February 11, 2000

Introduction

The Government of Canada has tabled the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act to ensure that common-law relationships (both opposite and same-sex) are treated equally under federal law. These changes are about fairness. They will ensure that, in keeping with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in M. v. H. (May 1999), same-sex common-law couples have the same obligations and benefits as opposite-sex common-law couples and will provide them with the same access as other Canadian couples to social benefits programs to which they have contributed.

The Bill

The omnibus legislation would extend benefits and obligations to same-sex common-law couples on the same basis as opposite-sex common-law couples. Sixty-eight statutes involving some 20 departments are affected. Amendments will be made to statutes such as the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Criminal Code and the Old Age Security Act.

The proposed legislation maintains the clear distinction between married and unmarried relationships and, wherever possible, uses neutral terms and language to define relationships and the partners in them. The term "spouse" refers to married couples only, and the term "common-law partner" encompasses people in common-law relationships, both same-sex and opposite-sex.

The definition of marriage has not changed. The Government of Canada has no intention of changing the legal definition of marriage. Although a few European countries have limited recognition of same-sex relationships, a clear distinction is maintained in the law between marriage and same-sex partnerships.

The changes are balanced — obligations as well as benefits will be conferred on same-sex couples. The fiscal impact of these amendments will be minimal if any at all.

Background

Both federally and provincially, there have been many challenges before courts and human rights tribunals concerning benefits for same-sex couples. In its May 1999 ruling in M. v. H., the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear that governments cannot limit benefits or obligations by discriminating against same-sex common-law relationships. Denying equal treatment before the law to same-sex common-law partners is contrary to the principles of equality enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Several provinces have already begun to amend their legislation. Since 1997, British Columbia has amended numerous statutes, including six core statutes, to add same-sex couples. In June 1999, Quebec amended 28 statutes and 11 regulations to grant same-sex couples the same benefits and obligations that are available to opposite-sex common-law couples. And in October 1999, to comply with the Supreme Court decision in M. v.H., Ontario passed omnibus legislation to bring 67 statutes into compliance with the ruling.

Parliament passed legislation (Bill C-78) that extended survivor pension benefits to the same-sex partners of federal public service employees, as have Manitoba, Quebec, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. As well, the majority of large cities in Canada and more than 200 private sector Canadian companies currently provide benefits to the same-sex partner of their employees, as do many municipalities, hospitals, libraries and social service institutions across Canada.

Examples of Benefits and Obligations

The following are examples of benefits and obligations that would be granted to all common-law relationships, both opposite-sex and same-sex, under the Government's proposed legislation.

- 30 -