Debates of March 9, 2005 (day 52)

Thank you, Mr. Dent. The motion is in order. To the motion. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for the benefit of the record, could I just get the Minister to state what this motion is to do? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is to deal with one of the concerns that was raised by Egale Canada and Out North.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Ms. Lee.

That is fine, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. Next I recognize Mr. Menicoche.

What exactly was the concern by Egale?

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Regarding mandatory death benefits, the existing wording excludes same-sex couples from those benefits.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don’t know if it is appropriate to put it under clause 5. Is that a totally different subject matter altogether?

Thank you. I was just told that he is adding another clause under clause 5, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Thank you. Clause 5 has been amended.

Agreed.

Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I am in support of Bill 17, but I wanted to ask what seems to me to be an obvious question. Maybe it was asked during the lead up to the bill coming to the House today, but I’m not on the Social Programs committee, so I didn’t get a chance to ask this previously. Why are we proceeding with the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act prior to the Civil Marriage Act being passed in the House of Commons?

---Applause

I just wondered, that’s just an obvious question. I support Bill 17, don’t get me wrong, but I’m asking that obvious question. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We’re proceeding with it now because it is not in any way tied to the definition of civil marriage. As I said in my opening comments, this has nothing to do with recognizing civil marriage and, in fact, half of the amendments in this act also extend benefits and obligations to common-law couples. We’re not talking common-law heterosexual couples, so this bill isn’t dealing exclusively with same-sex benefits. But as Members are aware, there have been a number of court cases throughout the years that have found that laws have to respect the living situations of same-sex couples. Therefore, the obligations and benefits that they are entitled to under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are the same as benefits that are enjoyed by heterosexual couples. The laws in Canada have been found in various jurisdictions to be discriminatory when same-sex couples are not treated the same under the law. So all across Canada, jurisdictions have been modernizing their legislation to meet that test.

As was pointed out earlier, if we didn’t do this there’s a likelihood that, even if it wasn’t the right thing to do, which it is, we would face court challenges which we would lose and be forced to change the legislation. I’d be hard pressed to explain to the people of the North why we’d be spending money that we know we’re just throwing away to try and defend discriminatory laws. We have a far better purpose on which to spend our money. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted that clarified by the Minister because it would seem, even though it doesn’t deal with marriages per se, but just from a sheer optics point of view or a natural process point of view you would think that we would get some certainty on the definition of marriage and then proceed from there. But again, I do support Bill 17, but I just wondered on the process a little bit. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We had a good part of this debate in the 14th Assembly and the process was started there with the changing of some laws in recognition of court decisions. What we’re doing now is continuing on with that process. It was a commitment that was made in the Assembly at that time that we would continue to do it. So it’s necessary that we change our laws. They are discriminatory right now. We should proceed with them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Ramsay. Thank you. Clause 5, as amended. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much. Well, the Minister keeps talking about not changing the definition, but that’s what he’s doing. That’s what every page on here is doing is changing the definition of co-habiting and spouse. I don’t know where he gets off saying he’s not changing any definition at all. That’s the fundamental reason why I’m opposing any of these changes at all. He is changing the definition and the people I represent are opposed to that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, we are in many of these clauses saying that spouse includes people who are not married but co-habit. I don’t expect the Member would think that we would continue to prohibit that definition from being changed. That’s one of the things that we are recognizing. There is no discussion of marriage in this act. As I said in my opening comments, until the definition is changed by the federal government or a court decision is made in our jurisdiction, then the definition of marriage remains the same. But a spouse doesn’t have to be somebody who is legally married to another person. Yes, we are changing the definition of spouse in here to include that so that the people who are not legally married are considered spouses.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much. Well, I don’t know. You can colour it different ways there, Mr. Minister, but it still means the same thing. You’re still changing the definition of co-habitation to what it was and I’m fundamentally opposed to that because people are concerned back home that we’re opening up the flood gates. What’s going to be okay next? A man living with two women? Or a woman living with two men? It just opens up the flood gates and that’s a real fear that I’m here to tell you today. When is it going to stop? Is it going to be okay then for somebody below legal age to be in a co-habitation? I’m not going to have any part of allowing any of the liberalization of any act. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. More of a comment, Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the amendments are very clear and they don’t get into the issues that the Member is speaking about. I think what we are doing is we are correcting a situation that has been clearly seen by the courts to be discriminatory in Canada under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a government we have a responsibility to respect the laws of Canada and make sure that our laws are respectful and meet the test of the Charter.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Menicoche. Clause 5, as amended. Mr. Zoe.

Thank you. Just to follow up on what my colleague is saying; first of all, I guess I want to make a comment. I don’t know why this particular legislation, Bill 17, is a high priority for this government.

---Applause

Number one. There are other priorities, like the Wildlife Act, that have been sitting on our books for the last how many years…

Hear! Hear!

…and now this thing comes up and the government puts this as high priority. We know what’s happening in Ottawa. Why couldn’t they wait until that issue was dealt with? Specifically to this clause, Mr. Chairman, they’re mixing apples and oranges here.

---Laughter

You know? Not oranges to oranges, but apples to oranges. On one hand what they’re doing, it’s not a laughing matter. What they’re doing is for the unmarried common-law couples for the benefits, as the Minister indicated, in some of our laws that we have in place the benefits for common-law couples they don’t receive now because of the way our law is. I agree with the Minister that those types of amendments have to come forward so that the unmarried common-law couples can receive those types of things and make all those necessary changes as these ones. But on the other hand, for same-sex couples they’re giving them the same thing. By doing that, you’re basically agreeing with same-sex marriage. It ties together.

---Applause

So why didn’t the government, to play it on the safe side, particularly for the majority of the people in the Territories, separate those two issues and bring in a bill pertaining to unmarried common-law spouses so they fit into this bill. Maybe at a later date, after what happens in Ottawa, bring in another amendment for the same-sex marriage to make the same amendments. Why couldn’t they do that rather than lumping it all together? That’s my question to the Minister on spouses.

Thank you. On clause 5, as amended. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Whether the federal government actually changes the definition of marriage or not we should still proceed with this legislation. Even if the definition of marriage isn’t changed, we should proceed with this. The Member just agreed that heterosexual common-law couples shouldn’t be discriminated against simply because they’re not legally married. That is supported by the courts. Well, the courts have supported the exact same thing with same-sex couples. You can’t discriminate against them simply because they’re not legally married. You can’t say they’re not a couple. So whether the definition of marriage is changed or not, it has nothing to do with whether or not couples have rights. The courts have found that heterosexual couples, whether they’re married or not, have rights, as do same-sex couples.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Zoe. Clause 5, as amended.

Agreed.

Clause 6.

Agreed.