Alberta 's provincial legislature is knocking on discrimination's back door by considering a bill with a heterosexuals only definition of common-law relationships. A bill introduced in Alberta 's provincial legislature on February 25 would for the first time there define common-law relationships for purposes of spousal support when they break up -- and it specifies "a relationship between two people of the opposite sex." Last year, Alberta was beset by controversy in the wake of a Canadian Supreme Court decision in the case of Delwin Vriend that forced the province to recognize sexual orientation as a protected category under its human rights act. The new Bill 12 has become the focus of that same controversy, with gays and lesbians having organized to defend their rights and conservatives growing tired of waiting for Premier Ralph Klein's government to come through with promised "legislative fences" to limit those rights. It comes at a time when the stat! us of gay and lesbian couples is an active issue for the national government and the Canadian Supreme Court.
The Alberta government is trying to portray its proposal as separate from any issue of same-gender couples. It's a technical adjustment in response to an Alberta Court of Appeal ruling, which found spousal support provisions of the provincial Domestic Relations Act unconstitutional because they applied solely to the dissolution of legally married couples. The court ordered the province to define common-law relationships for purposes of spousal support payments, before a June 16 deadline. Although the Domestic Relations Act has been little used to date, since nearly all married couples dissolve under the Divorce Act instead, its expansion to unmarried couples is expected to generate a tremendous response.
Justice Minister Jon Havelock said of the proposal that, "It doesn't exclude gays and lesbians. What it does is deal exactly with what the court ordered, or rather requested the government to do, in order to ensure that the existing legislation is constitutional." He gave the bill to Member of the Legislative Assembly Marlene Graham (Calgary-Lougheed) to introduce; she also denies that the government is trying to discriminate against anyone, and believes opponents are "blowing this way out of proportion." The amendment to the Domestic Relations Act defines common-law couples as members of the opposite sex who have either lived in a marriage-like relationship for three years or have had a child together; couples who don't wish to be bound by its provisions can sign cohabitation agreements instead.
But Energy Minister Steve West put his foot in it by saying that the bill was for "normal people." He later clarified that while he wouldn't describe a gay or lesbian couple as a "family," he did not intend his remark to reflect on "the caliber of the people" in those relationships.
Gay and Lesbian Awareness spokesperson Murray Billett said Bill 12 "totally flies in the face of reality. It flies in the face of the Supreme Court of Canada and the [national] Charter [of Rights]. It's wrong and the premier knows it. He has once again derailed human rights in Alberta." Previously Billett had called the move "legislative gay-bashing" and "legislatively endorsing discrimination." Activist Steven Lock called the bill an "obscure piece of legislation that is going to create a kerfuffle of controversy."
Julie Lloyd, an attorney who is a spokesperson of Equal Alberta, a group formed after the Vriend decision, indicated that if the bill is passed it will likely lead to a court challenge, although the gay and lesbian community would much prefer to avoid the time and expense involved. Although Equal Alberta is prepared to take up the legal challenge, it's been seeking to educate the public on the issues it expects will be part of Klein's plan for "legislative fences": spousal benefits such as support payments and pensions, legal marriage, and adoption rights.
Edmonton's openly gay City Councilor Michael Phair said, "There's no question it inflames the issue and I think it angers people. Certainly it's an unhealthy environment for people to live their lives. There's something about this that is a bit sick on their part, this obsession with, how can we somehow protect Albertans from people like Michael Phair?" He referred to the bill as a means by which the government "is trying to find a back door" to undermine the Vriend ruling.
Gays and lesbians are not alone in criticizing the government's move. Liberal Party human rights spokesperson Gary Dickson had expected the government to attempt to limit gay and lesbian civil rights by means of "a whole lot of bills coming forward with bits and pieces of the big picture -- a multitude of bills" of which this is only the first. Dickson also suggested that the timing of the proposal, not long before the national Supreme Court is expected to rule regarding recognition of same-gender couples, is "daring somebody to challenge them in the courts." Liberal Party justice spokesperson Sue Olsen said the government is showing that it will "use the legislature and the assembly as a tool for their discriminatory practices."
Klein set up a cabinet committee some ten months ago specifically to consider those "legislative fences" to limit the impact of the Vriend ruling, but it has taken no action to date. Along with Justice Minister Havelock, it includes Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dave Hancock, Community Development Minister Shirley McClellan, and provincial Treasurer Stockwell Day, a leading anti-gay religious conservative.