Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate, a debate that has been filled with a great deal of information, a great deal of emotion and I think is generally reflective of the range of emotions that people across the country certainly feel when approaching this subject matter.
Bill C-23, modernization of benefits and obligations, is appropriately named. There is obviously an element of modernization and certainly one of obligation that will stem from the omnibus type of legislation that amends 68 statutes in federal jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, you have heard and other speakers before you have heard a great deal of consternation and oftentimes heated debate on this subject matter. Members of parliament individually have been receiving I am sure a great deal of correspondence and a great deal of feedback, both positive and negative, about this subject matter, this bill. Whenever it appears, whenever issues of sexual orientation or anything that might be perceived as infringing upon traditional views, values, definitions, there is bound to be a reaction that is often motivated by fear, misunderstanding and raw emotion.
We should be rather temperate and understanding and do our utmost to not fan the flames in this instance, as we have seen in other instances.
I am not drawing a direct correlation, but there is a situation currently on the east coast of Canada where we had a decision handed down by the supreme court that has spurned a great deal of debate about native and aboriginal fishing rights in our fisheries. Once again we saw a tremendous outpouring of reaction and emotion that bordered on violence and in fact led to some instances of violence. It is incumbent upon us as members not to add fuel to an already volatile situation. We border on doing that in the midst of this debate.
These issues, no doubt, will not go away even in the wake of this legislation passing. Whatever decision is made in the final analysis when this bill in fact does pass, if it does pass, the issue itself is not going to dissipate or disappear.
With that said, I have had the opportunity personally to meet with members of my constituency, individuals who are watching this debate and following it very closely. I met quite recently with Ernie Curry of Antigonish who is the president of the Catholic Civil Rights League in the Antigonish area. On April 3 I met with Mr. Curry and his group and we had a very productive meeting, in my view, with respect to the contents of Bill C-23.
Although at the end of our lengthy meeting we may not have agreed entirely on every point, the fact remains that both sides were heard. It was a very open and frank discussion where information and points of view were exchanged. I would hope at the end of the day that is the process that we are embarking on here. This is the type of analysis that can bear fruit and can give individuals an opportunity to at least understand all the signs.
As I said of that meeting, we may not have agreed on every point but we certainly came to a greater appreciation of the points of view that do exist. I was very appreciative of the opportunity to hear from him, and certainly to hear from him on the efforts, dedication and good work that is done by him and his organization.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-23, as you would know as an individual who has followed and participated in this debate previously as an individual member of parliament for Kingston and the Islands, this bill does not intend, nor was it intended to change in a legal sense the definition of marriage or spouse for that matter. Bill C-23, in fact, may now include a definition because of the eleventh hour insertion of that amendment. However, it remains clear that the intent is not to change, deviate, revamp or somehow diminish any definition of marriage, or certainly not to attack the institution of marriage.
Many definitions have been put forward in the House, most notably by members of the Reform Party. These amendments were brought forward in good faith as an attempt to bring greater clarity and definition to what we perceive as the traditional view of marriage.
This happened as well at the justice committee. It was moved by the parliamentary secretary that we now include this definition of marriage. That was one which the Conservative Party supported. I can say personally as a member of that justice committee that we were in support of that definition.
On March 22 the government brought forward this amendment and it was adopted at the committee that the definition of one man and one woman as defining the traditional view of marriage would be entrenched in the bill. This does not affect what others have decided upon as being their view of marriage. The Conservative Party does not want to partake in any attack or any frontal assault on what is viewed as a traditional understanding of what a marriage is.
As a member of the committee, although I supported this amendment, in many instances it is not necessary. It is perhaps better left unsaid that marriage is a person's view of what that union means to them spiritually, religiously, from their background and from their upbringing.
I fear that there are occasions when we become so caught up in Cartesian thinking that we have to write everything down. I would suggest this stems from the early eighties when we contemplated bringing back the constitution, repatriating it and putting in place a charter of rights that writes down every obligation and every right in the country.
By doing so, inevitably the fear is that we will leave something out. There has always been a common law notion that there are certain things that are accepted and certain things that people have come to view as practice, a normal evolution if you will, of how the law acts and how people react and interact with one another in society.
More and more we are seeing the country faced with a situation where the government is becoming very intrusive, writing everything down and reminding people of what they do and cannot do, and essentially putting it all before them. It is like layers of shingles on a roof. There is no point in time, it appears, that government is prepared to maybe take some of those shingles away before we put another layer on top of it. More and more we are seeing bureaucracy become more intrusive, more involved and more active in people's everyday existence.
I fear that this trend has to be somehow stopped or stemmed. We should be re-examining what we are doing. A perfect example is the legislation with respect to gun registration. We know that the legislation came about as a reaction to a horrible incident in the country where women were murdered in Montreal. Yet, rather than try to deal with the root causes or with the problem itself, the knee-jerk reaction of the government of the day, the current government, was to put in place a registry system that is cumbersome, bureaucratic, intrusive and does not in fact affect the criminal element at all. It focuses on individuals who are already participating in a very lawful and personally relevant activity, perhaps skeet shooting, hunting or recreational use of firearms.
Whether anyone personally engages in that, some individuals choose to do so and that is their right, and yet the government has targeted those persons as being a group that will be legislated and almost vilified by virtue of this type of legislation.
There are numerous examples that could be cited. It is not surprising in a way that the government in this regard chose to include the definition of marriage with respect to this legislation. The government, of course, many would suggest and I might be one of them, is becoming rather complacent, devoid of ideas, very moderate and mundane in its approach to the future of the country.
It is very obvious that in the context of this legislation when people reacted, and perhaps reacted in a negative way much like we saw with the idea that we might be subsidizing the NHL, the government, like a windsock and the party that likes to lead the parade in progress, reacted by inserting at the last minute a definition of marriage. Perhaps it should have done so at the earliest instance but it is a government that obviously is completely led around by the nose by public opinion polls.
The Minister of Justice decided, and for weeks and weeks building up to the introduction of the bill, that it was not necessary and that it was not about marriage. She went to great efforts and pain to remind Canadians that this was not at all about marriage, and yet this is what we see when the government is backed into a corner.
With that, and as I have indicated, we do support the idea of having this definition in the interpretation act although, Mr. Speaker, as you will know as a person with a legal background, this will not in fact have any real legal implications on things such as the Family Maintenance Act or the Divorce Act. These types of bills will not be affected in essence by this insertion in the interpretation of Bill C-23.
I know that there has been a motion put on the floor by the Reform Party that attempts to broaden the definition and insert essentially this new entrenched version of what marriage is. I applaud the motivation for doing so, but I do not necessarily follow the thinking or why it is they have chosen to go about this task.
I will be supporting many of the amendments put forward by the member for Calgary Centre which focus in on the definition of marriage and spouse in the various statutes that will be affected by Bill C-23. As I have indicated, this will not have a drastic effect on the current operation of family courts around the country.
I reiterate that Bill C-23, which is omnibus legislation, extends benefits and obligations to same sex couples and opposite sex couples with respect to the fiscal obligations and benefits that can accrue and flow. There is still a criterion or a hurdle that a person would have to get over to benefit or become eligible for that entitlement.
This legislation has been referred to by many as being driven by the judiciary and, in particular, the supreme court ruling in M. v H. The government cannot, by virtue of this decision, limit benefits or obligations by discriminating against same sex common law relationships. Denying equal treatment before the law to same sex couples is contrary to the principles of equity enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as our Canadian Human Rights Act.
A very simple principle was set out by that decision. It was a very straightforward statement by the courts saying that same sex couples cannot be treated differently on a fiscal level. This was not a moral judgment. This was not an attempt by the courts to tread into that sacred ground of marriage. This was simply a legal recognition that there was a fiscal standard that had to be applied when looking at human relations.
The previous speaker made a very eloquent speech about the need to recognize that this is about humanity and about treating human beings with the same level of fairness, the same judicious, equitable standard that is applied around this great country. He and others have referred to the fact that things like the civil rights movement would not have occurred unless we had a vision of how we should interact with one another, irrespective of race, sex, cultural background or language. All of these stigmas that can sadly become attached to individuals in our society must be viewed with an even hand.
Justice is supposed to be blind. We have seen the symbols of justice: the woman who is blindfolded and holds a sword and the scales. This is how the law is suppose to weigh how we treat individuals in society. This is the same as more recent vintages; the way we have treated women in this country. They were only given the vote as early as 1940 and only allowed to own property in the last century. That came about at a time when it was very volatile. There was often fragmented and angry debate but the country's moral fabric did not tear apart. The country has not been reduced to shambles and burning embers. The country has survived.
To somehow suggest that we will be thrown into chaos and that the country will completely break down if we begin to extend equitable treatment and fiscal fairness to same sex partners is inflammatory.
This legislation is about equity and fairness of obligations and rights as it accrues to individuals who have paid into a fund. This is often about a person having the ability to receive a return on a fund that he or she has legally paid into and now wishes to benefit from.
This legislation maintains a clear definition between married and unmarried relationships. Even though the legislation refers to marriage, it does not go into the area of what is a spouse. It makes no attempt to define marriage as being inclusive or exclusive of individuals who have chosen to live a certain lifestyle. It protects and recognizes the merit and the obvious view that marriage is a beautiful thing.
The Progressive Conservative Party was the first to stand up and say that there was absolutely nothing wrong with recognizing the value and the importance of that choice. One is not exclusive of the other. A person's view and a person's personal attachment to what their concept of marriage is has to be respected, and that is fine.
This legislation does not undermine marriage. It does not take the pins out from under the people who have chosen to practice their life in a certain way and engage in a certain lifestyle and marriage. Marriage is but one choice that people have to make in their lives in choosing how they interact with same sex and opposite sex individuals.
It has been suggested that because the legislation recognizes fiscal benefits and obligations, which already exists in our society today, for same sex couples, that it will somehow denigrate those who chose a different lifestyle, a lifestyle that some would view as more traditional and some would view as being the majority. However, those of us in the majority have to be respectful of those in the minority. It is one of the fundamental principles upon which this country was based. That is where the tie-in exists between previous minority groups that have been discriminated against. We have had very historic debates in this Chamber on aboriginal rights, the rights of women, the rights of blacks and the civil rights movement. There is a correlation when it comes to oppression that has to be remedied.
The major change in this bill, which proposes to encompass same sex and opposite sex couples in common law relationships for one year, is that both benefits and obligations will be recognized for these types of relationships.
A lot has been said about the issue of conjugality, which has been described by some as simply sexual relations. That is factually incorrect. Some MPs have expressed a great deal of concern about the definition. Let me refer to the M. v H. case at pages 59 and 60 where the supreme court approved the criteria for conjugal relationships. This was enunciated in the case of Molodowich v Penttinen, which is a 1980 case found at 17 R.F.L., second edition, 376. This was an Ontario District Court decision.
The supreme court held that it
—sets out the generally accepted characteristics of a conjugal relationship. They include shared shelter, sexual and personal behaviour, services, social activities, economic support and children, as well as the societal perception of the couple. However, it was recognized that these elements may be present in varying degrees and not all are necessary for the relationship to be found to be conjugal.
That is crystal clear as to how conjugal relations should not be boxed into a very strict definition.
I appreciate the numerous interventions that other members have made on this bill. I appreciate the considerable correspondence I have received from members of my constituency of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough in Nova Scotia and from around the country. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has the utmost respect for the views of others on this bill. We have chosen to allow members of our party to vote with their conscience and to partake in a free vote, which is something I do not believe other members of the House have chosen to do.
I appreciate the opportunity to have put my humble remarks on the record with respect to Bill C-23.
