On February 21, 2000, the Liberal government closed second reading debate of the same-sex benefits legislation, Bill C-23. After only 4 hours and 22 minutes of debate, the government moved to stifle open discussion of the bill in Parliament. This was the 60^th time that the Liberal's closed off debate in Parliament since being elected. This is an unprecedented attack on democracy, but what is of greater concern is the impact this legislation will have on the institution of marriage.

Bill C-23 is officially known as The Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, but it should be renamed The Death of Marriage Act. The bill amends 68 federal statutes affecting 20 departments and agencies to extend marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples.

Bill C-23 is basically changing how marriage is viewed in this country. This piece of legislation introduces the term "common law partner". This is defined as a person cohabiting with another person (opposite or same-sex) in a conjugal relationship for a year. What this means is if two people live together and have some sort of sexual relationship, they are eligible for the same benefits as married couples. In effect, this bill removes any sort of unique public policy recognition for the institution of marriage.

The commitment made when people get married has provided the stability in our society necessary to give children a secure place in which to grow, develop and be nurtured. Stable families are where values are transmitted from one generation to the next. Therefore, it will be our children that will suffer the most by undermining the institution of marriage. This is my biggest concern.

In Canada, marriage has been limited to the union of one man and one woman and has been the building block of our nation. Recent Statistics Canada reports show that children in these home relationships, with a mother and father, have far fewer behavioral problems and a significantly higher percentage complete high school.

Government policy has always encouraged the commitment made in a marriage because it provides the building block of a stable society. To move away from support for this commitment and focus on a sexual relationship is a huge change.

To argue that there has been discrimination against same-sex couples is a bogus excuse. Because this legislation is based on sexual relations between two people this government is creating another level of discrimination. They are now limiting benefits to those in conjugal relationships but ignoring those involved in dependency relationships.

If the government has "no business in the bedrooms of the nation", then surely it should not have put forward a bill which essentially makes private sexual activity the sole criteria for benefits eligibility. How will the government know whether a couple is truly having "conjugal relations" or are simply trying to obtain the benefit?

A same-sex couple living together in a "conjugal relationship" would have access to benefits but two elderly people who live together for dependency reasons would not be entitled to benefits. Is this what the government means by fairness?

The government should choose to affirm marriage in legislation? This would help prevent the courts from setting the agenda in this country.

For thousands of years, the traditional family has been the basic building block of our society. Reformers are very concerned that the erosion of the traditional family and society will take place if the institution of marriage as we know it isn't defended vigorously. Our children will be hurt the most if we fail. People must protest this legislation now before it's too late.

-30-