Bernard Bigras

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 18th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I only have two minutes, but I can continue later. This will perhaps allow me to tell you how I have planned my remarks. That is about all I will have time for.

Bill C-16 is a bill on Canadian citizenship, which, naturally, to all intents and purposes, contains the essentials of Bill C-63, a bill that died on the order paper.

The Bloc Quebecois debated it at the standing committee. My colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve was leading the fight at that point on the bill as a whole and had introduced a number of amendments to include a number of—

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

Mr. Speaker, I had not indicated when I began that I would be sharing my time, because I intended to use my full allotted time, that is, 20 minutes.

On May 25, the House of Commons passed Bill C-78. This important pension reform bill included amendments to replace the provisions authorizing the payment of survivor benefits to unmarried opposite sex spouses with provisions authorizing the payment of benefits to spouses without distinction as to sex. Bill C-78 is the first federal statute to explicitly provide for benefits to same sex spouses.

On June 10, Quebec's national assembly unanimously passed a bill to amend various legislative provisions concerning common law couples. This omnibus bill amended the definition of common law spouse in 28 statutes and 11 regulations so as to include homosexual couples, giving them the same status, rights and obligations as unmarried heterosexual couples.

The amended legislation has to do primarily with compensation for accidents in the workplace, health and security in the workplace, labour standards, pension benefits, public sector pension plans and social assistance.

In October, Ontario passed an omnibus bill amending 67 statutes to bring them into line with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Clearly, the government had to follow suit. Unfortunately, the government has once again waited for certain decisions of the courts, including, of course, the supreme court, before introducing this omnibus bill, which will amend a certain number of statutes.

It is also important to point out that the proposed amendments do not all go one way. In effect, they offer new benefits to same sex couples, but they also impose new obligations.

The proposed legislative amendments will preserve the fundamental importance of marriage in our society, in that the definition of marriage will remain unchanged. I mention this to reassure those Liberal members or members of the opposition who are rather conservative, and we know a number of them.

The fact that members of homosexual couples have been denied spousal allowances has generated criticism, as we are well aware, but this criticism was often basically a matter of principle. Gay rights advocates argue that homosexual couples who pay taxes are unfairly denied social benefits and do not receive anything in return for their direct contribution to certain plans, and that they in fact fund the plans of heterosexual couples.

Others contend that the state should continue to not recognize homosexual couples, because granting rights to these couples threatens family values. Also, some gay and lesbian couples refuse to accept the legal obligations and benefits that result from this situation.

The public also expressed its opinion on the issue on a number of occasions. Several public opinion polls were conducted and the results were released. I should point out that the Angus Reid poll conducted for the Department of Justice in the fall of 1998 clearly shows that this bill reflects the will of Canadians.

Indeed, according to that poll, 74% of the respondents agreed with granting federal benefits to gay couples, while 67% felt that same sex couples should get the same benefits and face the same obligations as common law couples. Moreover, 84% of the respondents felt that gays and lesbians should be protected from discrimination. Finally, 59% were of the opinion that homosexual couples should be included in the definition of spouse.

As members can see, we have a number of elements, but several arguments show that Canada is lagging behind on this issue. If we consider, among other things, the omnibus bill introduced by the Quebec government, the ruling issued by the supreme court on May 22, and the action taken by the Ontario government on this issue, it is clear that the changes proposed in Bill C-23, which, as I said before, will impact on 68 federal acts, are necessary.

I will be very pleased to support this bill.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

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

No, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-23, an act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations.

This morning, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve participated very intensively in the debate, giving it more than his all. We know how involved our colleague is with respect to the recognition of same sex spouses, and I believe that the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has succeeded not only in stating the Bloc Quebecois position on this issue, but also very certainly in influencing the positions of certain other parties in the House.

This 166 page document, which I recently examined, is an important bill, as all omnibus bills are, let there be no mistake.

It is a bill that has a major impact, because it amends 68 federal statutes to include same sex spouse in the definition of common law partner.

The importance of this bill becomes evident when we look at the number of ministers sponsoring it. I looked into this and identified five such ministers, from the Department of Human Resources Development, to the Department of Finance, Treasury Board's human resources directorate, the Department of Justice and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

These are major changes involving over 20 departments and agencies. Basically, this bill has one purpose: to restore equity. This equity will make it possible to modernize certain regimes by introducing equality in the law for common law couples but also for same sex or opposite sex couples, in accordance with a May 1999 supreme court decision.

I will take a few moments to review this important decision pronounced on May 22, 1999. This lengthy decision boils down to this: A couple is a couple, regardless of sexual orientation.

In addition, it strikes down a section of the Ontario Family Law Act which makes a distinction between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples with respect to the entitlement to maintenance upon the break-up of a union, whether it be a marriage or a common law relationship.

The immediate consequence of this judgment was that it rendered that section of the act inoperative in Ontario. In fact, this supreme court decision marked the end of the legal debate. From that moment on a new debate ensued, one which became political, parliamentary, and inevitably involved the day to day administration of the government.

The government therefore had no choice but to come up with Bill C-23 in order to comply with the May 22, 1999 decision.

I will give a chronology of the events of the various changes that have occurred, as well as of the facts. It is important to point out that, as far back as 1977, the Government of Quebec was the first to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

As far back as 1979, the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to include sexual orientation. This recommendation is contained in each of the commission's annual reports, up to and including 1995.

Another date that must be recalled is 1982, when the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was incorporated into the Canadian constitution.

In 1985, section 15 of the charter came into effect, the section on the right to equality. The report by the parliamentary Sub-committee on Equality Rights, “Equality for All”, called for the banning of all discrimination based on sexual orientation by the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In 1992, the Ontario appeal court found that the Canadian Human Rights Act needed to be interpreted as forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. As well, during the same year the Canadian Forces announced that they were terminating the restrictions on enlistment and promotion on grounds of sexual orientation.

Bills S-15 and C-108, whose aim was to add sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act, were introduced in the Senate and the House of Commons respectively. They both died on the order paper in September 1993.

In 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the allegation that “family situation” included same sex couples. In 1994, the Government of Ontario introduced Bill 167, which was intended to expand the definition of conjugal relations in Ontario legislation to include homosexual couples. It was rejected at second reading by a vote of 68 to 59.

In 1995, the Supreme Court of Canada gave its first decision under the terms of section 15 of the charter on sexual orientation and the awarding of benefits to same sex spouses. The nine members of the court decided that sexual orientation is an analogous ground for the purposes of section 15, and a majority of the justices decided that the definition of spouse in the Old Age Security Act as a person of the opposite sex contravened section 15. However, a majority felt that the contravention was justified under section 1 of the charter.

I will also point out, as I mentioned in the first part of my remarks, that on May 20, 1999, in an eight to one decision, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the definition of spouse as in part III of the Ontario Family Law Act, which prevented same sex partners from seeking support at the breakup of a relationship, contravened section 15 of the charter and was unjustified under section 1. The court ordered this provision repealed, but suspended reparations for six months to enable the legislators in Ontario to correct the contravention of the charter.

[Points Of Order, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a bill denying Quebecers' fundamental rights, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will enlighten members.

This is a study by the C. D. Howe Institute on the currency of an independent Quebec.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it seems we are the only members in this House listening to the hon. member's speech. Out of respect for our colleagues who have a few things to say, I think it would be appropriate if we were all here or, at the very least, if there was a minimum number of members in the House. Therefore I ask you to check to see if we have a quorum.

And the count having teen taken:

[Bill C-20, February 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government seems prepared to do anything to get what it wants. After violating the parliamentary rules last December in making their Bill C-20 public, now we again have the Prime Minister making a mockery of democracy.

Yesterday the Prime Minister said “We do not want to waste too much of the House's time on this. We want to move ahead as quickly as possible”.

The Bloc Quebecois would like to remind the government that, in a democracy, there is but one rate of speed, the one which allows the people to have their voices heard and heeded. This is particularly the case because of the vital importance of Bill C-20, since it lays open to question the fundamental rules of democracy and freedom.

The members of the Bloc Quebecois wish to hear what the groups in society have to say, and they call upon the government to organize extensive public hearings on this bill.

[Point Of Order, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this article published in Le Droit says that what will attract the most attention during this session is Bill C-20. The article was published in Le Droit .

[Point Of Order, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hands an article published today, February 7, in Le Droit , entitled “A Stormy Reopening of Parliament”. In the article, one can read that the debate that will attract the most attention—

[Points Of Order, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have here a study on the social union made by Ghislain Autis for the Quebec Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat.

I would ask for unanimous consent to table this document.