JUST Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 2, 2000

• 1112

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. Again we're hearing from witnesses on Bill C-23, an act to modernize the statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations.

For the next round, from now until roughly 1 p.m., appearing from Queen's University we have Professor Martha Bailey from the Faculty of Law; from the Canada Family Action Coalition, Peter Stock, the national affairs director; and from EGALE, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, Kim Vance, president, and John Fisher.

I believe everybody is familiar with the process. Each group is accorded 10 minutes to make a presentation. I'd like to ask you to be conscious of that 10 minutes. It's easier for you to interrupt yourself than it is for me to interrupt you. After that we'll have an opportunity to dialogue with members of the committee.

With that, I would turn first to Professor Martha Bailey.

Professor Martha Bailey (Faculty of Law, Queen's University): Thank you very much.

I'm not here as an advocate. I wasn't sure what would be helpful for the committee, but I've prepared a few remarks that I thought might be helpful. I certainly would be happy to answer questions.

As the chair pointed out, I'm a professor in the Faculty of Law at Queen's University. I have law degrees from the University of Toronto, Queen's University, and Oxford University. My area of specialization is family law. I'm familiar with the laws relating to marriage and marriage-like relationships in Canada and in other western countries. I'd be happy to answer questions about those.

Bill C-23 aims, I take it, to put same-sex couples in the same position as unmarried opposite-sex couples for matters within federal legislative jurisdiction. The benefits and obligations flowing from Bill C-23 are based on cohabitation. They're not based on a registration scheme. Bill C-23 is responsive to judicial rulings that extending benefits and obligations to unmarried opposite-sex couples but not to same-sex couples violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would observe that in putting forth Bill C-23, Parliament has not acted precipitously. It has proceeded cautiously, and it has waited until judicial rulings made it clear that existing legislation is inconsistent with the charter. It's my opinion—and, as I say, I'm not an advocate—that it's important for Parliament to enact Bill C-23 in order to bring federal legislation in line with the charter.

• 1115

One issue I'd like to address now is whether Bill C-23 should extend the benefits and obligations available to unmarried opposite-sex couples to those who live together in a relationship of interdependency but not in a conjugal relationship, for example, a mother and a grown daughter who live together where the daughter supports the mother. Parliament may well want to extend benefits and obligations to such relationships. Other jurisdictions have done so. For example, New South Wales protects those in close personal relationships, that is, those who live together, whether or not they are related, where one or each provides the other with domestic support and personal care.

Protecting dependent persons from being suddenly cut off from family support because of the death of the supporting person or some other reason should, I think, be considered carefully. But the issues relating to protecting dependent persons overlap with but are distinct from those relating to benefits and obligations for couples. How to protect persons in relationships of dependency is a large issue that requires further consideration. That project should not, in my opinion, delay the amendment of legislation that has now been clearly found to be discriminatory.

The second issue I'd like to address is whether Bill C-23 affects the definition of marriage. Bill C-23 addresses benefits and obligations that have been traditionally associated with marriage. But the status of marriage and the benefits and obligations traditionally associated with marriage are separate and distinct matters. Bill C-23 does not, in my opinion, affect the definition of marriage in any way. I've heard it suggested in the press that some people have put forward the idea that Bill C-23 should explicitly provide that it does not affect the existing definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In my opinion, such a provision is unnecessary. It's clear, I think, as a legal matter that Bill C-23 simply addresses various benefits and obligations that have been traditionally associated with marriage. If such a provision were included in Bill C-23, in my opinion it would not change the possibility that a charter challenge could be brought to challenge the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. So that issue is separate and distinct from whether or not Bill C-23 includes a provision setting out the traditional definition of marriage. Whether it does or does not, a charter challenge to the exclusion of same-sex couples to the right to marry could still be brought. Whether or not it would be successful, I don't know, but the inclusion of such a provision in Bill C-23, it seems to me, would not affect that.

Another point I'd like to make is that Bill C-23 is not the final chapter in the reform of family laws. Our laws and the laws of other countries relating to the family have evolved as circumstances have changed. But as I've said before, in my opinion Bill C-23 should be enacted now to remove obvious discrimination from federal laws. As I've said before, Parliament hasn't acted hastily on this matter, and it's very clear that certain existing laws do violate the charter.

• 1120

I'd like to make a couple of final comments on the specific wording of Bill C-23. In Bill C-23 a common-law partnership is a relationship between two persons who are cohabiting in a conjugal relationship and have so cohabited for a period of at least a year. I'd suggest that it might be a good idea to include “relationship between two persons of the same or opposite sex”, just to avoid the ambiguity relating to the term “conjugal”. According to the dictionary, conjugal means “of marriage” or “of husband and wife”. Therefore, if the intention is to extend these benefits and obligations to same-sex couples, it might be a good idea to explicitly say that.

The other point I'd make about Bill C-23 is that there is no prohibition against a common-law partnership being formed by persons within the prohibited degrees of relationship that apply to marriage. Most other countries that have laws relating to extending marital rights and obligations to unmarried couples do address that issue, and Canada might want to think about doing it as well.

Those are my comments, and, as I said, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now I turn to the Canada Family Action Coalition, Mr. Stock.

Mr. Peter Stock (National Affairs Director, Canada Family Action Coalition): Thank you, Mr. Scott.

The Canada Family Action Coalition is a national, non-partisan, political action group. We have 10,000 members across the country and approximately 22 chapters in 7 different provinces. We are concerned, of course, about issues that affect the family, family definition, parental rights and responsibilities, community standards for decency, religious freedoms, and a host of related issues.

Today I'd like to address three questions surrounding Bill C-23. Those questions are: first of all, are non-marital relationships the same as marital relationships and therefore deserving of the same benefits? If they are, then they deserve equal treatment, which is one of the arguments that's being made. Secondly, are non-marital relationships worthy of societal recognition? Again, if they are, then Parliament is right to consider this legislation. Finally, is there any public demand for these relationships to be recognized as Bill C-23 does? If so, then again Parliament is right to consider this type of legislation.

However, if the answer to all of these questions is no, then clearly we are wasting taxpayers' money and time in considering this bill, and C-23 should be discarded.

The first question I raised is, are non-marital relationships the same as marital relationships and therefore deserving of equal treatment? There are many types of relationships in this world. Marital relationships by their nature are conjugal, as are common-law heterosexual relationships. All other relationships are not.

First, I'll deal with the conjugal issue. This morning we heard testimony about the differences in practice between married and non-married heterosexual couples. The difference in law, of course, is that married couples enter into a voluntary legal agreement, a contract, a covenant. The common-law couple has a legal regime involuntarily imposed on them. They do not agree to this.

Of course, the difference in terms of that legal commitment and the way it breaks out in the real world, as we heard, is that we find that after 10 years, 14% of those couples who are married with children have separated, whereas with the common-law situation we're looking at 63% of those couples having separated. In other words, common-law relationships are an absolute disaster for children and should not be supported in public policy or endorsed or encouraged.

Then there are all the non-conjugal relationships. Again those are even more unstable or, in the case of friends and relatives, so different that we cannot consider them the same and deserving of equal treatment.

The second question I raised is, are these non-marital relationships worthy of any sort of societal recognition? Certainly, there are all sorts of relationships that mean different things to different people. However, marriage makes a unique contribution in the procreation and raising of the next generation. As I've already mentioned, common law fails miserably on part two of this equation. The unique contribution that marriage makes has been given special benefits, status, rights, and so on, for centuries. Homosexual relationships, friendships, housemates, and others, may all share a roof, a bank account, and may mean a great deal personally to those involved in those relationships, but there is no discernible public good that these relationships contribute to society.

• 1125

Notice that I'm not talking about the individuals involved in these relationships; I am talking about the relationships themselves. The relationship of marriage makes a unique contribution to society, one that's worthy of societal recognition and public policy. However, these other relationships do not make a discernible contribution to the public good. They can't procreate, and, by definition—and I am thinking here about the homosexual relationships in particular—they can't raise children with the participation of both sexes as role models. Put another way, children in these situations are disadvantaged. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that a child in a homosexual household is any better off or any more advantaged than a child growing up in a single-parent household. They are even disadvantaged compared to those of common-law couples, which are at least able to provide both sex role models for those children.

It is incumbent upon those who wish to change public policy, i.e., the provision of benefits, to demonstrate what it is these relationships contribute to society that makes them worthy of societal recognition, funding, protections, and so on. They have failed to do this. You have not heard any evidence to indicate that there is something that these relationships contribute to society that would make them worthy of inclusion in this type of public policy.

Finally, is there any demand for these relationships to be recognized? In fact, there is no demand from the general public. There is no petition before Parliament, yet there is a petition before Parliament demanding that Parliament explicitly recognize marriages between a man and a woman exclusively. This petition has been presented by 84 different members of Parliament over the past couple of years.

There is also virtually no demand from Canadian homosexuals either. Consider the gay pride parades. You get hundreds of thousands of people out every year across the country for these parades, yet EGALE, which has been collecting postcards for the past year, has only been able to come up with a mere 6,500 signatures in support of this initiative. The fact is that most homosexuals desire to be left alone and don't want equivalent-to-marriage status forced upon them. Those who do desire a legal relationship of some sort have a right to contract for it, but they have no justification for a claim on public recognition, status, rights, or benefits for these relationships. In fact, there are so many other issues before Parliament that are so much more worthy of Parliament's consideration that it's hard to imagine why we are taking time to discuss Bill C-23.

In our opinion, the answers to the questions that I have addressed are no, no, and no. We would also suggest that Parliament should be voting no, and this committee should be recommending a no to Bill C-23.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We now go to EGALE.

Ms. Kim Vance (President, EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere)): Thank you.

My name is Kim Vance. I am the president of the board of directors for EGALE. We're a national organization with board members and membership in every province, region, and territory of Canada. Personally, I'm from a small rural community on the coast of Nova Scotia.

EGALE welcomes the introduction of Bill C-23 and encourages the committee to approve it without substantive amendments to the current approach.

I'm just going to summarize briefly what's already in our written report, because I understand that you haven't had a chance to read it yet.

This bill deals with many tangible considerations, providing equal access to income tax, pension benefits, employment insurance, and clarity around conflict of interest. But just as important as those tangible benefits is the fact that this bill has intangible affirmation that same-sex relationships are entitled to equal treatment with opposite-sex relationships, and that discrimination against our communities is no longer morally or legally sustainable.

I think it's also important along that line to recognize that this is a bill about same-sex families, not just same-sex couples. As part of this government's continuing commitment to the Canadian family, I believe this is acknowledging the plurality of families that exist in Canada, and it makes the appropriate moves to end the damage on children and adults that systemic discrimination imposes.

• 1130

In terms of a historical context, over the years, lesbians, gays, and bisexuals have faced many barriers to equality in this country that are very much inconsistent with the generally positive human rights record that Canada is proud to maintain. Bill C-23 helps to redress these inequalities and to maintain Canada's commitment to human rights.

I do want to state that we are very aware that there is and probably always will be a portion of the Canadian public that just does not believe we are entitled to equal rights. This is not difficult to understand when you look at the historical context of what has been happening in Canada in the mid- to late 1900s. We have had laws that have labelled gay and lesbian people as mentally ill. We have subjected them to conversion therapies. We have had penal law that has criminalized certain forms of sexual expression. Furthermore, until the early 1990s, lesbians, gays, and bisexuals were not permitted to participate openly in the armed forces of this country. Obviously, growing up in that climate would make it very hard to challenge some of those presumptions. However, it is clear that the majority of public opinion supports recognizing same-sex families.

We do applaud the efforts of those who have challenged these presumptions over the years. We also have to recognize that Canadian history in the mid- to late 1900s is a small part of world history, and a quite recent part of world history. In Europe and other countries and continents throughout the world, gay men and lesbians have a long history of acceptance and of being part of the plurality of those societies.

Currently the situation in Canada is that the regional governments, courts, and public opinion are all coming together on this issue. For those reasons, it is very important for the federal government to take leadership in this area. We have seen British Columbia, Quebec, and Ontario make numerous legislative changes to provide same-sex couples with many of the rights and responsibilities of opposite-sex couples.

At the same time that those provinces are taking initiatives, because of those provincial initiatives and because the federal government doesn't have corresponding initiatives, we're putting many gay and lesbian families in a very hard position. We're putting them in a position in which they may be recognized as couples and families provincially, and they have rights and obligations around that. Consequently, however, where it overlaps with those provincial responsibilities, the federal government does not provide that same recognition. This is a problem.

The other issue currently is that there are those provinces that haven't acted or shown a lot of initiative around this. In particular, I'll mention one from my region. The Province of Newfoundland has stated publicly, on the record, that it intends to and wants to change its provincial legislation to accord with the M. v. H. and Ontario court decision at the Supreme Court level, but it hasn't so far. I think this kind of initiative from the federal government would be the kind of leadership that would encourage those provinces that have the will and want to go forward.

In terms of constitutional law, there are two main messages we're hearing. First of all, discriminating against same-sex couples constitutes discrimination under the charter. Secondly, affording rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples in no way inhibits, dissuades, or impedes the formation of heterosexual unions.

As far as we can see, this is a win-win situation. There is nothing for anyone to lose here. Quite frankly, we don't believe we've been directly responsible for destroying any heterosexual marriages or unions since EGALE was formed in 1986.

Finally, to summarize, in terms of public support and opinion polls, we already know that fully two-thirds of Canadians have expressed the view that same-sex couples should receive equal relationship rights. The cost implications are clearly outlined in our brief, but I think members of this committee are probably well aware that there are minimal cost implications to this kind of reform.

I'll pass the hat over to our executive director, John.

• 1135

[Translation]

Mr. John Fisher (Executive Director, EGALE): Thank you, Kim. Kim stated many reasons why we should recognize same sex couples on an equal basis. I'll deal briefly with three issues which are particularly relevant in view of this bill, namely, the terminology, the recognition of other types of relationships of interdependency and the amendments which we are recommending to this bill.

[English]

The first question around terminology recognizes the approach the government has chosen to adopt in Bill C-23. The government has chosen to use the term “common-law partner” to recognize both same-sex and opposite-sex common-law relationships. I think we should acknowledge frankly that there are many of EGALE's members who consider that the reservation of the term “spouse” for heterosexual married couples only in this bill does not necessarily accord an equal value and an equal weight to those in same-sex relationships. This is not necessarily the terminology EGALE would have chosen to support had we been invited to draft this legislation—and notwithstanding the conspiracy theory as advanced by some members of Parliament and the National Post, I should make it clear that we weren't invited to draft the legislation.

We do not feel the terminology is necessarily ideal, but at the end of the day we are able to support it. We feel that, unlike the Ontario approach in Bill 5, which is now being challenged again before the Supreme Court of Canada, this legislation draws the distinction on the grounds of marital status, not on the grounds of sexual orientation. Ontario sought to set up a separate class exclusively for same-sex partners, defining everybody else under the terminology “spouse”. This would have treated same-sex couples separately, dividing Canadians based on their sexual orientation. This bill maintains a distinction between married couples and common-law partners, and, although we feel that doesn't necessarily accord equal weight, we feel we can support the terminology that treats us equally with opposite-sex common-law partners.

The other question that has been raised in relation to terminology is the use of the term “conjugal”. There have been some who have suggested that conjugal means allocating benefits based on sexual activity. It's clear that this is not the case.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in the M. v. H. decision last year and in a number of other decisions, has identified a list of criteria that apply to identifying a conjugal relationship. These criteria include a whole range that is relevant to relationships, such as: shared housing; emotional commitment; how you arrange your finances; and how you're perceived by the general public and your families. It's clear that all of these factors will be considered by a court in identifying every relationship as conjugal or not. As the court recognized in that case, it's clear that same-sex relationships are equally able to meet the definition of conjugal, so we consider that aspect of it as clear.

In relation to other relationships of interdependency, EGALE is not opposed to recognizing broader classes of relationships, but we recognize also that this is a broader and more complex issue of social policy, and we think the government has wisely chosen to explore the issue further.

On page 8 of our brief, we identify two or three differences between same-sex relationships and other relationships of interdependency that justify treating same-sex relationships in an equal fashion at this time. The first is that, because our relationships are and can be conjugal in nature, there are many similarities between our relationships and opposite-sex common-law relationships. It's not clear that those same factors would necessarily apply to broader relationships like two elderly women living together, aunts and uncles, or roommates or lodgers, as some have suggested.

Secondly, there is the issue that Kim has addressed. Gays and lesbians have faced discrimination throughout Canadian society, and the government is entitled to responsibly ensure that it does not reinforce that discrimination through the maintenance of discriminatory laws. It's not clear that brothers, for example, have faced a discrimination as brothers, and it doesn't raise the same constitutional concerns around issues relating to compliance with the equality guarantees of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government has chosen to address a specific violation of its laws through this legislation at this time.

Finally, in the years that we have been advocating for equality, we have seen a broad consensus emerge in the lesbian, gay and bisexual communities about the need for equal treatment. That's a message I've heard consistently as EGALE's executive director. I've travelled to every province and territory of this country. Everywhere I have gone, I've found that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals want equal treatment, and they want the discriminatory laws to end. Notwithstanding that others purport to know the wishes of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual communities better than we do ourselves, it has certainly been my experience that that is not the case.

• 1140

It's not clear that, for example, aunts and uncles and other kinds of relationships want to be subject to the responsibilities of relationship recognition that two lodgers would want to be subject to—for example, obligations of support if they moved out of their shared premises. That requires further consideration.

That's our global approach to this bill. We're happy to support it in its current form. We'll be happy to answer more specific questions during the question period. Merci.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

For the first seven minutes, Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Scott.

To Professor Bailey, you made mention that this particular Bill C-23 doesn't affect marriage, that it's a separate and distinct matter. You said—as I heard you, at least—benefits are separate and distinct for marriage. Yet I'd like you to point out for us anywhere in this bill where there's anything that's separate and distinct for marriage that isn't also extended to two homosexuals who live together for a year.

Prof. Martha Bailey: I probably wasn't clear. The point I was making was that the status of marriage is a separate and distinct issue from the benefits and obligations traditionally associated with marriage. This bill does have to do with benefits and obligations traditionally associated with marriage, and it does extend them to unmarried same-sex couples.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Are there any unique benefits or obligations that are applied by this bill to marriage that are not extended to same-sex couples?

Prof. Martha Bailey: I guess the point I was trying to make is that this doesn't change the definition of marriage or our law relating to the status of marriage.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I guess the point I was trying to make is that when I heard you, it sounded like marriage was separate and distinct. Those were your words. Yet in this bill, from a policy perspective, there is no separation or distinctness to marriage.

Prof. Martha Bailey: Sorry, I didn't make my point clear. The point I want to make is that the status of marriage is separate and distinct from the benefits and obligations of marriage, and this bill just addresses benefits and obligations and extends them to unmarried couples.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Would it be true to say this bill applies distinctness and separateness to marriage in name only?

Prof. Martha Bailey: Sir, I'm not arguing that this bill somehow distinguishes marriage. I'm saying, what this bill is about is benefits and obligations, not about the status of marriage.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Professor Bailey, would you say two men living together for a year and having a homosexual relationship are a family?

Prof. Martha Bailey: I don't really understand how that question relates to Bill C-23.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Well, that's what the bill says.

Let me ask you another question.

Prof. Martha Bailey: I'm sorry, which provision are you talking about?

Mr. Eric Lowther: We could talk about the change that was made to the Income Tax Act, where “family” was previously defined not to include two people of the same sex who live together for a year who have a sexual relationship, but now it does with the changes due to Bill C-23.

I can give you that exact clause. That has been changed in clause 134, for example.

Also, “related persons” has been changed. The definition of a “related person”, being someone who is adopted or related by blood or marriage, has now been changed to include two people who live together for a year who have, I guess, a conjugal relationship—we have the ongoing debate about what that is.

So the bill has changed those contexts from what we understood before. That's why my question. I think you introduced your concerns about family law. I wondered whether you saw as a family two men living together for a year in a homosexual relationship.

Prof. Martha Bailey: I'll speak about that from a legal perspective.

• 1145

Generally speaking, the terms “family”, “spouse”, “partner”, “related person”, “dependent person”, “child”, “parent”, and so on, are used in a lot of different contexts, and it depends on the context you're talking about—legally speaking, I mean.

As I see Bill C-23, what it does is extend certain benefits and obligations to people who are in a same-sex relationship. I think from a non-legal point of view, it's certainly possible for a same-sex couple to be a family. From a legal point of view, for certain purposes, they are entitled to benefits and obligations that have been traditionally connected with marriage. So whatever implications you draw from that legally, I'll leave to you, but I guess I see those two things as distinct.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Do you think somebody who doesn't have a sexual relationship would qualify for Bill C-23?

Prof. Martha Bailey: Do you mean under the term “common-law partner”?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes.

Prof. Martha Bailey: I think it's intended to extend benefits and obligations to couples in a conjugal relationship, and I think it has been already pointed out that the sexual nature of a relationship is not the only item that goes into deciding whether it's a conjugal relationship.

I don't think Bill C-23 is intended to address the other class of relationships that I talked about, which are relationships like the relationship between a mother and a grown daughter, where they're economically interdependent but they don't have a conjugal relationship. Nobody would mistake them for a couple, and so on. So I don't think it's intended to include that class of persons, if that's your question.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Chair, if I could, I'd like to ask Mr. Fisher a question.

You made some reference to a conspiracy theory or something. I know I never suggested those words, so I don't know who you're referring to as to members of Parliament who may have advanced that, but I would like to ask about a particular piece of inside information that they were privy to that I, as a member of Parliament, was not. At least it appears that way. Maybe you can explain that.

I've given and tabled with the committee an e-mail that was sent out well over an hour before the bill was tabled in Parliament that gave a detailed analysis of the bill and used terminology in the bill that wouldn't have been known unless someone had been privy to details of this piece of legislation. How is it possible to make such a detailed analysis of what was to become Bill C-23 before it was even tabled in Parliament? How was EGALE able to do that?

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): On a point of order—and not out of Mr. Lowther's time, obviously—before Mr. Fisher answers this question, Mr. Lowther did indicate he'd be tabling three documents to which he referred. I've received from the clerk copies of two of those. I wonder if Mr. Lowther might be prepared to table the third document. I don't know if he has it.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Certainly. I have it right here, and I'll be glad to give it to the table officers.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you.

Mr. John Fisher: I'm pleased to respond to the question. I'm glad Mr. Lowther has raised this, because I'm aware that he made statements in the House of Commons and before this committee to the Minister of Justice that do not accurately represent what happened, and I'm pleased to have the chance to clear the air.

I did send out an e-mail on the afternoon the bill was introduced. The bill was introduced around about midday on Friday, February 11. I posted an—I wouldn't say detailed—overview analysis of the bill two hours later, at about 2 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, to EGALE's national e-mail list. We maintain a public e-mail discussion to which anybody from around the country can subscribe and engage in discussion around issues of current interest to lesbians, gays, and bisexuals.

When I send an e-mail to that list, it goes to our list server, which is based in B.C., and is then distributed to members of that list all across the country.

I brought with me a copy of the e-mail that I sent out that afternoon. The time shown on this e-mail, which is exactly as it was sent out from my computer, is 2.03 p.m. I've seen a copy of the document Mr. Lowther tabled with the committee, which has a time on it around 11 a.m., and it's clearly Pacific Standard Time.

There are two ways in which that can happen. One is that as it gets distributed by our server in B.C., which affixes the distribution time from there, and equally, as people receive it around the country, the time at which they print it off is shown according to their local time. So if someone in B.C. printed it out, then that's the time that will be shown.

So I hope that clears up the misunderstanding. Certainly EGALE did not see a copy of the bill in advance. We received it, as everybody else did, shortly after it was introduced.

• 1150

So I hope that clears up the misunderstanding. Certainly EGALE did not see a copy of the bill in advance. We received it, as everybody else did, shortly after it was introduced. We participated in a conference call about an hour after we received it, with a number of experts out of the EGALE office. I made some modifications to a general template I had developed, and we sent it out to others.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I may not use my full seven minutes because I must speak to the NDP motion at noon. Could I use my unused time in the second round? If not, I'll give my time to Svend, but I would rather use it in the second round because I have to go and speak in the House at noon, in support of the NDP motion.

I will begin with Mr. Stock. Mr. Stock, I wonder if your coalition has members in Quebec. You mentioned chapters and seven provinces. Do you have any members in Quebec?

[English]

Mr. Peter Stock: Yes, we do.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: It would be nice if you would table that information. First, there is something that I rather liked in your presentation. You talked as someone who was expressing an heterosexual point of view, but I was under the impression at one time that you were trying to be thoughtful by speaking as a member of the community, because you were saying that the community is opposed to this bill. In my view, that statement was quite inaccurate. First, EGALE is not alone; there is also a coalition of some 30 organizations in Quebec. I myself tabled four bills, and I was elected in 1993 and re-elected in 1997 as an overtly gay candidate. I truly believe that there is a groundswell within Quebec society, as well as within the Canadian society.

If that is any comfort to you, I would be happy to discuss this in detail with you if we are ever given that opportunity. A poll was commissioned, not by the Bloc Québécois, the NDP or the Reform Party, but by the Quebec Ministry for Citizens Relations and Immigration, in January 1998. So it is a rather recent poll. It shows that 70% of Quebeckers are in favour of the recognition of same sex partners.

Well, as political parties, whenever we garner 70% of voting intentions, we experience a political orgasm since that doesn't happen too often. Imagine what that means, 70% of Quebeckers, male and female. That means you are dealing with people from all walks of life: people from rural and urban areas, young people and not so young people.

Mr. Chairman, I'll put my two questions before going to the House to make my speech. Although I did like your point of view, I was a little disappointed when you stated that the sole aim of marriage is procreation and that gay couples—the distinction you made was not on an individual basis, but on the basis of a couple—did not contribute anything to society. I think that is a statement that you should revisit. I do not think that gay couples participate any differently than heterosexual couples to Quebec society or the Canadian society. Since we live in a society where the reproductive rate is 2.1%, there is a good chance that many couples within the Canadian society or Quebec society will not have any children. I do not think that the quality of their commitment or of their contribution to Canadian society is any less worthwhile.

Are you willing to come around to that view?

[English]

Mr. Peter Stock: Thank you. You've raised a number of points. Let me address them in somewhat of an order, I guess.

First of all, the fact that you're sitting here, as you mentioned, because you were elected to Parliament is a pretty clear indication that Canadians don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. You were duly elected—Mr. Robinson as well, and others—and I think that's a very good indication that Canadians are fair-minded and just. They must believe that you are the best person to represent your riding or they wouldn't have sent you here. I think that's clear, and it has nothing to do, I believe—

Mr. Réal Ménard: I agree with you.

Mr. Peter Stock: Yes.

As far as the polls go, we see a lot of polls and they ask different questions. But I think we could categorize the polls in two ways. There are polls that ask about equality—should people be treated equally? Again, I think the majority of Canadians believe that all Canadians should be treated equally as individuals. That comes through loud and clear in every poll I've every seen, and I think you'd agree with that.

However, when more specific questions are asked about homosexual marriage and homosexual adoption, the poll numbers I've seen—and there are many polls to indicate this—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do you agree that, as Professor Bailey was saying, this bill has no bearing at all on the issue of marriage or adoption?

[English]

Mr. Peter Stock: Yes, and I haven't seen your poll, but the statement I am making is that when the very specific question about homosexual marriage and adoption is asked, a large majority of Canadians—between 66% and 75% consistently, even today—say they are opposed to those things in public policy.

• 1155

What you were talking about there, in my mind, is not the full measure of the question. Our view is that this bill, Bill C-23, is about homosexual marriage. It doesn't say that two men can get married, specifically, but it will assign all the rights, benefits, and obligations marriage does to these other relationships, and that is our problem with it.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm sorry but I disagree. I would ask you to hold that thought. I have to go to the House to speak to the NDP motion, but I will be back.

Mr. Svend Robinson: He will be supporting our motion.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, I'm going to the House to support the NDP motion. I apologize, but I will be back. I hope I can use the time I have left when I come back.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Monsieur Ménard. Monsieur Ménard's generosity to the NDP will be limited to the House. It does not necessarily get added to your time.

Mr. Robinson, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to pursue Mr. Ménard's line of questioning about seductions and orgasms—

An hon. member: Thank goodness for that.

Mr. Svend Robinson: —but I do want to follow up on a couple of questions that were asked by both Mr. Lowther and Mr. Ménard.

I certainly want to thank EGALE for the work they have done as an organization over many years in advancing the cause of equality for gay and lesbian people as individuals, couples, and families. I want that to be clearly on the record. To no small extent, the fact that we see this legislation before Parliament now is a tribute to the kind of dedication and commitment we've witnessed from EGALE in this area.

I also assume that EGALE would be a little more comfortable with the redefinition of spouse that is contained in the Reform Party's bill, Bill C-223, which actually redefines spouse to include gay and lesbian relationships, as well as common-law heterosexual relationships. The government Liberals haven't gone quite as far as the Reform whip, Mr. Hill, in this, but perhaps that may come in the future.

With respect to Mr. Stock's evidence, I have just a couple of points on that. I think it's important that we be accurate, Mr. Stock, when we're giving evidence. You noted that something like 86 members of Parliament had tabled petitions with respect to this bill.

Mr. Peter Stock: No, I said with respect to marriage.

Mr. Svend Robinson: In fact, the petitions they tabled said there should not be a redefinition of marriage. I've read those petitions. They said “Do not redefine marriage. Marriage is the union of....” This bill doesn't redefine marriage, so those petitions have nothing to do with this bill. That's another debate we can have, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with this bill.

I also want to just follow up on your suggestion—and I made a note of your comments. You said common-law relationships should not be supported in public policy. I take it then you would roll back any benefits or obligations that are currently extended to common-law heterosexual relationships.

Mr. Peter Stock: Let me be very clear here. I would not roll back benefits and obligations with respect to the parenting responsibility of those individuals, but with respect to the coupleship of those individuals, yes, absolutely.

Mr. Svend Robinson: You'd roll all of those back?

Mr. Peter Stock: Yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So, for example, you would roll back pension benefits.

Mr. Peter Stock: Yes. People are eligible for pensions as individuals, and that's not a problem.

Mr. Svend Robinson: You would take away survivor benefits, for example, from common-law heterosexuals.

Mr. Peter Stock: Yes, but we are saying you have an opportunity to get married, so get married. We want to support that institution as a stable institution.

Mr. Svend Robinson: But the position of your coalition is to take survivor pensions away from common-law heterosexuals.

Mr. Peter Stock: Actually the position of our coalition is to support marriage and raise marriage above those relationships.

Mr. Svend Robinson: You would take that away. I just want to be clear that is your position.

Mr. Peter Stock: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Fair enough.

In terms of the other benefits, you have carved out one little exception where there are children. Is that right?

Mr. Peter Stock: I said that where there are children and there are obligations or benefits, such as the child tax benefit, they should of course still apply to the legal parents of those children but not to the coupleship.

Mr. Svend Robinson: They should apply to the legal parents of the children.

Mr. Peter Stock: Sure.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I see. What about children who are being raised by a single mother or a single father? Would you extend benefits to them as well?

Mr. Peter Stock: We would of course maintain benefits they had on the basis of having children, absolutely.

Mr. Svend Robinson: What about where there are two mothers or two fathers?

Mr. Peter Stock: There's always a legal parent there, and that parent should be entitled to those benefits for the raising of children.

Mr. Svend Robinson: You would extend the benefits there as well.

Mr. Peter Stock: Yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have questions for Professor Bailey on two points. One is the issue of conjugal relationships. This is following up on Mr. Lowther's question. He asked whether a conjugal relationship could in fact be recognized in which there were no sexual relations. I'm sure Professor Bailey is aware of the fact that the answer to that question has been given by the courts already in M. v. H. In fact, the court stated, and I quote:

Certainly an opposite-sex couple may, after many years together, be considered to be in a conjugal relationship although they have neither children nor sexual relations.

• 1200

The court goes on to say the same must also hold true of same-sex couples, that there are many different indices that apply in recognizing a conjugal relationship. I take it, Professor Bailey, you would agree with that, that it is an accurate representation?

Prof. Martha Bailey: Yes, it is.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have one other question, Mr. Chairman, and it is again for Professor Bailey. She indicated that it may be necessary, or it may be appropriate, to amend this bill to reflect the consanguinity provisions of the Marriage Act insofar as they apply to common-law relationships. I believe that was her evidence. I'm a little puzzled by that suggestion. I'm not sure why that would be necessary, because common-law heterosexual relationships have been recognized in some cases for as long as 40 years. More recently, of course, there's been more recognition. But I'm not aware of any suggestion at any time that in recognizing those common-law heterosexual relationships somehow we should recognize incestuous relationships or polygamist relationships, for example. Why this suggestion?

Prof. Martha Bailey: I agree. It hasn't been a problem in regard to heterosexual cohabiting relationships. As far as I know, it hasn't come up as an issue. So both the drafting points I made were tiny, and I don't think they're going to actually be problems. I mentioned that point in particular because most other jurisdictions do address it, so we may want to.

Mr. Svend Robinson: But you'd agree it hasn't been a problem here.

Prof. Martha Bailey: I agree with you 100% that it hasn't arisen as a problem in Canada. So it was a very minor point that I made there.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Robinson.

Now to Mr. DeVillers. I believe he's sharing his time with Mr. McKay.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Great. I have a couple of short questions for Mr. Stock. I always enjoy a dialogue with Mr. Stock. We had many occasions in all-candidates meetings in Simcoe North when he was a candidate with the Reform Party. So we enjoy our discussions.

One question I have is on the point on the petitions that Mr. Stock raised, which was commented on by Mr. Robinson, and the fact that those were on marriages, etc. The other point I wanted to emphasize was that the MPs who present petitions are not necessarily in agreement with them. So I think it's dangerous to take that as an indication of demand. You're aware that some members of Parliament, myself included, present all petitions that are given to me by constituents?

Mr. Peter Stock: Yes, Mr. DeVillers. My statement in no way intended to suggest that the members themselves supported the content of those petitions, but rather to indicate that there is widespread support across the country. Clearly, in 84 different ridings there are at least 25 people in each of those ridings, sometimes many more, who support the concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman and they express that legally.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you, Mr. Stock.

Another point is on your comments that common-law relations, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, are not of value to society and shouldn't be supported in public policy. What are your criteria for coming to that conclusion?

Mr. Peter Stock: There are two different relationships mentioned there. First of all, we discussed the common law in some detail, and I realize that earlier witnesses have discussed this too. But again, it's that common-law heterosexual relationships are inherently unstable when it comes to the raising of children. As Statistics Canada has demonstrated conclusively, almost two-thirds of those relationships end by the time a child of those relationships is 10 years old, which is an absolute disaster for children. In other words, we're talking about broken families.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: But the criterion is the—

Mr. Peter Stock: Stability of the family.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: —sticking together of the relationship.

Mr. Peter Stock: That's right.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Because that's the criterion you're using for—

Mr. Peter Stock: That's an identifiable and quantifiable statistical value we can apply.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: But that's the only measure you take for measuring the value of a relationship to society?

Mr. Peter Stock: To society, yes.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Whether it stays together?

Mr. Peter Stock: To society, yes. It is a primary one. It's not the only one.

• 1205

Mr. Paul DeVillers: The third point was you say there's no demand from the public. Professor Bailey made reference to the Supreme Court decision and the charter implication. You don't interpret that as being a demand in a sense that there's something Parliament should be dealing with to bring the legislation up to charter standards? Do you equate that as relevancy for Parliament to be dealing with this issue?

Mr. Peter Stock: In fact, it may be very valid for Parliament to be dealing with these decisions in such a way as to say the courts are wrong and the courts have no business deciding social policy, which is what they're attempting to do.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: But I interpreted your statement to be that it's a waste of time to be dealing with this because the public isn't demanding it.

Mr. Peter Stock: That's right.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Whereas the courts have demanded it—

Mr. Peter Stock: Some courts.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Whatever your position on it is, I think it's an issue that's legitimately before Parliament. Do you not agree?

Mr. Peter Stock: No, I don't actually.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Okay.

Mr. Peter Stock: What M. v. H. dealt with was provincial. It was very specific and very narrow, and it may have application to federal law if that decision is respected in its current form. But that doesn't mean Parliament has to deal with it. No.

Mr. Svend Robinson: We can't ignore the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: My last point was your statement that homosexuals want to be left alone. I wonder what your basis for that was, what research you would have to justify that statement.

Mr. Peter Stock: My statement was that the large majority of homosexuals wish to be left alone, that the large majority of homosexuals have either refused to or are not being approached to, but certainly do not appear to, demand this legislation. In fact, we have 6,500 people only out of the entire population of Canada who apparently want this legislation, and in my view that's a very tiny number to be dealing with. We have petitions before Parliament now with 300,000 signatures on them. Our organization collected one on child pornography. What's Parliament doing about that? I'm not asking what the justice minister's doing in court; I'm asking what Parliament is doing about that.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: In this committee we ask the questions of the witnesses.

Mr. Peter Stock: It's purely rhetorical, Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: So your statement is based on your interpretation of the polls. Is that where your justification is for issuing the statement that the majority of homosexuals want to be left alone?

Mr. Peter Stock: It's my interpretation based on representations that have been made to Parliament. As I'm saying, there are only 6,500 people who have in any way expressed their desire for this type of legislation. That's it, period.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. McKay, you have two minutes.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I was going to say he probably left me with about 15 seconds.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: We didn't say sharing equally.

Mr. John McKay: I'll go to the next round, and if I can add two minutes on then I'll have a meaningful period of time to ask a question.

The Chair: That gives me two minutes to say that if I get a day off in the next federal campaign, I think I'll be in Orillia watching the campaign there. It's quite interesting.

Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you.

One of the reasons the federal government gives for bringing forward Bill C-23 is because the courts have told them to do so. One of the cases that the government cites for this is the Rosenberg decision in the Ontario Court of Appeal on April 23, 1998. As you know, the decision read in a same-sex definition of spouse. It was a same-sex definition of spouse in the federal Income Tax Act.

A question has come up with respect to a question period note that was prepared for the justice minister after the Rosenberg decision was rendered. The note says that officials will make a recommendation as to seeking leave to appeal in this case. You have already agreed with EGALE to consult them before deciding whether or not to seek leave. The justice department was defending this legislation in court, and according to the EGALE website, and this is quoting from the website:

EGALE coordinated a coalition of 13 different equality groups to appear before the Ontario Court of Appeal in CUPE & Rosenberg vs. Canada in support of same-sex pension benefits, and successfully lobbied the federal government not to appeal the decision;

EGALE met with Minister of Justice Anne McLellan, to discuss strategies for the recognition of the same-sex relationships;

My question, Mr. Chairman, and to the witness from EGALE, is this. Can you explain the nature of EGALE's statement that EGALE successfully lobbied the federal government not to appeal the Rosenberg decision?

Mr. John Fisher: That's very straightforward. The agreement, as I understand it from the speaking note, was an agreement to consult and nothing more. The department and the minister agreed to hear EGALE's views. EGALE is in the business of lobbying government and government is in the business of holding public consultations. An agreement to consult is nothing more than an agreement to hear what we have to say.

• 1210

We regularly express our views to MPs and officials from all political parties, and we hope that something of what we have to say comes across as reasonable once in a while. If particular MPs are encouraged to consider their position based upon the general arguments of affirming equality that we have, then hopefully as an organization we are effective. If what you're suggesting is that based upon representations by EGALE, the minister exclusively decided that if EGALE said she shouldn't appeal the decision then that would be the outcome, I wish the lobbying process were so easy.

Mr. Eric Lowther: But if I could quote your own website, it doesn't talk about consulting. Your website says:

EGALE met with Minister of Justice Anne McLellan, to discuss strategies for the recognition of same-sex relationships;

Mr. John Fisher: We meet with MPs from all parties and a number of federal ministers to talk about strategies and our positions and views around what we would like to see the government doing.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Isn't it a conflict of interest for the minister to be consulting with a particular lobby group on a case that normally could be argued would be appealed to uphold federal legislation?

Mr. John Fisher: I don't believe it's a conflict of interest if the minister wants to receive views from EGALE or any other group in Canadian society about what policy alternatives are open to her. I should make clear that EGALE was not a direct party to the litigation but was an intervener before the court, along with a coalition of 12 other groups, as I mentioned.

At the same time, it was simply an expression of our views to the minister, which she was free to adopt or reject as she saw fit.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'll go to Mr. McKay, who gets three minutes.

Mr. John McKay: I wanted to direct my questioning to Professor Bailey. The minister appeared here earlier in the week and she said we're not changing the definition of “marriage”, and that there's no jurisdiction in the world that recognizes same-sex marriages and things of that nature. We've heard the exchange between you and Mr. Lowther. Your view was that this bill wasn't changing the status of marriage, and his argument was that it's effectively changing the content of marriage, making other relationships almost equivalent to marriage.

Given that the legal foundation of marriage for the federal government rests on a 150-year-old case, that it is judge-made law, and what judges make, judges can then unmake, and that there is a strong likelihood that regardless there will be a charter challenge, would it be your view that Parliament simultaneously or sequentially to this legislation should pass on what it thinks marriage should be?

Prof. Martha Bailey: I think if Parliament wants to reconsider the law relating to the validity of marriage, that's very separate, of course, from the exercise we're engaged in today. I think Parliament might want to do so, might want to consider the issue of same-sex marriage, which is currently being considered, as you know, by the Netherlands and might be considered by some other countries. Parliament might want to think about that.

But I think that's separate and distinct from Bill C-23 and not what we're talking about today.

Mr. John McKay: I suppose reasonable people might well disagree as to whether the issue of marriage is effectively being discussed, whether directly or indirectly.

I think for some people, the frustration is that Parliament does not speak on issues of considerable significance to the Canadian public, and the result is that decisions of great significance get made in a courtroom. I'm wondering whether in your view it would be of assistance—reasonably speculating that this will be subject to a charter challenge—if in fact Parliament did express an opinion on this matter, something stronger than merely a resolution after debate.

• 1215

Would that be of assistance to judicial interpretation, if we believe in the rule of law and the rule of interpretation, i.e. that Parliament doesn't speak for nothing?

Prof. Martha Bailey: If Parliament wanted to pass a law adopting the traditional definition of “marriage” as a union for life of one man and one woman, I don't think that would change the fact that a successful charter challenge to that definition might be brought. I don't know if any charter challenge would be successful, but I don't think Parliament's enactment of such a provision would affect that significantly.

I guess unless it invoked the notwithstanding clause, Parliament might want to take a look at marriage and reconsider the law relating to the validity of marriage to consider the issue of same-sex marriage in a proactive way, rather than waiting for it to be dealt with by the courts. It might want to follow the lead of some other countries in adopting some sort of registered partnership scheme that extends to same-sex couples, a status that is similar to marriage, or something like that. But as I say, that's a matter that's quite distinct from Bill C-23.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Well, in fact, this isn't just a hypothetical question. As Mr. McKay will be aware, there has been a charter challenge, in Layland and Beaulne, and there was a dissenting judgment in that case indicating that the definition in Hyde, I believe it was, from 1866 was in breach of section 15 of the Charter of Rights.

So this isn't just a hypothetical discussion, and in fact, leave to appeal was granted from that decision. It was never pursued, but leave to appeal was granted. So Mr. McKay is absolutely right. This is an issue that will come before the courts, and there's no doubt about it.

There are bills before this House as well. It's not just a question of the courts ruling in a vacuum. A Liberal member of Parliament, Mr. Wappel, has a bill that would restrict marriage to the traditional definition, the 1866 definition. I've tabled another bill that would amend the Marriage Act to allow gay and lesbian partners to enter into marriage. So this is an issue that is very much before Parliament, and Parliament may very well be called upon to address it.

But the fact of the matter is, as Professor Bailey says, at the end of the day, Parliament and provincial legislatures have collectively asked our judiciary to interpret legislation against the benchmark of certain fundamental rights and freedoms. They didn't arrogate that unto themselves; we asked them to do that.

We asked them to do that for us when we passed the Charter of Rights collectively back in the early 1980s, and that was something that we—

Mr. John McKay: I enjoyed the debate on deference to Parliament.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, we gave them that obligation, and the suggestion that somehow they're taking it on themselves is just not accurate.

I just have one question, because I know time is rare. I just received a copy of a press release that was issued by a Reform member of Parliament, Mr. Garry Breitkreuz from Yorkton—Melville, which includes this statement. He's renamed Bill C-23 the Death of Marriage Act, and he says:

In the 1950s, buggery was a criminal offence, now it's a requirement to receive benefits from the federal government.

This is a statement by Reform member of Parliament, Mr. Breitkreuz—and this just came out today. Shades of Bob Ringma.

I wonder if perhaps the witnesses would care to comment on the suggestion that buggery is now a requirement to receive benefits from the federal government.

Mr. Peter Stock: I think the correct term is probably sodomy. I think that's what we're looking at. Buggery is, of course, as you know, separate and distinct in the Criminal Code.

Mr. Svend Robinson: What's the difference between sodomy and buggery, Mr. Stock?

• 1220

Mr. Peter Stock: I believe buggery refers to a power imbalance, particularly between children and adults. It's still sodomy, of course, but it's basically anal rape.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Buggery? Well, it used to be in the Criminal Code until 1995, I believe.

Mr. Peter Stock: Sure. And then it was renamed.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's not what it referred to then. This is an interesting definition.

But you agree with the statement, then, subject to the redefinition of sodomy as buggery?

Mr. Peter Stock: No, actually, I don't, because it's quite clear from Bill C-23 that based on the definition of conjugality as outlined in M. v. H., which is obviously being referred to in the bill, benefits, obligations, and everything else listed in that bill can extend to any two people who meet some of the requirements.

I'll just read those requirements into the record:

shared shelter, sexual and personal behaviour, services, social activities, economic support and children, as well as the societal perception of the couple.

These elements may be present in varying degrees, and they're not all necessary for the relationship to be—

Mr. Svend Robinson: So you disagree with this suggestion, then.

Mr. Peter Stock: I don't think it goes far enough. It's not just about sodomy, is it?

Mr. Svend Robinson: No.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'll let the panel respond, but the questioning is over.

Ms. Kim Vance: Obviously we'd disagree that this is a requirement. That's not what Bill C-23 is about, requiring any kind of activity of a sexual nature to be the basis of awarding obligations or benefits. It's about the status of a relationship, the conjugality of a relationship.

Quite frankly, I don't think the civil servants who are going to have to administer these kinds of programs want to get into asking questions about who sleeps with whom.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Or the nature of their sexual activity.

Ms. Kim Vance: Or the nature of their sexual activity. I don't think they do now around common-law relationships.

I know many people who are in common-law relationships of a heterosexual nature, and they are not interrogated or asked these kinds of questions when they apply for benefits or have obligations under federal law.

Mr. Svend Robinson: How many lesbians engage in buggery?

Ms. Kim Vance: I don't know any lesbians who engage in buggery.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): I have a comment and a question in reference to the suggestion of conflict of interest concerning the justice minister. I would submit that, as Attorney General, she has an obligation to consult. In fact, she would be irresponsible if she didn't. She shouldn't take her decisions in isolation, and I say it would be irresponsible of her to do so.

Having said that, I'd like to move on to Mr. Stock.

As I understand it, the Canada Family Action Coalition has stated that Bill C-23 represents the abolition of the institution of marriage. Is that correct, yes or no?

Mr. Peter Stock: Yes, we do believe it does.

Mr. John Maloney: Professor Bailey, you're an expert in family law. Would you agree with that position, that Bill C-23 represents the abolition of the institution of marriage?

Prof. Martha Bailey: No, I disagree with that.

Mr. John Maloney: Why is that?

Prof. Martha Bailey: I'll be repeating myself, but all Bill C-23 does is extend certain benefits and obligations traditionally associated with marriage to same-sex couples. It does not affect marriage.

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you.

Mr. Stock, I also understand the Canada Family Action Coalition states that Bill C-23 would mean that the adoption of children by homosexuals would be sanctioned now federally. Is that correct?

Mr. Peter Stock: That's correct. The federal government is responsible, through various treaty obligations and administrative responsibilities, for international adoption. Of course, if homosexuals apply to adopt internationally, there may be some provincial constraints, but certainly the federal government has to facilitate that. It's clear with this bill and the policy direction of the government that they will be attempting to facilitate international homosexual adoption.

Mr. John Maloney: Professor Bailey, do you have any comments on his comment?

Prof. Martha Bailey: In my opinion, Bill C-23 will not affect the adoption of children. That's not what the bill addresses. It specifies certain laws that are amended, and the amendments to the laws extend certain benefits and obligations to same-sex couples, but it doesn't deal with the issue of adoption.

Mr. John Maloney: It makes reference to international obligations. How does that play into that equation?

Prof. Martha Bailey: With regard to our international treaty obligations relating to adoption, I can't imagine, or I'm trying to understand, how they would be affected by Bill C-23.

• 1225

I don't think we would have an obligation under Bill C-23 to change our approach to international adoptions. International adoptions are governed by provincial legislation. Provincial legislatures implement the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, and it's pursuant to that legislation that international adoptions take place. It's pursuant to provincial legislation.

So if you can tell me how Bill C-23 will affect adoptions, I'd be happy to respond, but as far as I can tell, it will not affect international adoptions.

The Chair: Let's see if we can work the questioning and the answering this way, as much as possible—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Interesting dialogue, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: In the interests of....

I think it's an important point, Mr. Stock, and I would like it if you could pull it forward so that we can understand the thinking. It's an interesting point.

Mr. Peter Stock: I think I'd turn the question around and ask this: Is there any indication that this will not be happening? I think it's quite clear from the policy direction the government has set with Bill C-23, that was set in the immigration white paper, and that's been stated publicly by the justice minister and others, including the immigration minister, that this is indeed where the government is moving.

Whether Bill C-23 specifically will facilitate this or not, I'm not the legal scholar, but it appears to us that in fact it will do exactly that.

The Chair: I think we're going to have time to get back, so we'll go now to Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Lowther, you have three minutes.

Mr. Eric Lowther: On this same point, I'd just point out to the committee that in clause 57 of the bill there is the inclusion of “common-law partner”, which we know has now been re-described to include two people of the same sex. This particular clause refers to the words “adopted legally”. I'm not sure I could say it exactly applies to full-blown adoption for same-sex couples, but the door has certainly been opened in that particular item there, with common-law partners included in reference to adoption.

My question at the moment is for you, Mr. Fisher. I'm wondering if you can give me an indication, in terms of the Rosenberg case, just going back to that very quickly with reference to my earlier comments, whether or not there was a meeting between April 23 and June 23 with the minister regarding that case?

Mr. John Fisher: I'm operating by memory here, but to be honest, I don't recall that there was. My recollection, as is indicated in the speaking notes, is that there was a suggestion with EGALE that they would consult, but I actually think that consultation didn't take place. I remember us being quite disturbed at the time that there wasn't going to be the consultation we expected.

As I said, however, I'm operating on memory, and to be honest, it doesn't stand out in my memory as being the big deal that one's attempting to make of it.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Okay.

I'd like to ask this question of Professor Bailey. This conjugal concept is a legal concept that takes us into the courtroom, it appears. If there's any dissension on it, we go to the Supreme Court ruling, go to court, and say, well, I think it was conjugal, and the other guy says they don't think it was conjugal. We have to go to the courtroom to find that out, whether it was or wasn't, using this Supreme Court guideline.

Do you think it's appropriate for the state or the government to try to evaluate personal relationships between two people in order to extend some type of benefits? I mean, prior to that, if it was heterosexual, there was recognition that there was a natural ability to have kids. In most cases, that happens. Now we're saying, gee, we're taking that away, we have this legal thing called “conjugal”, and if you want to figure out whether you apply or not, run into the courtroom.

Aren't we going to have the state deciding about personal relationships and a whole bunch of people in the courtroom trying to figure this out, or the potential for it, at least? Certainly the courtroom seems to be the only place we can get a solution, and the state is the final arbitrator.

Prof. Martha Bailey: The state does get involved in personal relationships in the sense that it does enact legislation that extends benefits and obligations to couples who have certain personal relationships. The provinces enact family laws. Parliament has enacted the Divorce Act and so on. So the state does get involved in personal relationships in that way.

• 1230

On the issue of whether or not there'll be a lot of litigation over the meaning of conjugal relationship, over whether parties qualify as common-law partners, I don't anticipate that there will be a lot of litigation about that. The courts in Canada have worked through the meaning of “cohabit”, the meaning of “conjugal”, and so on. There might be some anomalous situations where it's not quite clear whether it's a conjugal relationship or whether they qualify as common-law partners, but for the most part I would anticipate that there would not be a lot of litigation on that point.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lowther and Professor Bailey.

Mr. Grose.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll address myself to EGALE. You're a lobbying group and that's as it should be, and I must listen to you, as I must listen to Mr. Stock as well, and then make up my own mind.

Are you reasonably satisfied with this bill?

Mr. John Fisher: Yes, we are. We think it strikes a reasonable balance among the responsibilities the government has designed it to address.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Okay. Can you see yourself in the foreseeable future continuing to lobby to go further than this bill goes?

Ms. Kim Vance: Could you define what you think “go further” means? We lobby every day and we still have provinces where people are subjected to all kinds of hateful behaviour. We're lobbying every day, so what do you constitute as “going further”?

Mr. Ivan Grose: I was thinking of a more proactive type of lobbying. There has been mention here today of things that were not included in this bill, things that the bill does not say. Would you, in the foreseeable future, see yourself lobbying in that direction?

Mr. John Fisher: Yes, there are some areas omitted from this bill that we would like to see in place.

Immigration is an area of crucial importance to gays and lesbians. Currently we don't have the same right that heterosexuals have to sponsor a same-sex partner to immigrate to this country. That's part of a separate process. We understand that. So, yes, of course we'll continue our efforts for the Department of Immigration to bring their laws into conformity with the standards here.

The issue of marriage, of course, is one that has been raised, and I understand that's a concern for some members of the House and of the committee. EGALE has always been clear that, yes, we believe gays and lesbians should have access to the same range of relationship options as heterosexuals, including the right to marry. Whether ultimately we'll see that day come, I don't know.

I do think this point is important to recognize: the approach government has chosen to adopt here is not to embark on definitions of “spouse”, of “family”, of whose relationships are more valid and whose are not. The government has chosen to have a two-line introduction to this bill and then get straight into the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act; it then continues like this for page after page. While that's not the most ringing human rights endorsement that's likely to be remembered through history, the approach government has chosen is one of addressing its responsibilities and ensuring that its laws match the needs of actual relationships in the year 2000.

It has chosen not to engage the issue of what “marriage” is, what “spouse” is. Those are issues that.... We could transform this bill into a different piece of legislation. We could transform it into “The Defence of Marriage Act”. I think that would open a can of worms that hasn't been on the table up until now and which EGALE would be happy to address with individual members or committees at a future date.

Certainly we don't see this as addressing the marriage question, for example, and as an organization that believes in equality in that domain, we will continue our efforts in that regard.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you. I consider that an honest answer.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Just to follow up on a couple of points, one of the other issues that EGALE has raised in the past is the failure of hate literature provisions of the Criminal Code to be inclusive of sexual orientation. I take it that would be another issue you'd be continuing to pursue.

Mr. John Fisher: Correct.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Lowther has raised the spectre of this bill dealing with the issue of adoption; he has referred to a clause 57. I think the record should be very clear on what this is actually about. This is an amendment to the Canada Pension Plan Act, which states that for a person with disabilities who is supporting a child and whose child then is legally adopted, the benefit for that child will end. That's what this bill says. This has absolutely nothing to do with eligibility for adoption or anything else. All it says is that if you, as a disabled person, are getting a benefit under the Canada Pension Plan Act for a child and that child is legally adopted by somebody, then you don't get benefit for that child any more. Mr. Lowther might want to read the legislation a little more carefully before—

Mr. Eric Lowther: That's not the way I heard it, Svend.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, that's exactly what it says.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Well, we—

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's exactly what it says.

Mr. Eric Lowther: We have changed that clause.

The Chair: Mr. Lowther—

Mr. Eric Lowther: If you want to make comments across the table to me, let's go ahead and do it—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Chairman—

Mr. Eric Lowther: —but I thought we had witnesses here.

The Chair: Mr. Lowther, Mr. Robinson will have another response.

You've asked for one and I've accorded it.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's exactly what that provision applies to.

• 1235

I had only one question for Mr. Stock, that is, again, he has raised the suggestion of this bill somehow dealing with the issue of adoption. Then he softened it a little and said maybe that's something we have to watch out for in the future. Is there any clause in this bill, Mr. Stock, that you're aware of that actually raises the issue of adoption?

Mr. Peter Stock: Let's put this in context, Mr. Robinson. Unlike Mr. Fisher and EGALE, I did not have access to this legislation prior to it being tabled in the House of Commons.

Mr. Svend Robinson: The bill has been in the public domain since February 11.

Mr. Peter Stock: Yes, and that press release that Mr. Maloney was reading from was issued prior to—

Mr. Svend Robinson: No, it wasn't. It was issued at 10.56, British Columbia time.

Mr. Peter Stock: No, no. My press release that he was referring to where I referred to international adoption was released at noon that day, okay? I hadn't—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Oh, so you issued it without seeing the bill.

Mr. Peter Stock: —had an opportunity to read all 200 pages of the bill, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So you just assumed it would deal with that.

The Chair: Mr.—

Mr. Peter Stock: Well, it was quite clear from statements made by ministers—and this is what I said earlier—statements made by the Minister of Immigration, the Minister of Justice, and others, that the policy direction of this government is to eliminate any distinctions in law between married couples and—

Mr. Svend Robinson: But the bill itself...you said the bill itself would do that.

Mr. Peter Stock: I did—

Mr. Svend Robinson: I take it that upon reading that bill—

Mr. Peter Stock: In that press release, that's what I said.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I take it that on reading the bill, you realize that's not the case.

Mr. Peter Stock: I realize that's not the case from reading the bill now, yes.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Lowther had offered one more question.

Mr. Eric Lowther: I'm going to let the members read clause 57 and discern for themselves if there's an issue there with adoption. I can tell you that the terminology has been changed in clause 57 from what was there before, but I'd rather go to a question at the moment, Mr. Chair.

My question is back to.... We've made a lot of reference here to the Supreme Court and needing to take direction from the Supreme Court.

I'd like some comment from the witnesses, whichever ones. I'm reading from a particular Supreme Court ruling that says:

The marital relationship has special needs with which Parliament and the legislatures and indeed custom and judge-made law have have long been concerned. The legal institution of marriage exists both for the protection of the relationship and for defining the obligations that flow from entering into...marriage. Because of its importance, legal marriage may properly be viewed as fundamental to the stability and well-being of the family...Parliament may quite properly give special support to the institution of marriage.

...heterosexual couples...[are] the social unit that uniquely has the capacity to procreate children and generally cares for their upbringing, and as such warrants support by Parliament to meet its needs. This is the only unit in society that extends resources to care for children on a routine and sustained basis.

There's a Supreme Court ruling. Now, this particular Bill C-23 doesn't seem to respect that ruling because it's now giving every single benefit and every single obligation that we have previously given to marriage, except divorce, to two people of the same sex who live together who say they're in some sort of conjugal relationship, and we're going to let the courts decide what that is. That seems to be in direct conflict with that directive or that statement from the Supreme Court.

Are there any comments on that?

Ms. Kim Vance: I guess the point is not for us to question you, but there is a fundamental assumption there that somehow gay and lesbian relationships are not involved in those fundamental things you've just outlined. For instance, the—

Mr. Eric Lowther: Maybe I didn't make make my question clear. I'm sorry. Why is it that we take some directions from the courts that move things along in one direction but other statements and directions from the courts are not considered?

Mr. John Fisher: May I just ask which judgment you're referring to?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Sure. It's the Egan suit.

Mr. John Fisher: And it is the judgment of...?

Mr. Eric Lowther: La Forest.

Mr. John Fisher: Who was in the minority, I believe, on that point.

Mr. Eric Lowther: No.

Mr. John Fisher: Yes, Mr. Justice La Forest was in the minority of four out of nine judges on that point. I'm pleased that you recognize the importance of respecting Supreme Court judgments and I think that is what this bill does. Clearly in the M. v. H. decision, eight of nine judges held that the laws must be changed to respect the Constitution.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Do you agree with them, Mr. Fisher?

Mr. John Fisher: Personally, yes, and EGALE believes in respecting the law and the Constitution as well. Clearly the minority of the court expressed the point of view that you're now placing before the committee. The majority of the court expressed the alternative view, and the government has chosen, obviously, to respect the actual decision of the court, not the views of the minority.

Mr. Peter Stock: I think it's quite clear in reading both Egan and M. v. H. that in Egan the court was examining federal legislation. They were examining the Canada Pension Plan and some specific provisions there.

A voice: Old age pension.

Mr. Peter Stock: My apologies. You're right; it was OAS and so on.

Then, of course, in M. v. H. they were addressing provincial legislation, a completely different provision. What the government has done here federally was not required by the court. The court did not address federal legislation in M. v. H.. The court did not address any of the provisions that are being amended here. In fact, if we refer to the only provision that has been addressed, which is the one that was addressed in Egan v. Canada, (1993), the court said something completely different. The government is doing something it is not required to do by the court. It has nothing to do with respecting the court. We find it quite troubling.

• 1240

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Professor Bailey.

Prof. Martha Bailey: In the Egan case, the court was split four-four and the swing vote was from Mr. Justice Sopinka, who did not adopt the language Mr. Lowther just read out. Rather, he said this legislation was discriminatory, at least for now. Justice Sopinka, in the Egan decision, very much expressed the view that in the future it might not be saved under section 1 of the charter because same-sex relationships would no longer be new and therefore section 1 might not apply.

So I think the language of Mr. Justice Sopinka, who made the swing vote, coupled with the M. v. H. decision, would very much support the approach taken now by Parliament in Bill C-23. At least that's my opinion.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: I have just one point, Mr. Chair, on the issue of clause 57 and the discussion we had among the committee members. We have a legal scholar with us, and I wonder if perhaps the question could be put to Professor Bailey. My understanding is similar to Mr. Robinson's, that it deals with the protection of a child of a disabled person who is adopted under provincial law. I wonder if we could ask for a clarification of that.

Prof. Martha Bailey: As I said before, adoption is a matter for provincial legislative competence. In some provinces it is possible for same-sex partners to adopt, and it's possible for a single person who is in a same-sex relationship to adopt. So this provision might apply in those cases. I'm just reading it quickly and hastily responding. Bill C-23 can't affect and doesn't affect, as far as I can see, entitlement to adopt. That's a matter for the provinces to deal with.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Good. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I'd like to just put a couple of questions, to inform and draw the attention of the committee and the panel and all outspoken people around this—well, perhaps to a lesser extent Professor Bailey. In any case, given the fact that people are offering opinions on this, there are a couple of things I'd like a little clarity on.

There are two issues. One has to do with the legal arguments around the process, how sequential this is, and what minority decision said this about that. This is my third time on a committee discussing these kinds of issues, and there never seems to be a reconciliation of opinion around these things. We simply go down separate roads, and that's fair.

In terms of the public debate, we also talk an awful lot about the math involved in this—how many Canadians want this and how many Canadians want that. It occurs to me that discussion is, to some extent, a function of where one has an opinion on those fundamental questions. For instance, if Canadians believe this bill has an effect on marriage, they may react to this bill differently than if they believe it does not have an effect on marriage.

Mr. Stock, I know your organization has taken the position that this significantly affects marriage. I know the government has said otherwise and others have said otherwise. Consequently, how do we use the numerical argument when, for those who believe in the paramountcy of Parliament, a large number of members of Parliament last year voted in favour of a definition of marriage? Many of those same members of Parliament supported this bill in second reading. So I have to believe they have concluded that this bill is not inconsistent with their support of marriage. Is that fair?

• 1245

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Chair, I have a point of clarification on your statement that a number of members of Parliament voted in favour of the definition of marriage. Many others may have agreed with the definition of marriage but voted against the motion for other reasons, such as its implication with the notwithstanding clause, etc. I include myself in that category. I voted against the motion, but it wasn't because I was in disagreement with the definition of marriage.

The Chair: It's understood, and that point was made at the time. But I still maintain that the statement around the two positions seems to be evident. I am curious as to how we, as a committee, reconcile ourselves to the debate around what Canadians want, as individual members of Parliament who are being called in our offices around this, and trying to measure those calls against the basis of those calls.

I've had this conversation, and I'm sure many of my colleagues have had this conversation. I'd be interested in how you'd advise us to reconcile that, if we don't necessarily agree with what you, on each side, believe the fundamental nature of this bill is.

Mr. Peter Stock: I would answer that two ways. One is to recognize again that very few Canadians, 6,500 in fact, have specifically requested this type of legislation. That's a statistically insignificant number of people. They're not insignificant people, but it's certainly not enough to make the machinery of government move. That's the only evidence we have in front of us that some of the public want this specific legislation.

In terms of where members themselves stand, I'll just read a very short quote here from a letter one of the members here wrote to a constituent in 1996, at the time of the C-33 debate. You probably remember it. He said:

I would not support legislation that I feel gives legal recognition to same-sex marriages, same-sex benefits, or advocates a homosexual lifestyle.

Sir, that was you, yet you're voting in the House in support of this legislation.

The Chair: You've taken the letter out of context, which has happened in the past. It has to do with the fact that the argument being put at the time was that the debate that was taking place at that time would necessarily lead to this debate.

Ms. Kim Vance: You asked for all members to respond.

I guess the fundamental issue for me here is that I have not seen any evidence from anybody who's presented that somehow this legislation erodes the day-to-day ability of a married couple to live as a married couple. There is nothing in this legislation that erodes that, affects that negatively, or takes away from any value to that relationship.

I really think it takes the debate in a way that is irrelevant to what is covered under Bill C-23. Bill C-23 addresses the fact that there are many other kinds of families out there that experience systemic discrimination, whose children are not recognized as part of the family unit.

Mr. John Fisher: I recognize that there's an interesting question here about how the courts, government and public opinion all interact to produce the process of legal change. I think what we're seeing around this legislation is a coming together of the direction from the courts, the will of Parliament, the actions taken by governments all across Canada, and public opinion, which according to the public opinion polls commissioned by the government, is strongly behind this kind of legislation.

We recognize it's often a process of Canadians becoming more comfortable with issues around homosexuality and coming to understand us better, as the people we are. I think those three things are all driving in the same direction and bringing us to the point we're at today.

When we look at the debate, we also have to recognize it's not just a numbers game. It sometimes may seem that you're just hearing equal but opposing viewpoints, and whoever shouts the loudest maybe wins. The fundamental difference there is that at the end of the day, my human rights are at stake, and the human rights of some of the other voices you're hearing are not necessarily at stake. They don't stand to lose anything, but my relationship is rendered invisible and marginalized because of our exclusion from laws.

When I went to get a bank loan with my partner the other day, we were both sitting there in front of the teller, she took one look at us and wrote “single” as marital status on the bank form. She didn't even ask what our marital status was. She knew we were in a relationship, but she wrote down “single”. It's something that makes us feel invisible, excluded, and marginalized, and it's wrong.

To us, that's part of what this legislation seeks to accomplish, in accordance with what I think are the wishes of Canadians, generally.

• 1250

Ms. Kim Vance: Could I add to that just a little further?

We've already heard discussions about the obvious value the constituents of Mr. Ménard and Mr. Robinson have, because therefore they wouldn't have discriminated and voted against them. But I would put to the committee that they probably didn't vote in favour of these members of Parliament coming to represent them in the House of Commons and not having this access to the same rights and privileges that every other heterosexual member of the House has.

The Chair: I'm going to go to Monsieur Ménard, because he had to race off to support the NDP motion, just to show generosity and fairness.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: This NDP motion is a good motion, Mr. Chairman. Your sense of fair-play is one of the things that make you so endearing.

This time, my question will not be for Mr. Stock but for Ms. Bailey. For a contract from the Law Commission or a seminar that was held at your university, you published a paper on the concept of conjugality. I read that paper and I would like it to be distributed to all the members of the committee, because it is a good study.

I would like to ask you a specific question. At the Bloc Québécois, we have heated discussions, not like in the NDP where there is consensus and even unanimity on the bill. Ten of my colleagues are opposed to the bill and I have made it a personal challenge to try to convince them to vote in favour of the bill.

There is one type of argument that comes up regularly. People tell me that if the bill mentioned other forms of interdependency relationships, they would support it. I argue that it cannot be said that a brother who takes care of his sister or an uncle who takes care of his niece have a conjugal relationship. There are distinctions to be made which does not mean however that the State should not eventually support that type of interdependency relationships.

At the beginning of your remarks, you yourself said we should differentiate between the two. I would like you to elaborate on that so that I have more arguments to convince my colleagues.

[English]

Prof. Martha Bailey: The jurisdictions that have enacted legislation to protect persons in a non-conjugal relationship who are in a relationship of dependency tend to focus on the situation of dependency, so they protect against, say, sudden ouster from a dwelling they have come to depend on living in, or being suddenly cut off from support because of the death of the person who's providing support, or something like that.

I don't know of any jurisdiction that treats cohabiting couples in a conjugal relationship in an identical way to those in dependent relationships.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I will ask one last question after which we can all go to lunch. I hope it isn't too much to ask, but I was wondering if you would prepare for the committee a one-page document in which you would identify the advantages and the disadvantages of this type of formula.

In my mind there is a major disadvantage. The Quebec Civil Code talks about equality of spouses. This is the result of our struggle in the field of family law. The Civil Code was amended in the early 1980s and it now contains a very clear provision which says that individuals are equal participants in the couple.

During her testimony the day before last, the Minister talked of relationships of interdependency as relationships that are established in circumstances when one is vulnerable, for example when one person is being taken care of by another. In these cases, we have the same concept of equality. That's what concerns me.

Given your expertise and your knowledge of this issue, I would ask you to prepare a document in which you would list the advantages and disadvantages as well as what you know of this issue.

Mr. Chairman, would that be possible? Could there be some financial compensation?

[English]

Prof. Martha Bailey: Before you give me a job—

Voices: Oh, oh!

Prof. Martha Bailey: I'm not quite clear what you're wanting. You're wanting the advantages and disadvantages of enacting protective legislation for those who are in relationships of dependency. Is that correct?

• 1255

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I don't know if government members agree with my colleagues who say that they oppose the bill because it does not recognize other forms of financial interdependence. For example, one of my colleagues was telling me about his brother who is taking care of their father and asked me why he should vote for a bill that would not give his brother the right to these benefits.

A priori, I am opposed to this kind of recognition being incorporated in this bill. I know that is the government's position, which the Minister has also conveyed to us.

I would like to have a document where we could see what has been done elsewhere, although you seem to imply that very little has been done elsewhere in this regard, as well as the pros and cons of that kind of recognition. Do you understand?

[English]

Prof. Martha Bailey: Parliament might well want to enact legislation that protects those who are vulnerable and who are in dependent relationships, apart from those who are in conjugal relationships. That is a more complicated process. We don't have as many precedents for it, and it requires some consideration. Some other jurisdictions have done it, and we probably want to consider what they've done and look carefully at it.

It seems to me—and I would say this to your colleagues—the process of looking into and deciding about protections for those who are vulnerable in dependent relationships should not cause us to delay something like Bill C-23, which simply is Parliament bringing existing federal legislation in line with the charter. It's clear about this particular step, the step embodied by Bill C-23. The step we need to take to protect vulnerable people in dependent relationships is not as clear, and it requires a little more time, but it shouldn't delay this process.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I thank the witnesses and the members of the committee. We will be reconvening at 3.30 for more witnesses this afternoon.

Thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned.