Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment, I am proposing, does not include the ability for people of the same sex to be married. It does not include the ability for them, as a couple, to adopt children. What the amendment proposes to do is to provide protection to people who enter into relationships. So, upon the dissolution of those relationships, they are able to participate in the division of property that has been acquired during that relationship and also to get spousal support.
The first thing I wanted to talk about is that the amendment would allow people to enter into enforceable agreements prior to or during cohabitation. Today those are called pre-nuptial or marriage contracts and this right would also be extended to same sex couples.
The second thing is upon separation, they would be able to enter into those same types of legally enforceable agreements.
The third thing is that they would have the right to apply for spousal support upon the breakdown of the relationship, similar to a man and woman when their relationship breaks down and they separate. One of the two can apply for spousal support, for assistance, for training, or to help them live for a period of time.
The fourth is that when the relationship is broken down or one of the spouses has died, one person would have the right to apply for a division of property acquired during the relationship. Currently, if one of the spouses dies, the living spouse has no claim on the property not in that person's name. This would rectify that. It would also give the person the right to apply for possession of the family home when the relationship breaks down.
Madam Chair, similar to relationships between a man and a woman, spouses in same sex couples often forego their own career to assist their partner in their career. Other times, they look after the children, perhaps from their partner's or their own previous marriage. When they do, they do not work and they leave themselves out of the workplace for sometimes a long period of time and once the relationship ends, it is difficult to get a job. They may require training. This spousal support is needed for everybody, not just for heterosexual relationships.
Today, it is very difficult for anybody living together to get division of property and you simply cannot get spousal support. You can get division of matrimonial property, but it is very difficult because you have to prove constructive trust to the court. It is very difficult to establish and since it is difficult to establish, it can become very expensive. Once again, we have a situation where we have two systems of justice, one for the rich and one for the poor. Those people who can afford good lawyers might be able to get division of property, but others would not be able to.
As I said, spousal support today, unless you are married you simply cannot get it. Common-law couples, whether they are man and woman relationships or same sex relationships, cannot get it because there is no act in place to provide for that. The courts will not give common law people spousal support. This act gives legal basis for common law spouses to have division of property and spousal support. The proposed amendment that I am speaking to, would go one step further. It would give this same protection to same sex couples. I feel to not extend the right to same sex couples would be against the Canadian Constitution.
Madam Chair, the Canadian Charter of Rights provides in Section 15, that every individual is equal before and under the law, and has the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination. The Charter is there to protect Canadian citizens from actions and laws of the territorial, provincial, and Canadian governments. Inconsistencies in laws and the actions of those governments are unconstitutional and whole Acts can be struck down or just the part that is inconsistent with the Charter could be taken out of the Act, which could very well happen in this instance.
There is currently a case before the Supreme Court of Canada called M versus H. In that case there were two women in Ontario who lived together for 10 years. The one woman assumed the role of the supportive spouse. She stayed at home and entertained for her partner and generally assisted her partner in achieving her career objectives. At the end of the relationship, she applied for spousal support. It is interesting to note that Ontario's law regarding spousal support was exactly the same as this government proposes today in Bill 3. The first time she went to court, she was denied spousal support on the basis that she had no legal entitlement to support under the law, which only authorized spousal support in an opposite sex relationship. At the Court of Appeal level, this decision was overturned. The Court of Appeal found that the law was discriminatory and that in the context of spousal support, there was no valid societal objective in discriminating in this way.
This case is now before the Supreme of Canada and will be argued soon. Madam Chair, I talked earlier about spousal support, which includes allowances to help a person get training or to help them get back on their feet. When spousal support is not allowed, the government ends up having to provide people in need with income support. While actually it is the former spouse who should be providing this.
What we are proposing would give that spousal support to heterosexual couples, man and woman couples, but it would not provide it to same sex couples. I have heard today about our responsibilities. Being a native person, I have lived with discrimination since I was a child and I have taught my children not to discriminate. I feel that it is my responsibility not to discriminate in the laws that I pass.
Madam Chair, at the proper time I will ask for a recorded vote. Thank you.