English version

Le projet de loi défendu depuis plusieurs années par un député socialiste a finalement été adopté en décembre 1998 par l'Assemblée nationale. Il lui reste à franchir les aller-retours entre le Sénat et l'Assemblée nationale avant son adoption définitive, probablement à l'automne 1999.

Ce contrat permettrait d’octroyer des droits fiscaux, sociaux et successoraux à deux personnes cohabitant sous un même toit. De même, les conjoints étrangers pourront demander un titre de séjour de longue durée, à condition que leur entrée sur le territoire français ait été régulière.

Au départ considéré comme une avancée des droits des homosexuels, la présentation du projet de loi fut d’abord repoussé aux calendes grecs sous les différents gouvernements socialistes, en raison de son caractère " outrageux " pour une partie de la population. Afin de lui enlever cet aspect " shocking ", on a donc décidé de le considérer comme un contrat pouvant également s’appliquer entre un frère et une sœur, ou deux étudiants partageant un appartement etc.

Il semble bien, selon un sondage récent, que la population dans sa majorité (64%) soit favorable à cette forme d’union. En tout cas, il n’est pas question dans tout cela d’accorder à deux personnes du même sexe qui vivent maritalement des droits quelconques en matière d’adoption.

Wednesday, January 20, 1999
ERIN ANDERSSEN
Parliamentary Bureau

Ottawa -- The federal government is planning sweeping changes to dozens of pieces of legislation to extend equal rights to same-sex couples.
Pre-empting a losing battle in the country's courts, government sources say, Ottawa has decided to proceed with amendments that will treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexuals in everything from pensions to bankruptcy law to the Criminal Code.
The government's political will to make the changes was strengthened by the fact that there was little evidence of a backlash when Immigration Minister Lucienne Robillard announced two weeks ago that her department will open the door to same-sex immigrant couples.
The major policy shift has been prompted by a growing stack of court cases that say certain existing federal laws violate the Charter by not treating homosexuals and heterosexual couples equally.
"The government has to deal with this sooner or later," a government source said. "It's unavoidable."
A gay and lesbian rights group has launched a massive lawsuit against Ottawa, seeking changes to 58 federal statutes. But David Corbett, lawyer for the Foundation for Equal Families, said the group has made it clear that it is willing to drop the court action if the government proceeds with changes under a set time line. Ottawa has not yet responded officially to the lawsuit.
While the decision has been made to make the changes, sources said the government is still debating how to do it, either with one omnibus bill amending a mass of legislation together or by proceeding individually through each department involved.
High-level discussions are under way in a number of government departments to decide how best to implement the changes. Beyond the obvious complication of drafting a massive omnibus bill, there is concern that it would create a focal point for opponents of gay rights. As well, cases against some elements of federal law have advanced further than others in the courts and may have to be amended sooner than the time it would take to draft one overhauling bill. A more practical alternative -- and certainly more manageable in terms of writing new legislation -- may be to proceed case by case. The timing of the changes will depend on how the government makes them, since a piecemeal approach would likely get specific legislation amended faster than one large bill.
Either way, with the courts ruling consistently in favour of same-sex rights,the government is seen to have little choice but to make the amendments.
In 1995, when the Supreme Court of Canada said that the Old Age Security Act discriminated against same-sex couples, Ottawa acknowledged that the laws would have to change to reflect a new view of families, but nothing was done.
Last year, however, the government tipped its position when it didn't appeal the Rosenberg case, which declared the definition of spouse in the Income Tax Act was unconstitutional. The ruling from the Ontario Court of Appeal cleared the way for a pension system that allows widowed same-sex partners to collect survivor benefits.
The majority of the legislation that would have to be changed has to do with pensions -- including the Canada Pension Plan and the pensions of a wide range of federal employees, from the Canadian Forces to the RCMP to the federal public service. Under the current CPP, for example, same-sex partners are not eligible for survivor benefits when their partner passes away.
Other problem areas:
People in same-sex relationships can't claim their partner or their partner's children as dependents on income-tax forms.
Registered retirement savings plans cannot be transferred to surviving homosexual partners without that person paying taxes.
Conflict-of-interest guidelines do not require people in same-sex partnerships to disclose their partner's activities, as their heterosexual counterparts must.
The Bank Act or legislation regulating business requires heterosexual spouses to disclose insider information, but does not ask the same thing of same-sex spouses.
The country's bankruptcy laws do not specifically prevent people in same-sex partnerships from shifting their assets to their partner and then declaring bankruptcy.
The Criminal Code does not protect same-sex couples from being forced to testify against each other, as heterosexual couples are protected.