Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again in the House for a second time to speak in support of Bill C-23. I had the honour and privilege of being one of the first MPs to rise in the House to strongly support the legislation after the Minister of Justice introduced it.
Before I speak to some of the amendments, some of the letters and the inaccurate facts that have been passed out even today as I am sitting here listening to my colleagues from the Canadian Alliance speak, I want to address a couple of things that the last two speakers have said.
The member for Saskatoon—Humboldt talked about the public being opposed to the legislation. The member for Calgary Centre talked about the lack of witnesses in hearings into this matter. While I was sitting here listening I found that quite incredulous. Do they not speak to members of the Canadian Alliance Party in Ontario? Have they not spoken to Mr. Long, who I understand will be seeking the leadership of the Canadian Alliance Party? Are Canadian Alliance Party members who live in Ontario not considered to be members by the Canadian Alliance Party or by the public?
Let us look at what happened on October 25, 1999, in the Ontario legislature. The Ontario government is headed by Mr. Harris. I believe Mr. Long, who hopes to be the leader of this great new party, was well known to Mr. Harris. On October 25, 1999, Queen's Park introduced bill 5.
What did that bill do? It amended 67 provincial statutes to provide benefits to same gender relationships. Unlike the hearings we have had, unlike the debate that is going on today and has been going on, do hon. members know that bill 5 passed in five days without debate and without a recorded vote? It is amazing, is it not, that bill was endorsed by all three parties in Ontario?
My riding is in the province of Ontario. I can confidently say that when I speak today and vote in favour of the bill I will be doing so because I represent my constituents and the will of the majority of the constituents in my riding.
There has been a lot of talk about marriage and the definition of marriage. Quite frankly I am personally of the opinion that it was not necessary to put the definition of marriage in this legislation because this legislation has nothing to do with marriage. Notwithstanding that, I will support the amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice.
For all of the talk about losing the sanctity of marriage and that the government is forcing this through and it is happening very quickly, I should remind members opposite that in its haste the Ontario government failed to take into account widespread public concern around the issue of marriage. Yet the federal government and the justice minister have felt it important to include the definition of marriage in this legislation.
Let us look at what the bill is about. The purpose of the bill is straightforward. As I said on February 15, the bill amends legislation in order to recognize the principle of equal treatment for all common law relationships.
The member for Calgary Centre talked about how this bill was going to extend the same benefits that married couples are receiving. That is not true at all. Right now benefits are being extended to common law spouses and those benefits will be extended to same sex couples.
The bill looks at both obligations and rights. The important thing to remember is that the legislation is about fairness, tolerance and non-discrimination.
My colleague the deputy whip spoke about the fact that in a changing society the family unit is changing. She talked about her children. I have been married for 22 years and I also have three children. We have discussed this legislation with my children. My children do not understand what the big ado is all about. If there is one legacy I can leave to my children when I leave Parliament Hill it is the legacy of fairness, non-discrimination and being taught that it is not fair to discriminate any longer. Intolerance is not acceptable in Canada or in our Canadian values.
Members have also talked about the whole concept of widening the legislation to include brothers and sisters and dependency. One of the things I have not heard talked about here at all is the equitable principle in law known as quantum meruit. This equitable principle often arises in estate situations when a deceased person has failed to provide adequate compensation in his or her will or may have died intestate or may have left a legacy in a will but has not sufficiently compensated a person who provided either services or work for the deceased person during his or her lifetime. This happens often in relationships between brothers and sisters or parents and their children. It is very important when we talk about the concept of widening the whole area of dependency that we do not ignore the equitable principle known as quantum meruit.
Let us look at the definition of the principle of quantum meruit as defined in Black's Law Dictionary. According to Black's quantum meruit is an equitable doctrine based on the concept that no one who benefits by the labour and materials of another should be unjustly enriched thereby. Under those circumstances the law implies the promise to pay a reasonable amount for the labour and materials furnished even absent a specific contract therefor.
There are four essential elements of recovery under quantum meruit. First is that valuable services were rendered or materials furnished. Second is that it was done for the person sought to be charged. Third is which services and materials were accepted by that person sought to be charged were used and enjoyed by them. Fourth is that under such circumstances a reasonably notified person sought to be charged, that plaintiff in performing such services was expected to be paid by that person sought to be charged. The principle of quantum meruit applies whether there is an expressed contract or an implied contract.
During my years as a practising lawyer about one-third of my practice was spent in estate law and often this principle came up. For example, a nephew looked after his aunt and drove her from place to place. The aunt had promised him a piece of land. She died intestate. There was nothing left. While the statute on frauds came into play and we could not obtain specific performance for the land, the nephew was compensated for the services that he performed.
When we talk about dependency, let us look at the equitable doctrine of quantum meruit. When we do so is it something that we as the federal government would impose in our legislation or is it a matter of property and civil rights which therefore becomes a provincial matter? Again it is a constitutional question.
We can say let us include dependency, that it is not fair when a person lives with and looks after his or her sister and does not receive anything on the sister's death. However, a remedy at law already exists to compensate a person for the services that have been rendered provided that one could reasonably expect to be paid for those services.
I would like to take the last couple of minutes to rule out some of the common myths which have come forward by a concentrated, well driven lobby group of a number of people because the letters we have been receiving in my office are all the same.
On the matter of secrecy, the House has held debates and the committee has held hearings. By the time the legislation passes, it will have had at least five months before the House and the ability to talk about it.
I would submit that the member for Calgary Centre was incorrect when he said that Bill C-23 will grant common law partnerships all the rights and benefits that married unions now have. Bill C-23 will extend to same sex partners the same benefits and obligations that common law opposite sex partners have.
In conclusion, our proposed bill affirms parliament's primary responsibility for social policy. It provides a responsible, balanced and legally sound framework within which to address recent court decisions and to ensure that same sex couples receive fair and equal treatment under the law.
I will vote today on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of my family, my husband and my three children, in favour of this legislation.
