Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Whether the federal government actually changes the definition of marriage or not we should still proceed with this legislation. Even if the definition of marriage isn't changed, we should proceed with this. The Member just agreed that heterosexual common-law couples shouldn't be discriminated against simply because they're not legally married. That is supported by the courts. Well, the courts have supported the exact same thing with same-sex couples. You can't discriminate against them simply because they're not legally married. You can't say they're not a couple. So whether the definition of marriage is changed or not, it has nothing to do with whether or not couples have rights. The courts have found that heterosexual couples, whether they're married or not, have rights, as do same-sex couples.
Charles Dent on Committee Motion 34-15(3) To Amend Clause 5 Of Bill 17: Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, Carried
In the Legislative Assembly on March 9th, 2005. See this statement in context.
Committee Motion 34-15(3) To Amend Clause 5 Of Bill 17: Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, Carried
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
March 8th, 2005
Page 1924
See context to find out what was said next.