatively easy changes.

I believe that the majority of Canadians believe in the principle, in the rightness as described in our charter of rights, of making sure all Canadians have equal access to benefits and that they should not be discriminated against because of sexual orientation.

I believe that over the last 20 years Canadians have come to more and more recognize that homosexuality is something that is given to us at birth, that it is not really an alternative lifestyle. It is something that nature or God gives us. It is a flaw, perhaps, or an abnormality. I should say there is nothing unnatural about an abnormality because every one of us is born with differences, weaknesses or strengths.

I think all of us as Canadians believe that we should not discriminate against people merely because they are different from the norm. Indeed homosexual couples and homosexual individuals I think are generally acknowledged to have contributed mightily to the creative life in any country or any community to which they belong.

That having been said, I think we can fix this situation by a few simple legislated definitions. The first should be to legislate a definition of marriage that means legally that marriage is a union between opposite sex couples. Second, we should legislate a definition of spouse.

We have no choice but to connect spouse with the idea of marriage because the dictionary defines spouse as husband and wife, and only the courts can play Samuel Johnson at their whim and redefine language whenever they please. We as legislators have to respect language in both English and French and make sure that we are using current language and using words as they are intended to be used.

Then what we should do is create a new definition and call it dependent partner. We define dependent partner as an adult who is in an emotionally dependent relationship with another person leading to material dependency. We can extend that definition to say that it involves siblings, that it involves parent and child, or that it involves people of the same sex who are in a physical relationship with one another.

Once we do that then the rest should fall in place. As long as we set aside the fear associated with defining same sex couples as being married, as having the right to adopt children or as eroding the sanctity of marriage, I think the vast majority of Canadians, whether they are very religious or not very religious, will join with this parliament in agreeing that we should make sure all people who are in an emotionally dependent relationship should have equal access to benefits. The advantage to this is that we take, for the most part, sex out of the definition.

I certainly believe, as a former Liberal prime minister once said, that parliament has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. I believe that is so. We should be talking about dependent relationships, not sexual relationships.

I think this is an easy solution. We should think about it over the summer. I am glad the Reform Party put this motion forward today because we are coming to the end of this sitting and we need to reflect on this issue so we can easily resolve it when the fall comes.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to follow my colleague from Scarborough East because I share many of the sentiments he has expressed.

First, let me say that I am a member of parliament. My decisions are made here and they are made by my brain and my conscience. I am not bound by any policy decisions made by a Liberal convention. The Reform Party may be bound by the suggestions from policy conventions but not me. These are merely suggestions of policy that have come from the membership of the Liberal party. But, when push comes to shove, as members of parliament we have to decide on our own consciences in this Chamber.

I have no difficulty saying that I support this motion. It is a little premature for me because I would have liked more time over the summer to formulate a better expression of my thoughts concerning the controversy surrounding same sex couples in terms of the benefits they should receive and the absolute necessity in my mind in preserving the legal concept of marriage as a union of opposite sex couples.

The reason I support this motion is because there are two very important things behind the need to recognize the legality of marriage as an opposite sex union. First, it is the idea that many Canadians still believe, despite the fact that there are some Canadians who have lost some faith in the various organized churches, absolutely in the sanctity of marriage. We owe those Canadians an obligation to respect their feelings on this issue. We should not willy-nilly trample on something that has been a tradition for many thousands of years.

For me the really crucial issue with respect to the legality of an opposite sex union being termed a marriage is the idea of adoption. I voted against my government several years back on this very issue. I support absolutely the need to support couples who are in an emotionally dependent relationship that becomes materially dependent, be they same sex couples or couples that are dependent for other reasons. I feel very strongly that while I support that idea absolutely, I am very concerned that we must never, in furthering that goal, extinguish the rights of others. By this I mean specifically children. My fear about recognizing same sex marriages is that it would infuse a right for homosexual couples to adopt children.

Right now there is a discretionary ability for homosexual couples to adopt children and I think that is fine, because I am not one to say that it is impossible, indeed, even unlikely, that a homosexual couple might make excellent parents. What I am not prepared to say is that, all things being equal, a homosexual couple make equally as good parents as a heterosexual couple. I do not think society and our understanding of the human psyche has progressed that far that we can be prepared to make that judgment.

The idea or the concept of retaining the legal concept of marriage as an opposite sex union is, I think, extremely important in terms of preserving the rights of children, the right of a child to be brought up by heterosexual parents.

That being said, I really do welcome this debate, because what has happened is that in the courts, when we leave it to the courts, the judges sit back and they hear the evidence presented before them. However, if that evidence is flawed or that evidence is incomplete, then what happens is that the court will make an incomplete decision.

We saw that in the use of the word conjugal, which came up in Bill C-78. The government used the word conjugal based on its use in previous court decisions. When I examined that, I discovered that the courts did not consider the meaning of conjugal. The courts merely made a change to existing legislation and ignored the fact that conjugal means heterosexual, unless we had a situation where even the supreme court was implying that the word conjugal means same sex unions when it does not mean that at all. What we have to do—

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-31 was expected to restore Indian status to about 10,000. It has not given Indian status to around 120,000 or 130,000.

I do not quarrel for a minute with the original intention of Bill C-31, but unfortunately, like so many good things, it has created a different kind of monster that, in my view, as an outsider of the aboriginal community, is doing terrible damage to the aboriginal community.

I also point out that in communities such as Winnipeg, where there are so many urban aboriginals, we have people in poverty and some of them being treated differently simply because of their race. It is the wrong thing to do. We need to revisit it and still maintain the original intention, but it still needs a fix.

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure exactly what the question is.

Ultimately this parliament does decide, and that is actually one of the reasons I also have faults with the motion as it stands, because it makes an appeal to the supreme court, asking the supreme court basically for permission to write the legislation, when in fact we do know that if the legislation, when it does go through, is in contravention of the constitution, it will very soon be struck down.

However, in the end, whenever we try to establish something for someone, we are going to have some people who will object. All I can say is that the real fault here is not with the constitution, and I do not think it is going to be with the principle of the Nisga'a agreement or aboriginal self-government. The real fault is with these other bits of legislation like Bill C-31. I think it really needs to be revisited.

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I must say it is an honour to follow the member for Nunavut, because I think her remarks are very appropriate to the debate today. I hope some of my remarks will complement what she has said.

Let me begin first by pointing out that the motion before the House is in my view very premature, because what it does is raise questions about the Nisga'a treaty when in fact what this parliament is all about is legislation.

The normal process is for a government to enter into a treaty, either a treaty with an aboriginal people or a treaty with a foreign state, and for parliament to examine the text of that treaty and ratify it in legislation.

We really cannot address the concerns being raised by the Reform Party members until this House actually has the legislation before it. Then I am certainly prepared to look at some of the concerns that have been raised.

I should preface my remarks also by saying that I am not one who believes that radicalism, as mentioned by the member from the New Democratic Party, is what is motivating my colleagues in the Reform Party. I have had quite a bit of experience on the aboriginal affairs committee and I can assure the House that members on both sides of the committee room, those on the government side and those on the opposition side, share a genuine concern for the welfare of aboriginals across the country.

My problem with the motion today, though, is not simply that it is premature on the Nisga'a issue. It is that I think genuinely the members of the Reform Party, in their search for solutions to the problems that they see that are very evident in some of the aboriginal communities in their ridings, are addressing the wrong portion of the problem.

I am one who, I have to admit, two years ago approached the question of aboriginal self-government with a lot of trepidation; but I have come to the conclusion, particularly after my time on the aboriginal affairs committee in which we saw hundreds of witnesses, that aboriginal self-government is a very meaningful way to go, shall we say.

I think we have heard many times today about what the courts say about treaty rights and that kind of thing. I am not one who really believes that it should be the courts that determine what is the spirit of this country. I prefer to approach the constitution and the charter of rights for the special provision for aboriginals to try to fathom the reasoning of my predecessors in according these special rights to the aboriginal peoples.

I have come to the conclusion, and it was not very hard I have to say, that indeed this country is composed of three great founding peoples. Certainly we have heard many times from the Bloc Quebecois that one of those founding peoples were those who spoke French and indeed settled New France.

Another of the founding peoples were certainly the English who came in mainly via the 13 colonies and later settled the interior of Canada.

The other founding people were the aboriginals. I do not think any of us should ever forget that there would be no French speaking Canadians nor English speaking Canadians were it not for the fact that the aboriginals taught our ancestors how to live in the wilderness.

It is that sense of those people who are still with us and are such an important part of us. It was their connection with the wilderness, to the physical spirit of Canada, that has earned them a special place in our society that is reflected in the constitution.

That special place as reflected in the constitution has to do with territory. The reason the constitution talks about treaties and the reason why we talk about a treaty with the Nisga'a is that in order to express the cultural and historical connection of the various aboriginal nations with the territory, with Canada, with the wilderness, we have to describe it in terms of where they live and where indeed they still live.

I remind the House that it is Canada's aboriginal people who choose to live on the frontiers of our country, who choose to be the custodians of our wilderness. Even though I am an urban Canadian, regardless of whether I am French speaking or English speaking or a naturalized Canadian, it is an important part of me to know that there is someone who is looking after and feeling the forest, if you will, feeling the lakes and feeling the sunsets in a way I can never do.

I submit it is that incredible role of the aboriginal peoples, regardless of whether they are in the Arctic, in western Canada, in northern Canada or wherever, that is the great contribution they have to us.

There are problems. I think there are terrible problems in the interpretation of the constitution and the spirit of our relationship with the aboriginal people in legislation that has come since the charter of rights. I refer very specifically to what was called Bill C-31, which was passed into law in 1985.

In order to address a problem with aboriginal women who lost status when they left reserves, when they married off reserves, has created I think a problem that should be the real focus of the opposition in this kind of debate, and that is the problem of defining aboriginals strictly by race and not by their connection to the wilderness or their connection to their own culture or their language.

When that law was passed, within five years between 1985 and 1991, I think 98,000 new aboriginals were created. Some of these aboriginals were created in my own community. They were created out of people who had no connection, no memory and no thought of any connection to an actual band or piece of territory or wilderness. They were no different from anyone else in my community and yet because they got Indian status suddenly they were awarded privileges: medical care, education and all kinds of privileges that were not accorded to other Canadians.

Now we have some sort of archaic mechanism whereby the Indian status is given to people, subject to an arcane questionnaire in which they demonstrate that somewhere along the line, maybe four or five generations back, they are related to an aboriginal.

I submit that is very wrong and it is also very costly. The government has not done a study since 1991, but in 1991 it was clear just in non-insured health benefits alone it was costing $122 million to service these Canadians who were suddenly status Indians with no connection to the wilderness or to their own culture.

We now have a crisis at hand because what has occurred is that the supreme court has ruled now that all aboriginals who have status can now come back to the reserves or whatever band they claim to have a connection with and vote in the elections. That distorts everything.

We have a situation out there where we have the people who choose to live on the reserves, who choose to live in the wilderness, to be custodians of the game and to look after the environment. They are responsible. We now have a situation where people with no connection can come back and have the same rights to shoot the game, take the fish and vote in band elections. I suggest that this is a major threat to aboriginal culture and identity. This is where the debate ought to be: The idea, the principle of going out to the land and finding a people like the Nisga'a and telling them that they have stayed on their land, stayed in their forests, stayed in their mountains and have looked after their mountains for generations. The only way we can give them recognition for what they have done, and ensure that they will continue to do it, is to have a treaty. We certainly want to make sure that the treaty protects the rights of all Canadians and protects the people living in the community. It is ultimately the right way to go.

We have to go back and look at the legislation that created the so-called C-31ers, who in fact are drawing money away for no good purpose. Many of the C-31ers are university educated and have jobs. Some of them are actually working for the civil service and yet their children can have free schooling and special benefits. This draws away from our ability to help those aboriginals who really deserve help because they are doing something special for the country, those aboriginals who have decided to stay in the wilderness.

I see I am out of time. I appreciate the opportunity to make these remarks even though the motion itself does not approach the real concerns.

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the concerns expressed by my colleague opposite. However, I would submit to him that the actual place where systems of accountability and election and propriety, shall we say, should exist should be in the legislation, not in the treaty.

I suggest that the initiative coming from the Reform Party on the question before the House is premature. I think his questions are more relevant to the legislation that will come before us in six months, or perhaps to different legislation entirely. I cite for example the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. These are elements of legislation that should address the kind of problems that he is mentioning.

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there must have been an error in translation because I kept hearing the member opposite use the word liberate, as though the Nisga'a want to be liberated in the same sense that some sovereignists want to separate from the rest of Canada.

What the Nisga'a want in this treaty is to join. The treaty is all about giving the Nisga'a a sense of cultural unity with the rest of Canada at the same time as their culture is respected. This country is the creation of three great founding peoples: those who speak English, those who speak French and those who are of the aboriginal heritage who speak many languages. They were the ones who welcomed us and made it possible for the English and French speaking people to survive in the wilderness.

I suggest to the member opposite that he consider the Nisga'a in the sense of belonging to this country. I reject his premise that the Nisga'a need to be liberated. That is not the point at all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say both. I think it is very important that the Supreme Court and the courts interpret for us, but where we fail is when we fail as parliament to give the courts the proper tools.

Then we have a case in point where the supreme court is suddenly defining conjugal for us. I think it is a mistake and we have to get in there very quickly as parliamentarians before real damage is done.

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

In my view, Mr. Speaker, the government has said that it is being driven by the courts but I think it has interpreted the courts entirely incorrectly. The courts have not ruled on the definition of conjugal.

I think the real answer here is for parliament and the government to bring in legislation that sets this matter to rest once and for all: define cohabitation, define spouse, define marriage. We do not have to define conjugal at all because I do not believe we should be in the business of defining ourselves in terms of our sexual orientation. If we look at the legislation, if we look at the court decisions, we will find that what we are really talking about is dependency, cohabitation, this kind of concept. We can leave sex out of it entirely as far as I am concerned.