Bill C-38 (Historical)

Civil Marriage Act

An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes

This enactment extends the legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes to same-sex couples in order to reflect values of tolerance, respect and equality, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts to ensure equal access for same-sex couples to the civil effects of marriage and divorce.

Civil Marriage Act

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this issue has moved Canadians to action and to become involved, reinvigorated as active members of the Canadian democratic process. I have had interventions from several thousand of my constituents, more so than on any other piece of legislation, even Bill C-68, and we know how controversial that has been and how many people have come to the fore on that. Several thousand of my constituents have told me that they are also against the purpose of this bill. They also wonder why we should be occupied by this matter rather than the more pressing issues that affect millions rather than a few hundred Canadians.

It reflects the nature of our modern age, perhaps even the corruption of our legal system, that a very vocal minority can put their issue on a national platform even when the vast majority of Canadians have better things to do. And they still claim they have no voice.

I know the Prime Minister will feign outrage at this, but we are pretty tired of his phony moral stances over here. It has taken him only a few years to run completely from poll to poll, from one side of an issue to the other. He has now exhausted every position he can hold on every issue. He has nowhere left to run.

Speakers on all sides of the House have articulated the background to the introduction of Bill C-38, but not everyone has been playing with a full deck of facts. The former justice minister said in the House that the traditional definition of marriage was safe and secure and that the Liberals had no intention of changing anything. Not that long ago, like every Liberal promise, those words disappeared after the election.

Despite voting to take every action necessary to protect our foundational institution, those same Liberals stood by while junior court after junior court defied the Supreme Court and Parliament and thousands of years of history to claim they have discovered words in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that are not actually there at all.

The Prime Minister claims to hold the charter sacred while he lets judicial activists distort this document into radical new shapes. He says nothing while judges claim they find words where none exist. This is not progressive. This is radical and there is always a danger to the overall common good when a few radicals hijack a national document and use it to push their own agenda.

A few of my colleagues in the House circulated a letter in which they claimed no one was behind the push for same sex marriage. It just sort of sprang up from the ground. We are not sure how it came about. The radicals we are concerned with are a group that wants to overthrow the institution of marriage because it does not conform to their social view. But they are not the only radicals at work. Greater conflicts are coming. When a democratic government participates in the breakdown of its own foundations, it cannot know where that process will end and neither can the radicals who are pursuing this narrow agenda.

The Prime Minister said that this bill is about minority rights. He is wrong. The Supreme Court has said that he has a choice to legislate on marriage because the definition is up to Parliament. It did not say he had the right to establish or create a right for marriage. No one has a right to get married. When we believe we have found a mate that we want to spend the rest of our lives with, there are a number of options. Some will shack up, as the saying goes, and not care about government or parental approval. Some will seek government approval after a time and get benefits and pension rights. That option is open to everyone now.

Some will enter into what they hope is a lifetime commitment. They will look at the list of prohibitions contained in the marriage act and finding they qualify, will get a licence and undergo a solemnization ceremony at city hall or in a church. They will promise to stay together for life and raise their children in a loving household. Not everybody makes it through their whole lifetime, but no one regards divorced individuals as second class citizens which is one of the spurious complaints of these radicals.

If I had a right to be married, I could ignore the rules set out in the marriage act, ignore any rules of solemnization in my province and certainly reject any fees they try to charge me for that process. If I had a right to get married, I would tell the clerk that I am not paying for the licence because it is my right. What about divorce? My wife can never divorce me because that would contravene my right to be married. That is how spurious this is.

Many people are miserable after divorce and it is not because they lose half their income. If the government shared the court's preoccupation with people's feelings and dignity and actually believed it was guaranteeing rights, surely it would bring in legislation to force people to stay together, or maybe provide a spouse to anyone who still wanted to exercise his or her right to be married. It is a lot of nonsense of course.

Society, not courts or governments, created the institution of marriage to provide security to men and women in a relationship they could both understand and count on and to create a unit that nurtures and protects vulnerable children as they grow and learn about their heritage. We know this breaks down often in our society and it is tragic when it does, but people do cope. Children can be and are raised in a variety of environments and turn out well. We are not talking about what everyone must do, but about what society has come to understand as to what is best for the most people most of the time.

The radicals would have us believe that because the guidelines do not include every possibility, they are flawed and must be rewritten. They have obviously convinced the Liberal cabinet, apparently, in the last few months that by rewriting the rules of society, all will be happy and we will not have to rewrite any more.

It is ironic that the Prime Minister now wants to paint himself as the great defender of minorities. We know the gun registry is an onerous document that targets a law abiding minority in this country. We know that Bill C-68, as written, tramples on at least a dozen rights from the Constitution and, as it is clumsily applied, violates a dozen or so more. So far, no Prime Minister has stood up for this minority.

We have had language laws imposed in this country that the United Nations has recognized as illegitimate, but not one Prime Minister has seen fit to help minorities where votes are at stake. So much for fundamental rights.

Our primary food producers are abused by trade disputes, hammered by unreasonable restrictions and taxed off their land. Their crops are seized and sold, and they get nickels back while somebody else makes millions.

There is the ongoing case of single income families that the Supreme Court admitted are discriminated against, but apparently they do not have much of a lobby over there. There is not a single Liberal standing up for their rights.

The whole process is pretty selective and clearly more about what is fashionable than what is right. The methods used by selfish radicals and their Liberal allies to manipulate discussion are reprehensible. Just because we say it is about minority rights does not make it so, especially when the rhetoric can never match these actions.

The Liberals claim to stand for a repressed minority, but this minority, which is really a small part of a minority, seems to have access to government and courts that most Canadians cannot even dream of. I have heard some Canadians say that we should just throw in the towel and give in whenever someone makes enough noise. Often they reflect a level of frustration about the lack of control they feel in the political process. Sometimes they are apathetic and do not realize that what is at stake is more than marriage and more than the demands of one politicized section of one minority.

To give up would be a mistake for two reasons. What the Liberals are pushing here is illegitimate and giving in will only make things worse, paving the way for more demands for so-called rights. They are prepared to let a few activist judges not interpret the Constitution but to continuously remake it without any input from the people who have to live with those consequences.

Canadians who let the government get away with that are guilty of putting their future into the hands of a smaller and smaller group of radicals whose demands we cannot imagine at this time.

What about marriage itself? Some people say, since they will still be married afterwards, what is the big deal? The same sort of dismissal greeted the change in divorce laws, and probably the insanity and lack of debate that passed for abortion laws in this country. The fact is, when a group manages to alter an institution that affects all of society, then many other changes creep in, whether we object to later consequences or not.

We are not talking about changing marriage here. We are talking about changing society. Professor Thomas Sowell points out that marriage is not an institution that grants rights. On the contrary, it imposes responsibilities. He writes:

Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes--and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options.

Society does not tell individuals what to do; it only provides a framework to carry on that society for posterity. It is ironic that the radicals would invite the government into their bedrooms to take away their rights under the guise of claiming new rights for themselves.

Journalist John McKellar, who founded HOPE, Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism, reports that the January 2001 same sex wedding in Toronto was an embarrassment for most gay communities, not a triumph. He said, “Better to stay at home and clean out the fridge when your public image is so embarrassingly represented with such maudlin specimens of martyrdom”.

What Mr. McKellar objects to and what every thinking Canadian should object to is the Liberal's knee-jerk reaction to every claim of discrimination and hurt feelings. He also said, “This is no time for the modern, feel good, pop culture mentality that stands behind C-38”.

He counts himself among the happy, successful and independent gays and lesbians who do not wake up every day finding hate, bigotry and discrimination under the bed, and go running to the courts, governments and human rights commissions for a lifetime of therapeutic preferences.

McKellar is describing the heart of what is so objectionable about Bill C-38 and, of course, last year's Bill C-250, for that matter. There is a disturbing trend today to bend the purposes of society and democracy to the will of the few with the hope of making one group feel good about itself. In the meantime, everyone else's right to free speech and opinion, everyone else's right to a dependable social order, and everyone else's right to enjoyment of property is trampled in the misguided rush to satisfy the perceived feelings of a minority of a minority.

In closing, I have always personally supported the traditional definition of marriage. I will continue to support and fight for the rights and freedoms of all Canadians to order their lives as they see fit, and I unequivocally reject the false assertions in Bill C-38.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-38, the civil marriage act. For many in the House, including me, the decision we must make on this legislation is one of the most difficult that we have been called upon to make as members of Parliament, namely, to support or oppose same sex marriage.

As we are all aware, on December 9, 2004 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to decide who has the right to get married in our country, while making an appropriate qualification that religious groups or clergy are not obliged to perform same sex unions against their beliefs, a very key exception.

The court's advice will assist parliamentarians in their deliberations; however, most important, it does not undermine the democratic role of Parliament. Parliamentarians in the House of Commons will make the final decision on the issue of extending civil marriage to same sex couples. Whether one is for or against same sex marriage, the decision will be made in a democratic way through full and transparent public deliberations followed by a free vote.

Over the past decade there have been several federal legislative changes to ensure legal rights on the basis of sexual orientation. These were emotionally charged debates as well. I supported every one of those initiatives and voted in favour of the legislation which enacted them.

In 1996 Bill C-41 amended Criminal Code sentencing provisions, setting out an aggravating sentencing factor for crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on listed personal characteristics, including sexual orientation. That is section 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Parliament also enacted the act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, which added “sexual orientation” to the CHRA's prohibited grounds of discrimination.

In 1999 Parliament adopted the first federal legislation to provide explicitly for same sex benefits. The Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act replaced opposite sex surviving spouse entitlement to benefits with gender neutral survivor entitlement in the major public service pension statutes. A survivor is one who establishes that he or she was cohabiting in a relationship of a conjugal nature with the contributor for at least a year preceding the latter's death.

In 2000 the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act was adopted. It amended 68 federal statutes to effect their equal application to unmarried heterosexual and same sex couples. The legislation adds the gender neutral designations “common law partner” and/or “survivor” to those statutes and restricts the term “spouse” to married couples. It is interesting to note however that the government added an interpretive amendment stating:

For greater certainty, the amendments made by this Act do not affect the meaning of the word “marriage”, that is, the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

In 2002 immigration and refugee protection regulations under the 2001 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act authorized family class sponsorship for same sex couples under two new eligible gender neutral categories: a common law partner of a sponsor must fulfill a cohabitation requirement, while a sponsor's conjugal partner need not. In each case, the couple's conjugal relationship must be of at least one year's duration.

Since 1993 the government and I as a member in the House have taken very seriously the responsibility of protecting the rights of all our residents.

Canadians will not tolerate harassment of homosexuals or discrimination against same sex couples. At the same time many Canadians have difficulty, in good conscience, of accepting same sex marriage. Some have suggested the sanctioning of same sex civil unions, registered domestic partnerships or life partnerships which are equivalent to common law unions between heterosexual couples. I agree with this approach. Critics feel it falls short of true equity. By working with the provinces I do not believe it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate equality issues around same sex partners.

The common law definition of marriage was until recently undisputed as the union of two persons of the opposite sex, the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Indeed this very House considered and supported a motion on June 8, 1999 which stated:

That, in the opinion of the House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.

That motion passed 216 to 55. I supported it then and I support that position today.

Indeed, over the years our courts have supported this position, as was confirmed when former Supreme Court Justice LaForest speaking for the majority in the Egan case stated:

Marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long-standing philosophical and religious traditions. But its ultimate raison d'être transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realties that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual.

It is interesting to note that this pronouncement of the Supreme Court was made in 1991, 10 years after the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Some of us have advocated a compromise position that would draw together those on the one side who assert that any restriction on same sex marriage is discriminatory and a violation of human rights with those on the other side who assert that any recognition of homosexual relationships is intolerable. I firmly believe that most Canadians are most comfortable with a middle position recognizing the traditional and distinct definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, while recognizing that same sex couples should be entitled to all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage, but that it should not be called marriage.

Opponents to this compromise position claim that anything less than full equality would continue a systemic discrimination of the homosexual community. I recall very clearly receiving this admonition from one of my constituents in the Township of Wainfleet. The thought of such an unintended consequence lingers in my mind and contributes to the difficulty of my decision.

I also recall a presentation on same sex marriages to the justice committee in rural New Brunswick when a United Church minister made an effective intervention in support of gay marriage with his desire to some day perform a marriage for his gay son and his partner. This presentation was in stark contrast to many other interventions from religious groups and made it abundantly clear that even the religious community is divided on this issue.

Most members in the House have received literally thousands of interventions on this issue, including conversations, telephone calls, e-mails and letters. I have been approached by constituents in coffee shops and churches, in the street and in stadiums, at community dinners and in restaurants. Many people who would ordinarily not come forward in these public areas have not hesitated to give me their views.

A tabulation of the positions of my constituents in Welland riding who have contacted me on this issue oppose this legislation as proposed on a 10:1 ratio. When asked their opinion on the middle ground, most would agree with it.

The stark reality of the same sex marriage debate is that today seven provinces and one territory have recognized the lawful union of two people of the same sex. It is already the law of those jurisdictions. For all intents and purposes the definition of marriage has been changed. This legislation will give it national application.

The real debate now must centre on whether the federal government should invoke the notwithstanding clause. My position is yes.

The courts see the issue as a rights issue, a charter issue, that it is the right of gay persons to be married. I see it as a social policy issue. My opposition centres around one word, marriage, when applied to gay unions.

I would like to acknowledge and thank the many constituents who have contacted me on both sides of this issue. They have contributed to the consideration and debate. Some do not appreciate the position I have taken but we have agreed to differ with mutual respect. That is the Canadian way.

However, if this legislation is to pass, there must be a healing period for Canadians to adjust to a new reality of civil marriage. The government's legislation affirms the charter guarantee of religious freedom, that religious officials are free to perform or not to perform marriage ceremonies in accordance with the beliefs of their faith. The response to the reference by the Supreme Court of Canada has made it patently clear that section 2(a) of the charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs.

As a consequence and in the words of the Prime Minister, “no church, no synagogue, no mosque, no temple, in no religious house will those who disagree with same sex unions be compelled to perform them”.

I have heard people express concerns that religious freedoms may be eroded even with assurances to the contrary. However, I want to point out that religious protections already in some cases take priority over other charter rights. the Catholic Church continues to refuse the ordination of women in a post-charter world. Many churches already refuse to marry people, particularly those who are divorced. I have yet to hear of any charter challenges on any of the foregoing. The assurances of religious views by the Supreme Court are very sound.

Many Canadians are struggling with this complex and difficult issue as I did. We are talking about changing one of the central and longstanding institutions of society. It is something that will bring out strong feelings on all sides. Notwithstanding, Canadians are tolerant and will respect a balanced and reasoned debate and further, when the decision is finally made will respect that decision. I appreciate the points of those who do not agree with me and hope that they can respect mine.

[Randy White, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-38. I am very disappointed that we are in the House of Commons deliberating this issue. I have been here since 1993, speaking about many issues in the House of Commons, and I thought I had seen all of the issues we were going to deal with, yet here we have facing us one with very serious consequences.

In the official opposition I am responsible for looking at the issue of illegal drugs in this country. People ask me why we are not dealing with that issue as it is such a cancerous problem in our society and why we in the House of Commons are talking day in and day out about same sex marriage.

I wonder what kinds of answers can be given to people who walk into my office with their children who are addicted to crack cocaine and other drugs. Really, it saddens me. In addition to that, a subcommittee of the justice committee is looking at the idea of legalizing prostitution.

I wonder why all of these values issues are even here. If anything, as I prepare to leave the House of Commons in my last term, I truly wish the government could in its own way respect Canadians for what they are and not for what the government wants them to be. I think that is one of the biggest problems with governments. They tend to think that Canadians will do and be whatever governments want. In this case it is not so.

My dear Aunt Frances from Lakeside, Nova Scotia, who is watching this with bated breath, is trying to understand why we in the House of Commons are changing something that has been near and dear to her heart for 80-some years. I think a lot of people are thinking about that.

Same sex issues have been around for 20 years and have been rife with judicial, political and legislative activity. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited in all Canadian jurisdictions. Section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

A lot of people have said that we should not get into the rights discussion. For many people it is not just about rights; there are other issues facing them in this issue.

Opponents of same sex marriage say same sex marriage undermines the traditional family and family values. They say there are unique benefits that monogamous heterosexual marriage provides to the husband and wife, their children and society as a whole. They say society benefits when its communities are characterized by strong, stable, monogamous heterosexual marriages. They say the current concept of marriage has been a right to those who practise that institution and that changing the definition is a removal of their right.

Let me quote some average, ordinary Canadians who have written to me about this issue. Gary Wiens of Didsbury, Alberta, says this:

It bothers me how the word intolerant has been thrown around in the controversy over same sex marriage. Any thinking person would realize that as soon as a party uses the word they themselves become intolerant. They have imposed their own arbitrary standard on another. As long as standards are arbitrary, the product of our own reason and bias, both parties are doomed to be intolerant of each other.

That is good advice from Alberta.

In another letter, Alice Mcgladdery, of Abbotsford, British Columbia, in my riding, asks all politicians to consider her point of view. Alice says this:

Marriage between one man and one woman is a natural institution as it predates all recorded, formally structured, social, legal, political and religious systems. In so far as it is a social institution, marriage is concerned with the common good, not individual rights. The State must strengthen and protect marriage between a man and a woman because it assures the survival of society by creating the next generation.

Alice also says that she asks:

--the Government of Canada to implement legislation that will recognize, protect and reaffirm the definition of marriage as a voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

She also asks:

--that should the Government of Canada want to address the concerns of other adult interdependent relationships, it do so in a way that respects human dignity but does not redefine and thus void the vital, irreplaceable, natural and social institution of marriage.

Those are reasonable, good, well thought out words from just an average person in this country.

These kinds of words go right across the country. Some are from John and Nancy Church of Woodstock, Ontario. When I read these words, I thought about how long I have been married as well and just exactly what John and Nancy are going through while we in this House deliberate these things. They said:

Having been married to each other for almost 39 years we are alarmed that the marriage bond that we have enjoyed could be depreciated by the legislation that has been introduced into something that will become increasingly meaningless.

I have heard that time and time again in so many words from people across this country who are wondering just what the heck politicians are doing in the House of Commons. They are average Canadians who hope politicians will get control of the agenda of the judiciary, Canadians who hope politicians will preserve their way of life, Canadians who believe the people they send to Ottawa will stand up for what they believe in and leave partisan politics aside.

I must say this about partisan politics. I just cannot believe that we in this country would send people to the House of Commons, deliberate such an important issue and then have some parties turn around and say, “While we are deliberating it, while we are debating these things, we are going to tell the following people how to vote”. Is it any wonder that people are saying there should be a referendum on such an issue? Is it any wonder that people say they send their representatives to Ottawa to do what they think is right for their community, but they go to Ottawa and say that regardless of whether that is right or not, they have been told to vote a certain way?

How could we possibly let people in Canada down by taking that position? That is not democratic in any way, shape or form. It is a problem.

For my part, I have always been and will continue to be a family man who strongly supports the traditional definition of marriage, that being “the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”, and I am darn proud to say that, darn proud. To this end, I dedicate this speech to Marty, my wife of 34 years, and to the people of my community, who expect me to support them and stand up for what they believe in as well.

I want to reaffirm a statement I made earlier. Why is it that in this country year in and year out the government and politicians cannot respect us for what we are today? Why do they want to make us into something else? What is the propensity behind this? What is the motivation to change people who do not want to be changed into something else?

Recently I did a press release called, “Pssst...don't tell the Liberals”. I was referring to several changes again coming from Holland. It seems like we fall into a mess in this country when Holland makes a change over there because somewhere in the bureaucracy of Canada they want to move us into this.

This is Canada. We are unique. Our citizens are unique. Our Parliament is unique. Our definition of marriage is unique to us in Canada as well as virtually every other country in the world. I say do not change it.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I will be opposing Bill C-38, an act respecting the legal capacity for marriage which was tabled by the Minister of Justice on February 1. However, I have appreciated hearing from and truly respect the opinions of all those who have contacted me over the past year.

This has been an incredibly difficult issue for all parliamentarians. We believe in the principle that the protection of the rights of individuals is in the higher public interest and it is central to our desire for an inclusive civil society. Throughout my many years in public life and in my private life I have applied this principle in decisions affecting both the public good and balancing the needs of individuals and minorities with the collective needs of society as a whole.

That link between individual rights and those of minorities is an exceptional difference in the Canadian democratic tradition, and this aspect is given further expression through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In addition, successive generations of Canadians who seek a society that embraces them and cherishes their customs and culture continue to nurture this principle and the result has been a spectacular Canadian mosaic.

Many then have found it surprising that it is these same people, Canadians who are liberal in nature, who now look for support from their government to reaffirm their values with respect to the definition of marriage. It is not surprising to me, for it is these very same people, many of whom are my constituents, who value the traditional definition of marriage as being consistent with beliefs that spring from the world's major religions.

The good news is, at the same time, most of those same people continue to believe, as I am sure we and most members of the House believe, that a tolerant civil society requires that lifestyle choices such as same sex unions should have legal entitlements consistent with precedents established in courts of common law.

It cannot be overstated that the Canadian experience of respect for individuals and minorities has been made possible because the majority of Canadians throughout our history have given their consent and support. In fact, the charter itself would not have been possible without the consent of the Canadian people through our parliamentary process.

Many Canadians are now telling their member of Parliament that they would prefer a resolution that would respect the traditional definition of marriage while at the same time protect the civil rights of those engaged in same sex unions.

In this high stakes issue I do not believe we have tried hard enough to balance the protection of individuals and minorities while at the same time respecting the values of a large majority of Canadians. If indeed our Constitution is as the court has stated, a living tree, then it must be considered that this tree is rooted in fundamental and historic values, one being the traditional definition of marriage as the basis for family life.

Critical decisions must be made on the basis that a cohesive society can only be maintained when the rights of the majority are at the very least given fair consideration when the government intends to change these fundamental and historic values.

It is my position that the government's legislation is incompatible with the sensibilities of the majority of Canadians in terms of both process and substance and that the bill presented by the government should not be supported.

My fear, as others have said, is that should the bill pass in its present form in the face of reasonable, continuing opposition from across the country, Canadians will emerge as just a little less tolerant and a little more cynical at a time in the history of both our country and our global community when we should be going in exactly the opposite direction.

This forced march toward altering values against the will of the majority is a slippery slope. It will undermine our image and our vision, both at home and abroad, that in such matters Canadians have always been able to achieve a consensus based on the reasonable middle way.

Up to this time, the legitimacy of same sex marriages has been decided on the basis of court rulings. I truly believe that matters of values, such as changing the traditional definition of marriage, are more appropriately the domain of the people. It appears, however, that it will be Parliament through its MPs, who will exercise their delegated responsibility, to grant the consent of the people for changing the traditional definition of marriage.

It is clear to me, and I believe to most Canadians, that we in the House have allowed the issue to pass the point of no return by leaving it to the courts to decide this issue for all of us because of parliamentary obfuscation. I truly regret that it is necessary to characterize the issue as an end run around legitimate and democratic consultation, but that is exactly what many Canadians believe has happened.

A fundamental and widely shared value such as the traditional definition of marriage should not be changed in the manner in which it has been presented to Canadians. As a result, after careful consideration, I will use my voice and vote to reflect what I believe to be the value of the majority of residents in York South--Weston.

Additionally, let me state that this also represents my own view that the protection of the traditional definition of marriage should not be incompatible with the protection of individuals who wish to enter into a civil union relationship.

To conclude, this issue is of such profound importance that those issues raised by all sides deserve, and indeed demand, further exploration. For this reason alone, defeat of this bill would signal to Canadians that for this issue the search for common middle ground is worth trying for.

Justice not only can be done with respect to protecting both minorities and the traditional definition of marriage, but if we are to maintain a continuing tolerant and civil society, justice must be seen to have been done.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the leader of my party for his strong leadership here in Parliament and for giving me the opportunity to represent my constituents in a free vote on this bill.

I have worked hard to come to a decision on how to vote on this issue of how to govern the historic institution of marriage. I have carefully gauged my constituents and used my judgment as to what is best for Canada.

To begin with, I strongly believe in the traditional definition of marriage, a definition that was drawn from religious institutions long ago and entrenched in our common law, a definition overwhelmingly supported by the constituents of Selkirk—Interlake.

I want to stress that tolerance should be at the centre of this debate, the Constitution and the Charter of Rights. However tolerance is a two way street. We must not only tolerate , but respect the opinions of both sides of this debate. We have to determine how to best address all minorities within this House in interpreting the charter and our Constitution.

The Supreme Court refused to take the judicial activist approach of redefining marriage for Parliament. Instead, it made it clear that it was indeed the job and purview of Parliament to define marriage.

The Supreme Court did recognize changes in provincial common law but ultimately left it up to Parliament to determine how best to deal with this matter, otherwise we would not be having this debate at all.

When we talk about the kind of tolerance we want, we can choose to be tolerant on both sides of this debate. This can be done by recognizing the traditional definition of marriage and the equality of same sex civil unions.

Clearly, the government has not taken a tolerant approach but instead is using this vote to divide Canadians. Even the government's own MPs are divided on the government's approach to the legislation.

I ask the Prime Minister, once again, to make this important issue a free vote for all his MPs, including his cabinet ministers. If this is not a purely free vote, Canadians will never, and I mean never, be truly satisfied that the democratic process has prevailed.

The strong-arm legislation the government has introduced will increase the intolerance in our society. Examples of this intolerance that this government is promoting have already occurred in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

In Manitoba, 11 commissioners have been told that they are no longer welcome to work as marriage commissioners if they refuse to also marry same sex couples. Two more commissioners have refused to quit and are taking this to the Human Rights Commission to defend their freedoms and their rights from being imposed upon by the state.

They were sent a letter on September 16, 2004, telling them to either perform same sex marriages or to turn in their licences. One marriage commissioner, Kevin Kisilowsky, a constituent of mine, was granted a licence by the Province of Manitoba to be a marriage commissioner. His entire purpose in seeking to be licensed was to continue his outreach ministries to perform religious marriages outside of mainstream religious institutions.

Kevin is part of a biker and youth outreach ministry that is not specifically affiliated with any single denomination. The people he attempts to reach include gang youth, street people, prison inmates and outlaw motorcycle gangs.

From Kevin's religious perspective and by his own conscience and lack of ordained qualifications, he stated clearly during his application that he could not and would not marry non-Christians or other groups that he is not qualified to minister to if they are of a different faith.

Kevin made it clear that he only wanted to perform Christian marriages when he applied to be a marriage commissioner. He was encouraged to continue with the application, being told that he would be placed on a private list rather than the general list of marriage commissioners. Manitoba clearly accepted the fact that he would not have to serve all of the public to be a marriage commissioner. A person could, as Kevin did, perform marriages as part of an outreach to those not belonging to an organized church.

In Bill C-38 only clergy from religious institutions are recognized as needing religious freedom protection. People, such as Kevin, are completely left out of this bill's protection of religious freedoms.

Licensing Kevin to perform traditional marriages does nothing to prevent the province from hiring other marriage commissioners who could perform equal same sex civil unions for those who want them. It also does not stop religious institutions from choosing to recognize same sex unions within their own churches.

Marriage commissioners in the past could always choose who they want to marry and could refuse to perform a service. However, now, if they refuse to perform a same sex service, they will have their licences revoked. This is not tolerance and it does not in any way respect different and divergent views in our society or respect individual freedoms of religion or conscience guaranteed under our charter.

The firing of these marriage commissioners is the unnecessary and completely avoidable result of the government's failure to defend the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion guaranteed to all citizens of Canada under the charter.

There is a clear solution that would guarantee all individuals freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. The solution is for the government to continue to allow these individuals to have government licences to perform marriages that do not violate their conscience or religious faith. At the same time, the government can license more of those who are willing to perform same sex civil unions. This would be the tolerant approach.

The government has taken a very narrow view of the freedoms of conscience and religion and is allowing individual freedoms to be trampled upon, just as these marriage commissioners have had their charter protected freedoms trampled upon by the state since Manitoba began sanctioning same sex marriage. It is clear that this government has no intention of defending the freedoms of religion or conscience or it would be defending them right now in Manitoba.

This is also a debate on whether the bill closes the doors on our Constitution rather than opening them to minorities who hold both diverse and traditional values. The debate should carefully analyze whether we want a nation and a Constitution that allows us to accommodate minorities within a multi-cultural society or do we want a purely secular society that insists that all groups fall in line and agree with the government of the day without individual freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

What we are seeing in the legislation is the abandonment of one group of minorities supporting traditional values and traditional marriage to embrace another minority that justly seeks greater equality and fairer treatment. There is no doubt that both sides have a right to seek recognition from government and have their freedoms protected. However, it is not necessary to sacrifice the values instituted in law for traditional couples while expanding legal benefits for others.

People of faith long ago allowed their institution of marriage to be recognized in law for the economic protection of families, spouses and children upon death and divorce, but these religious institutions never relinquished the fact that marriage was their institution and not that of the state.

Marriage as an institution has historic value, just like the Parliament buildings in which we sit. We would not tear down these buildings to make way for a bigger house when more room was needed. We would simply add another fine building to this great collection. What we have today is many private churches interested in protecting their domain and authority over marriage from any further infringement by the state.

Going back to King Henry VIII, the separation of church and state has always been about keeping the state out of the church and infringing on religious beliefs. I am afraid the state has now crossed that line.

Most people are reasonable and recognize that the state may choose to introduce its own institution allowing civil unions that would give same sex couples equal benefits to those of traditional marriages.

A clear majority of Canadians support what our leader has proposed as a simple, possible compromise that Canada should implement to satisfy both sides of the debate.

The compromise is simple. We continue to recognize the traditional definition of marriage while introducing a legal same sex civil union for all others, a union with equal benefits to those that were historically granted by the state only to couples that embraced the traditional definition of marriage. Such a compromise would help avoid the kind of intolerance of religious minorities we have seen in Manitoba with marriage commissioners being denied the right to continue their outreach ministries and forced to stop performing marriages.

This is a clear violation of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion caused by the government's lack of leadership and attempt to sidestep the tough decisions of governing through deference to the Supreme Court, hoping that the Supreme Court would make the decision for it.

As we have seen, the Supreme Court refused to rule on this issue without first hearing the will of the people, the will of Parliament. It is our job and not the Supreme Court's to decide this issue. That is why the court has declined to answer whether the traditional definition of marriage is constitutional.

The government should further reconsider the present proposed legislation and how it is not only insensitive to religious minorities and individual freedoms but also its potential to hamstring our nation's ability to respond to the needs of a diverse multicultural society.

I encourage all members of Parliament to support the amendment proposed by the leader of the official opposition.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak on this subject.

On February 1 the government tabled the civil marriage act in the House of Commons to extend the right to civil marriage to same sex couples and reaffirm the independence of religious institutions.

We began this process by acknowledging that this is a difficult issue for many Canadians, one involving personal beliefs and religious convictions. Canadians have responded overwhelmingly to the legislation, both in support and in opposition. They have asked many important questions that will inform the debate and I commend them for joining in the dialogue, for contributing their opinions and, of course, their concerns.

While I am personally predisposed to support a bill that provides equal access to civil marriage for all Canadians, I cannot do it if it fails to uphold religious freedom. We must ensure that the rights of the church are protected and, as I have said in the past, I will not extend my unequivocal support to a piece of legislation without first hearing the concerns of my constituents and participating in a constructive debate to address these concerns.

I trust that this process will allow us to discuss the bill's provisions for upholding religious freedom. I want to assure my constituents that the government has done all it can to protect and uphold these rights, and I am confident to move forward on this important issue.

One of the greatest challenges of being a member of Parliament is facilitating an agreement between groups with seemingly opposing points of view, all of which are fighting for the best interests of those concerned. This is the essence of democracy and the beauty of the Canadian way. We are a country that is defined by a plurality of cultures, beliefs and ideas, a country that has entrenched the principle of equality in our constitution and a country that is guided by these values.

It is my responsibility to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in my work on behalf of the people of West Nova and all Canadians.

The charter states explicitly, “every individual is equal before and under the law”. Each and every Canadian, regardless of sexual orientation, has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law. The legislation would respect and defend the rights of all Canadians. We cannot be indiscriminate in our use of the law, choosing to protect the rights of some groups and failing to protect the rights of others.

Furthermore, we must abide by the charter to protect the rights of minority groups. One example that has been cited by my colleagues effectively demonstrates the progress that has been made to advance equality in the country. Until 1929, women were not considered persons under the law and were denied the right to vote. The Persons case is an example of the efforts of Canadians to achieve equality and justice for a group that was not formally recognized under the law. Times have changed, our beliefs have evolved and our laws must reflect significant changes in Canadian society, otherwise we undermine the values of our entire system.

Bill C-38 is based on draft legislation that was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada on July 17, 2003. In December the court expressed that the matter of fundamental equality under the Charter of Rights of Freedoms, same sex couples have the same right to civil marriage as do opposite sex couples.

The reference to the court reflects the government's view that we must allow for the broadest discussion possible, especially since we are talking about a proposed change to a significant social institution. Ultimately, Parliament has the final say on the issue, but the ruling of the court has determined the legal parameters by which our discussions must be guided and has ultimately allowed for a fully informed debate in the House.

We must agree, understand and express to Canadians that the only way we can do it in a meaningful way is to use the notwithstanding clause, if that is what we choose to do.

In my opinion, it is not a matter of using the notwithstanding clause to take away or diminish the rights of any individual but rather to uphold rights.

Many Canadians argue that we should, instead, pursue the option of civil union. However the Supreme Court recognized same sex civil marriage as constitutional and declared “civil unions are relationships short of marriage”. While civil unions would allow same sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, it is not marriage and is therefore less than equal. Only equal access to civil marriage will fully comply with charter equality guarantees.

The Supreme Court's ruling mirrored court decisions in Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Yukon. In these provinces and territories, the highest courts ruled that restricting civil marriage to opposite sex couples was unconstitutional under the equality provisions of the charter.

Therefore, Bill C-38 would make universal across Canada a right that is already accepted as law in eight jurisdictions, including Nova Scotia.

On September 24, 2003, Justice Heather Robertson of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia ruled that the current law governing marriage in the province was unconstitutional and changed the common law definition of marriage to the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. This ruling has not been challenged. It has been 18 months and Nova Scotia has had no social upheaval , no change to the family and men are not becoming pregnant.

As a result of the court's ruling, the government moved forward and introduced the civil marriage act in the House. A non-marriage option, such as a civil union, would eventually be overturned by the court. Where we stand, we can either proceed with what we believe to be just and equitable or we can overrule the courts by using the notwithstanding clause and continue to do this every five years.

The Prime Minister has clearly stated that he will not use the notwithstanding clause. He will not deny Canadians their charter rights because we have worked too hard to build a modern, progressive nation that is respected around the world. We will never achieve a tolerant, inclusive society if we fall back on our values. This government believes in the charter and we will do all we can to defend it.

As I mentioned in my opening statement, my work as a member of Parliament is guided by our Constitution, of which the Charter of Rights is an integral part. I believe in the equality rights of Canadians and I want to ensure that this legislation fully protects the rights and freedoms of our religious institutions.

Of those who oppose Bill C-38, many do so in accordance with their religious beliefs and are fearful that the new bill may trump the rights of religious officials and institutions. I respect the opinion of those who oppose this legislation for religious reasons. We hold diversity in the highest regard and respect and tolerance are the glue that binds Canadian society. Out of respect for my constituents and for the position that I hold, I want to be certain that this legislation will uphold religious freedom.

In its response to the government, the Supreme Court declared “the guarantee of religious freedom in section 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs”. The government has stated, explicitly, that Bill C-38 respects the charter.

The Government of Canada is guided by the Constitution and the charter, and the church is guided by beliefs in tradition. The government's proposed legislation is about civil marriage as a legal institution and not religious marriage. To reiterate, the bill provides for equal access to civil marriage and preserves the rights of churches to decide who has access to religious marriage.

Therefore we have a guarantee that the bill would not affect religious freedoms and that no church, synagogue, mosque or temple can be forced to perform a marriage that goes against its religious beliefs. However we cannot stop there. We need to look beyond the guarantees and to consider the practical implications of this legislation.

Canadians want assurances that religious freedom will be protected. There is the concern that religious groups will be forced to rent spaces for the celebration of same sex marriages. Currently there is a case before the B.C. human rights tribunal in which a lesbian couple is claiming discrimination against a Catholic organization over its refusal to rent out the hall for a marriage reception. Some religious groups fear that if Bill C-28 passes there will be many more such cases.

The government has acknowledged that most situations involving religious freedoms would fall within provincial or territorial human rights legislation. As such, the outcome would depend on the specifics of the case. However the Supreme Court was clear that religious freedom is fully protected by the charter and that human rights tribunals must also consider how to protect fundamental freedoms.

The Supreme Court has stated that this ruling applies to other concerns of religious groups, such as being forced to rent sacred spaces for the celebration of same marriages and religious officials being forced to celebrate civil marriages.

In conclusion, I must say that, as both an Acadian and a francophone, when I am asked to use the notwithstanding clause to take rights away, I cannot. I would do so if it was to preserve the rights of our religious institutions.

I encourage all members of this House to support this bill, if only to refer it to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, which will hear testimony from the general public.

[Paul Forseth, Conservative, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-38, the civil marriage act to change the definition of marriage is before us at second reading, which is the first chance to debate the bill in the House.

Much will be said about the bill by others, but I have reproduced the complete bill itself for distribution to every household in my constituency. I encourage everyone to always check primary sources rather than just rely on the so-called experts about what is claimed the bill says or will do. Especially unreliable is the current justice minister who has abandoned basic truth, sound legal reasoning and obviously his faith. Little of what he says can be believed any more in view of what he has purported about this bill. In contrast, I have provided an unfiltered primary source for evaluation by my community. They can read the full bill for themselves.

The outcome of this landmark sociological proposal remains far from certain. The government would like to say that this bill is a done deal. However, on February 1, just 139 members of the 308 in Parliament surveyed said they would vote in favour of the bill.

There will be votes after second reading debate and votes at committee, if it gets that far. The bill could fail at any stage. There could then be a report stage vote in the Commons and then third reading debate and a vote on the final version of the bill.

The Liberals may be tempted to use closure or time allocation rules to shut down the House of Commons debate and forge ahead, but if they do that, they will be transparent in their utter contempt for average Canadians. If the bill gets that far, it would then have to go to the Senate for its consideration and votes.

Over the next while the Liberals will try to persuade those on the fence to rally to their cause.

The NDP and the Liberals are officially promoting the bill as their party policy. Make no mistake. Support or a vote for the Liberals or the NDP is to directly support changing the definition of marriage. It is what those parties are about, and if they get their way with this one, who knows where they will take us next. They are whipping their members to vote along party lines.

In contrast, the Conservatives are giving all their MPs a free vote. Officially, the Conservative leadership will be trying to introduce amendments along the way to find some halfway ground. Conservatives will never impose what Canadians do not want.

In my role as community leader and parliamentary representative, I give respect to all points of view, provide the best democratic representation possible and ultimately vote the constituents' wishes. It is people in the community who let me know very quickly and strongly about which topics are of sufficient concern to them that they want direct supervisory involvement of my vote. For the seat I occupy in the Commons is not owned by the party or by me; it is owned by constituents.

Although I am undecided about the bill until my community tabulation is done, I am not personally neutral as I provide leadership. I believe that all Canadians should be able to examine their own conscience and then vote.

Since we will not have an election on the issue and since the government will not permit voters to have their say directly at the ballot box, it falls on me to strongly engage the community. I provide advice and information and promote respect rather than rancour.

It is my advice to the community that this bill is not about minority rights, but about social structure and the democratic ability of the community to determine that structure.

We do not elect governments by telephone survey. We use ballots. I am doing the same in my constituency on this matter.

Canadian parliamentary democracy has rules. Parliament is not the government, but it is where the government comes to obtain permission to tax and spend the people's money and to get legislation passed. Governments propose but Parliament as a separate entity must finally vote the appropriation.

In addition, Parliament has an oversight role to hold governments accountable. That is why it is the constitutional duty of the opposition in Parliament to challenge what the government proposes and critique how the government administers. The government has now proposed to change the definition of marriage. It is the constitutional duty of the official opposition to test and challenge that proposition to see if the government can make a convincing case to the country.

The Conservatives are not obsessing about Bill C-38, but the media is.

It is the government that has brought Bill C-38 to the House of Commons at this time and many ask why. Many are asking why the Liberals have given the country this issue now when there seems to be so many other pressing needs to deal with. The Liberals may have calculated for political posturing purposes that through this debate they might find an opportunity to smear the Conservatives with the label of intolerance et cetera in order to play schoolyard bully politics in the next election.

Nevertheless, I hope constituents will just keep their heads and calmly follow the democratic approach and vote their conscience. I am giving them the opportunity to vote directly. If we stick to time honoured democratic principles instead of trying to turn them on their head with so-called arguments about the tyranny of the majority, we as a society will be able to handle any challenge, even corrupt Liberal governments.

We need more democracy in Canada, not less. Voting is the only civilized way for our country to make basic decisions about how the community may want to be organized. The nation is having a conversation about Bill C-38 and we must be respectful and sensitive to all views. Then in conclusion we must vote and gracefully accept the democratic result.

One cannot espouse democracy only when one calculates that the result might go one's way. A democrat protects the process so that it is fair, then engages fully, but regardless of the outcome, accepts and defends the democratic result. In view of that basic principle I will vote the democratic majority view within my electoral district.

About the marriage issue, first we deal with discrimination. In Canada we have already dealt fully with discrimination against alternative lifestyle choices. There are legal protections everywhere in our law, and social benefits are fully provided to individuals in relationships. Outside of marriage the law is replete with social protections and that is where same sex arrangements are covered. If there is any discriminatory administrative policy left, we can deal with it properly. Then we can move forward to provide whatever is needed to those in a variety of domestic relationships.

However, about marriage, my community has been very clear about what constitutes a marriage and what does not. No trickery of law or of sociological prescription or sentimental plea seems to change what people in my community say. They tell me that these other arrangements that we may accommodate in law are just not marriage. They are something else. People know it is not marriage.

Voters recognize that there are rights in law and from that basis we generate respect and equal treatment. However, the law of equality cannot be stretched to make something into something else, which it inherently is not. For example, we can respect and defend the reality and value of an apple and an orange, but the charter law of equality cannot be misused to make an apple into an orange. The charter provision of equality does not require cookie cutter sameness, and it was never meant to.

The principle operates for applying for a marriage licence. There are all kinds of limiting and discriminatory rules for its proper operation such as age, sex, consanguinity, multiple licences, et cetera, which are in the Criminal Code and elsewhere. Even within Bill C-38 which claims to end discrimination, it reinforces the discriminatory provision that one may marry a person of the same sex but cannot marry a person of the opposite sex if they legally discover to be technically brother and sister through adoption even though there is no blood connection. That discriminatory provision is in the very bill before us.

The points seem absurd to the average clear thinking person and only become confused when we have arcane legal arguments brought forward by lawyers who have a social engineering agenda. People must discriminate every day to make choices and to be able to function. The charter accommodates proper discrimination while maintaining equality. The average person is not confused about how equality and fairness that is guaranteed in the charter does not demand automaton sameness. They also know that the premise of the Prime Minister's speech is a fiction. They do not buy it.

In conclusion, the overwhelming ballot evidence from people in my community so far is that they are directing me to vote against the bill. They should receive no less.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities)]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise to speak in defence of minority rights, in defence of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and in support of the government's legislation allowing for the civil marriage of same sex couples.

This is a historic debate and I say this as somebody who was once a professor of history. These debates, when the private conscience is in dialogue with public policy, are actually rather rare in our parliamentary history. They occur perhaps once every parliamentary generation.

I can remember sitting in this gallery in June 1977 during an all night debate and vote when the House came to a conclusion on the subject of capital punishment. That was one of those historic moments and there was a sense of history in the House that night. In the 1980s there was an equally impassioned debate in this place on abortion. Now, in our time, it is our turn to think about where we stand on this very important matter. This is a historical debate on same sex marriage.

I fully recognize that this is not an easy matter for members. I recognize, as have others, that people of good faith and conscience can genuinely disagree with each other on this matter, as I do respectfully with the hon. member for Huron—Bruce and the previous speaker, the hon. member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills.

It is also important to say that I have not always thought this way on this subject. In 1999 the opposition put forward a motion which stated “marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. I was not one of the 12 Liberal members of Parliament who voted against that motion, but quite simply, I had not given it much thought because it seemed to me a self-evident proposition at that time.

What caused me to change my mind? I can be quite precise about that as well. I read the 2003 Ontario Supreme Court judgment of Justices McMurtry, MacPherson and Gillese. I read passages about human rights which said:

Human dignity means that an individual or group feels self-respect and self-worth. It is concerned with physical and physiological integrity and empowerment. Human dignity is harmed by unfair treatment premised upon personal traits or circumstances which do not relate to individual needs, capacities or merits. It is enhanced by laws which are sensitive to the needs, capacities, and merits of different individuals, taking into account the context underlying their differences. Human dignity is harmed when individuals and groups are marginalized, ignored, or devalued, and is enhanced when laws recognize the full place of all individuals and groups within Canadian society. Human dignity within the meaning of the equality guarantee does not relate to the status or position of an individual in society per se, but rather concerns the manner in which a person legitimately feels when confronted with a particular law. Does the law treat him or her unfairly, taking into account all of the circumstances regarding the individuals affected and excluded by the law?

I read further passages about the legal component of marriage, clarifying what I would call my previous misunderstanding that religious and civil components were inextricably bundled together. Here is what the judgment said:

Marriage is a legal institution, as well as a religious and a social institution. This case is solely about the legal institution of marriage. It is not about the religious validity or invalidity of various forms of marriage.

I read and was reminded of the historical discrimination, disadvantages, and vulnerability experienced by the minority in our society of gay men and women and same sex couples:

Homosexual couples as well as homosexual individuals have suffered greatly as a result of discrimination. Sexual orientation is more than simply a “status” that an individual possesses. It is something that is demonstrated in an individual's conduct by the choice of a partner…Studies serve to confirm overwhelmingly that homosexuals, whether as individuals or couples, form an identifiable minority who have suffered and continue to suffer serious social, political and economic disadvantage.

By the time I had finished reading this 30 page judgment, I had completely changed my mind. I was persuaded that same sex civil marriage was overwhelmingly a human rights issue and that I knew which side of history I wished to be on.

Equally important, I saw clearly for the first time the crucial distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage. There are these two kinds of marriages in Canada right now, religious and civil. There are many couples who do not get married religiously but who do get married at city hall and we are allowed to call them married.

It strikes me, on the civil side, that this is exactly what the role of the state is really about. It is our job and the job of the provinces to declare when people are married legitimately from a civil point of view. The religious part, whether it is legitimate to recognize same sex marriage in a church, mosque, temple or synagogue setting, is not up for debate, at least not by us in this place. Each religion is currently being challenged by this issue as each government on the civil side. It is not for us legislators to determine what religious institutions can or cannot do; in fact this bill explicitly protects religious institutions for that reason.

My own church, the Anglican Church of Canada, is grappling with this issue. The debate is global within the Anglican community, with the African Church strongly opposed to positions taken by certain diocese in Canada and in the United States. As a member of my church, that is a separate debate and I have a separate role to play in that debate.

I was also in a mosque in my riding about a month ago. I have one of the highest numbers of Muslims of any member of Parliament in my riding. I spent an evening with those people of faith discussing Bill C-38, explaining to them that as rights were important for them in this society, so they were important for other minority groups. It was an impassioned and difficult debate for everyone, but it was a respectful one. I think it was useful for everybody.

I am absolutely committed to the notion that if it is possible for the state to recognize people in a civil marriage, then that privilege needs to be extended to gay people as well.

As for those who would therefore propose that we withdraw the word “marriage” from civil union, what they are in effect asking the state and us a legislators to do is to withdraw a right that has already been accorded to opposite sex couples. We do not extend rights to one group by withdrawing them from another. We on this side of the House and many on the other side of the House are not in the business of withdrawing rights from Canadians. We are in the business of defending them, for that is what the most lasting and noble duty of democratic leaders can be.

As a former member of the House once noted in a debate in another place, the National Assembly of Quebec, rights are rights are rights. That must be our battle cry.

One of the great national projects in Canada over the past 50 years and essentially within my own lifetime has been the huge and satisfying increase of tolerance and understanding for other people in Canadian society. This has been a great evolving and continuing national project extending human rights over the past years. There was a time, and we can remember it, when people who spoke French in this country, people who were Roman Catholics in this country, people who were Jews, blacks, and women were discriminated against. We have, as part of our increased understanding of what it is to be Canadian, extended rights to those people.

Even if we pass this bill, as I hope we do, our work will not be done in the field of extending human rights. There are rights for disabled people which have to be dealt with. There are rights for children. The great human rights project of this country which is Canada must continue.

What Bill C-38 is really about is this ever growing sensitivity to the rights of other groups we may not have thought about very much before. It is about standing up and being counted when the tides of history demand it. Ultimately it is about building the Canada we all want.

Petitions

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in this House a petition signed by constituents in my riding on Bill C-38, now under consideration. These people oppose changing the definition of marriage.

Civil Marriage Act

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, today I want to talk about alternative approaches proposed in response to the government's approach in Bill C-38. Even if many things have been said and written about this subject, there still appear to be some misconceptions about approaches with regard to granting equal access to civil marriage for same sex couples wishing to demonstrate the same level of commitment.

Many people, including members of this House, would like to think that there are a number of approaches. This is not true. Our approach is based on Canada's federal constitutional framework and its framework of parliamentary democracy, as governed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These two aspects of our governance structure provide a legal and constitutional framework that determine what those approaches may be.

I will illustrate this point by examining the three major approaches initially proposed in the November 2002 discussion paper, tabled by the then Minister of Justice. The first approach, which, by the way, remains popular, is to preserve the word “marriage” for opposite sex couples and use a term other than “marriage” to recognize the relationship between same sex couples wishing to make the same kind of commitment. The expression “civil union” is the most popular.

All the rights and responsibilities associated with this civil status are identical and the only distinction would be the word used to describe that relationship. Many people find this approach extremely attractive. For example, those who consider marriage a religious ceremony, and the union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, could support this approach. They could not necessarily support the legal recognition of same sex unions, but a balance could be achieved since sex couples, with parallel rights and responsibilities, would receive recognition. However, marriage would be reserved for opposite sex couples only. So, same sex couples would be treated differently but equally.

Other countries, including a number of Scandinavian countries and France, have adopted such a parallel system, which is considered a reasonable compromise for such a controversial issue. Why not learn from their experience and create such a system in Canada? The answer is that this approach is no longer possible, given Canada's legal and constitutional framework. The discussion paper was published before the numerous rulings by courts in eight provinces and territories, which have interpreted the meaning of equality in this context, even in 2002.

The working document, however, indicated that this approach would likely not be possible without recourse to the notwithstanding clause. The courts have now confirmed that the heterosexual definition of marriage is unconstitutional and clearly infringes on the Charter guarantees of equality. Although the Supreme Court has not stated its opinion on this matter, the question nevertheless still requires an answer.

The Supreme Court of Canada did, however, make it clear that the decisions reached in eight provinces or territories are binding. Consequently, the only way of restoring the heterosexual definition of marriage to the law, a definition that is no longer legally in force in those eight provinces or territories, would be to reverse these decisions, which would require use of the notwithstanding clause.

The British Columbia and Ontario courts of appeal have both examined the possibility of a civil union as an alternative, and have found it to be less than equal and therefore unconstitutional. The Ontario Court of Appeal declared that allowing people to choose a same sex partner and solemnize their union is not an adequate replacement for the legal recognition of that union.

The second option proposed by the document would be for the federal and provincial governments to withdraw totally from marriage and leave it wholly in the hands of the religious authorities. Instead of having a legal or civil marriage, there would be only the legal status of a civil union, available on request for couples of the opposite sex or the same sex desirous of having the civil rights and responsibilities of marriage.

Should these couples wish to be considered married and not just living in a civil union, they could then choose to go to their church, synagogue or mosque to be married in a religious ceremony. The religious authorities would then have to decide whether the couple met all the criteria for a religious marriage before marrying them. The marriage itself would be valid for all the purposes of the requirements of that religion, but with no legal effect whatsoever.

This option may seem quite attractive at first. It appears to offer the same treatment to all couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, and would therefore comply with the principles of equality contained in the charter. What is more, many would see this as reinforcing marriage as a purely religious institution. If looked at more closely, however, the problems will be seen to greatly outweigh the advantages.

First of all, no one in the world has adopted this model. Is it because no one else thought it would be a good idea? No, not really. This option was rejected by all major religions when their representatives appeared before the standing committee in 2003. None of them were prepared for religious marriage no longer to be legally binding.

It is easy to see why. What would happen if a person decided to marry someone while living in a union with someone else? The law would no longer have any jurisdiction to protect vulnerable spouses or children from religious marriages, since it would have no jurisdiction over religious marriage.

In Canada, through the Constitution, only the provinces and territories have jurisdiction over civil unions, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. To get out of the business of marriage, Parliament would have to pass a bill declaring that no is legally able to get married for civil purposes in Canada. Can you imagine such legislation? How would we explain to Canadians, to our own parents and grandparents, that they are no longer married in the eyes of the law?

The other countries that have adopted a parallel civil union system for same sex couples are unitary states, not federal states like Canada. In those countries, complete responsibility for marriage, the celebration of marriage and civil unions is in the hands of the national government.

In Canada, the federal government is limited to only the substantive aspects of marriage, that is, the capacity to marry. The procedure and celebration of marriage and civil union are in provincial hands. Thus, any system to replace civil marriage would have to be established through a coordinated response of all 13 provinces and territories. History tells us that such a coordinated response is so rare as to be virtually impossible.

What would this mean for the Canadian people? Perhaps more access to survivor benefits, but certainly not more protection in the Divorce Act concerning support payments for children, custody and visiting rights. If marriage no longer existed, there would no longer be any federal jurisdiction if such new civil unions break down, which could lead to a patchwork of disparate laws, varying with province of residence, and probably no recognition of these new civil unions outside Canada, in a different country of residence or where holidays are taken.

Denying all opposite sex couples the opportunity to marry in order to refuse it to a few same sex couples would be an extreme way to resolve the problem of equality. That would be replacing one injustice with a greater one to opposite sex couples. Thus, it is not at all surprising that no other country in the world has taken a step down that path.

I return to the very beginning. We have before us two possibilities: we can move forward and provide uniform legislation in this field, by adopting the government's bill, or we can go backwards, reversing the decisions of the courts and restoring the traditional definition to its position as the law of Canada by using the notwithstanding clause. This would make it possible for the government to declare specifically that an act of Parliament would be in force even though it violated one or more fundamental freedoms, one or more fundamental rights to equality provided in the Charter.

To do that, Parliament would first have to admit that it is prepared to discriminate against same sex couples who want to demonstrate the same degree of commitment as other married couples. That is how it works.

Those members who vote to use the notwithstanding clause must realize they will be recognizing publicly the discriminatory nature of the legislation, but insist it be enacted, despite its impact on the rights of minorities protected by the Constitution. This will not end here. Parliament will then have to review the legislation every five years to determine if it will continue such deliberate discrimination.

Consequently, this approach will not lead to a final solution to this problem, but rather will serve as a temporary measure only. Every five years, perhaps indefinitely, the members of this House will have to pass legislation supporting discrimination, until a Parliament finally rejects this backward approach and re-establishes the equal rights conferred by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I find this aspect very troubling. The government believes that using the notwithstanding clause to overturn charter rights is not in keeping with responsible leadership. It puts all minorities at the mercy of potential and deliberate discrimination, via legislation.

Today, we are talking about civil marriage for same sex couples, tomorrow, who knows, it could be persons with a handicap. Canada has a long history of tolerance and respect for diversity. Many countries envy our pluralist society.

That is why adopting this bill is the right thing to do. Bill C-38 establishes a fair balance by ensuring that a minority group in our society, which has long been marginalized and historically excluded, can finally have equal access to civil marriage, while protecting the longstanding freedom of religious authorities to marry only—and I repeat, only—those who meet their requirements. In my opinion, no other approach in the Canadian context will do.

[Werner Schmidt, Conservative, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, the issue of redefining marriage is one of the most significant matters that this Parliament is and will be facing for some time. Its significance lies in the fact that the definition of marriage also defines a social institution that is one of the foundations of our society. It is the institution designed to achieve the conjugal goals of sex bridging, generativity, caregiving and connecting children to their mothers and fathers. The bill before us channels marriage away from these goals. Hence, the redefinition of the word, significant as it is in its own right as a means of clear communication, also contains within it the reorganization of our society.

Given the significance of the matter before us, it is incumbent upon us to apply maximum due diligence in the consideration of the issue at hand. The due diligence requires a careful study of the facts of the matter, seeking knowledge, understanding that knowledge and applying wisdom in deciding the best application of that knowledge.

Wisdom must be sought; it is not achieved automatically. It requires much thought and study and includes the integration of one's beliefs and values into the making of major decisions. For us lawmakers, it also requires the integration of the culture and beliefs of our society. As lawmakers for this land, any decision that involves the redefinition and reorganization of one of our society's fundamental institutions requires the knowledge, understanding and application of the primary source of wisdom for Canada.

What is the primary source of wisdom for Canada? No, it is not the Liberals. It is not the Conservatives. It is not any political organization or person.

In the search for the source of wisdom, I discovered that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 provides the answer.

The charter begins:

Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

Following these words, the charter specifies the “guarantee of rights and freedoms”.

Consistent with this provision in the Constitution, the Speaker or Deputy Speaker on every day that Parliament is in session reads at 11 a.m. on Mondays, 10 a.m. on Tuesdays, 2 p.m. on Wednesdays and 10 a.m. on Thursdays and Fridays these words:

Almighty God, we give thanks for the great blessings which have been bestowed on Canada and its citizens, including the gifts of freedom, opportunity and peace that we enjoy. We pray for our Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth, and the Governor General. Guide us in our deliberations as Members of Parliament, and strengthen us in our awareness of our duties and responsibilities as Members. Grant us wisdom, knowledge and understanding to preserve the blessings of this country for the benefit of all and to make good laws and wise decisions. Amen.

The prayer does not specify any particular law or decision that members are called upon to make. It recognizes that members need knowledge, understanding and wisdom from God. The prayer is not just a ritual. It has meaning, particularly because it is followed by a moment of silence for personal reflection.

I expressed my personal need for wisdom from God in ultimately deciding the substance of Bill C-38. For me, the particular significance of the redefinition of marriage and exercising due diligence is the need to try to recognize and evaluate the implications and possible consequences of such a redefinition.

There is little doubt that it would change the role and function of the institution of marriage in our society. It is not obvious what those changes would be. Among the matters to be considered are answers to questions like this.

First, how will Canadian society fare when it is no longer able to offer any special recognition in law or public to a form of life so central to human experience and, indeed, to human reproduction?

Second, will a transformation of marriage into a close relationship regime continue to erode its social significance for future generations?

Third, will marriage continue to decline as the centre of gravity for men and women seeking to form a stable life together?

Fourth, will these men and women have the social and cultural supports they need to help bring children into this world and to rear a family?

Fifth, will a reconstitution of marriage ratify a reproductive revolution that will kill any public commitment to maintaining relationships between children and their natural parents?

Sixth, will it set in motion new developments that will open the way for further deregulation of marriage and parenthood?

These are some of the questions that Daniel Cere, director, Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law and Culture in Montreal, asks.

There are those who argue, and in fact in the House, that such questions merely complicate an already thorny issue and should not be asked. To not at least debate and try to find answers to these questions and other questions that the redefinition of marriage evokes really means that debate on the matter should be neutered. Such an argument suggests that one should simply take a position without even considering possible consequences of the position taken either for oneself or for society. Such an argument is intellectually dishonest and at best a contradiction and at worst a denial of the very foundation on which the Constitution of Canada rests.

A law that has the potential of eroding one of the foundations of our society must be considered with the utmost gravity and demands that the best thinking of which we are capable coupled with the realization that the wisdom of God must be sought in humility and sincerity.

I believe that seeking wisdom from God with all our hearts will be rewarded. Let us all seek it.

I quote from Jeremiah 29:13: “...you will seek and find me when you seek me with all your heart”.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-38. There have been a number of very important interventions by colleagues from all sides of the House. I wish to state right from the outset that I will not be supporting Bill C-38. I emphatically oppose a notion which in my view is not based on good legislation, let alone judicial interpretation, to change something which I believe is at the foundation of society as we understand it today.

The decision to bring about the legislation today, defined as a change in the common law definition of marriage, took place over the years and, I would suspect, is as a result of several various challenges which have taken place under the charter. Certainly this is setting aside some pretty important fundamental principles about who we are as a people and how we have come here as a people.

The institution of marriage in my view is not something on which one can make a claimed right. It is unique and is deserving of respect and dignity, dignity because it is not designed to be offensive. No more than I could ask to receive veterans benefits because I have not participated or donned a soldier's uniform for this country, could I make a claim of opposite sex to enter into that relationship.

It is very clear to us over the years that what we have seen in terms of decisions by various courts at a lower level may have been arrived at obviously by someone finding a right. In 1981 I sat here in the galleries working for Liberal cabinet ministers. I recall very well the debate which led to the ratification of the Constitution. It became very clear that the authors and architects of that Constitution, of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, never intended to have the kind of effect that we see today.

In some debates I have heard some suggest that the previous prime minister, the right hon. Jean Chrétien, referred to it as the living tree, our charter and Constitution. In fact it had nothing to do with the charter. That was a commentary that was made during the 1932 aeronautics decision by Lord Sankey. He was referring in one way or another to the Persons case. The Persons case had to be tried at the judicial privy council in England in order to get resolution.

I am very concerned that we have seen an evolution of belief in the country that somehow a claim for rights suddenly means the expunging, expelling or diminution of other rights. The rights of others who have and who hold true according to their faith and belief, which is not necessarily always religious, is something that is extremely important and one which cannot be diminished and in my view cannot be negated.

I have seen several decisions in which Canada, as was suggested by the member for Scarborough Southwest earlier this month, has become the first nation to recognize marriage and the claim to marriage of opposite sexes as being a right. This is without precedent around the world. It fundamentally erodes what has been for millennia a definition which most people in the world understand universally today. It was not by accident when cultures and various peoples came together and discovered each other, that of all the things that may have been different about them, the affirmation of marriage through a ritual of a right was common in almost every single interchange between societies.

There are those who hold true to the marriage issue as being simply religious. While that is true, and it is certainly true for me as a practising Roman Catholic, it is not necessarily and uniquely a matter that is strictly a religious practice. It has sociological and anthropological implications. I recall that the former editor of Xtra magazine was very clear as to what her views were on marriage. She believed that the community should not be pushing this. I believe her name is Eleanor Brown. She wrote in 2002 after the first decisions:

I would prefer that gay men and lesbians not get married because it's a heterosexual institution. We have our own culture and we need to keep it strong and healthy in this day of increasing assimilation.

There is something very important about the evolution that I have seen as a member of Parliament in the last 11 or 12 years. This is the same time, Madam Speaker, that you and I have been members of Parliament.

There has been the decision to bring in the controversial words “sexual orientation” which led to the change to the Canadian Human Rights Act, notwithstanding the fact that guarantees would be given that it would not take place. We then saw from Bill C-41 to Bill C-33 changes in terms of the modernization of benefits. We heard from the justice minister in 1999 that notwithstanding those changes, which were promised never to happen, there would at least be the protection of marriage.

It became very clear to me that despite the guarantees that are given on paper and by this House as to what the next level of protection is going to be, frankly, it is not worth the paper it is written on. A court down the road cannot be precluded by this Parliament from making decisions that will ultimately affect for all intents and purposes and for the reasons suggested by the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, and will not even guarantee, as it cannot guarantee, the practice of those who are prelates and who seek religious protection.

We know that is a charter matter. It is a matter that can certainly be discussed by Parliament, but it is a decision nevertheless that takes all considerations to be put aside. We need to ensure that there is above all a modicum of understanding and respect, and that issues of tolerance and pluralism are not based on issues of moral relativism.

We must ensure that this Parliament remain ever true to the rights and protections and notions of all Canadians. It means that wading into this debate of suggesting that we are going to somehow right a wrong may in itself be the wrong direction and wrong-headed.

I ask Parliament to look at issues based on common sense and the virtue and value of this very fragile institution. Though there is new wisdom from the Ontario court and from new courts as to what a human right may constitute, new wisdom that upends tens of thousands of years of practice and right, regardless of religion, I think we have an obligation to be sincere, direct, open and honest about what the institution of marriage and its capacity is.

It is a capacity that cannot be replicated in any other form. That is not discrimination. That is reality. No more that I could wish that the sun rose in the west and settled in the east, or that I would want the earth to be flat, I cannot accept for a moment that the institution of marriage is changeable to someone's demand for a right.

I believe very strongly in the issues that are of concern to our world, whether it is my work in terms of challenging my own government on hepatitis C when it was very unpopular to do so, or when I was one of the first members of Parliament to bring together the need for anti-retroviral drugs for AIDS to remedy the situation in Africa. On this issue, I believe as far as marriage is concerned that we must be prepared to say there cannot be a one size fits all. Despite those who believe that the charter is a living document that can change rights at will, I would respectfully submit from time to time that the tree needs to be pruned.

In this case, rights do have with them responsibilities and obligations to the truth and to ensure that above all we present legislation that is important, that addresses the true needs in this country, for instance, the needs of the aboriginal people. There are issues such as poverty and housing. There is the problem of racism. Those are issues where we need to work together as a model for Canada.

The institution of marriage is one that deserves dignity and respect. For all those who have been married in the past, we must accept the consequences of now seeing the potential through this Parliament of changing our ideas.

What is it in the past five years, what new wisdom is there today to suggest that what this Parliament decided by a five to one margin should now be suddenly different?

It seems to me that while there may be a willingness to be generous and to accommodate and to have an opportunity to bring in everyone, we may be doing so at the risk of offending not just people, but that we are also affecting the truth. The institution of marriage guarantees society. It is the main vehicle by which we will continue in the future, by which this Parliament is relevant.

I am one who champions the issues of rights. I fundamentally believe this is not an issue of rights. Regardless of why a superior court judge or an appeal court judge in Ontario, appointed by the previous prime minister, would suddenly decide otherwise is beyond me. However, I would also suggest that it is Parliament's opportunity to say no to what I believe is bad legislation and to send a message that we do have indeed, as the justice minister suggested, a constitutional democracy. It is time to put democracy, common sense and truth back into that equation.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-38. This issue has generated a great deal of interest in my riding and across Canada. In fact, I have received more correspondence and more e-mails on this topic than almost all of the others I have spoken about in the House combined.

Canadians are now looking to us in the House to make choices and decisions that reflect their beliefs, their religions and their rights.

From the outset, I wish to say that my personal view is in support of the traditional definition of marriage, that being exclusively between a man and a woman.

Just as quickly, I wish to also state unequivocally that I believe two persons of the same gender can and should be able to live in a legal, committed, loving and recognized relationship. I have heard from my gay and lesbian constituents and I can honestly say I realize how personal this debate has become for them. I have heard devastating tales of workplace discrimination, social discrimination and most tragically, discrimination from within their own families. All of these are unacceptable and must not be tolerated, ignored or excused.

Having heard the arguments and comments from both sides of the debate, I believe we can all be equal under the law without having the definition of marriage altered. I firmly believe that so long as equal rights, obligations and responsibilities are conferred on all registered couples, there lies no discrimination. I also believe marriage, the “m” word if you will, should remain as a reference for heterosexual couples only. This I believe is in keeping with our charter which does provide guarantees for religious freedom and in turn, respect.

Nonetheless, I have also maintained that on issues of conscience such as this, I will refer to the direction of my constituents. This is not an abdication of my responsibility; it is my duty. I am elected to represent my constituents and I have promised to do so.

To ascertain their opinions I have used my household mailings for a survey, have tallied telephone calls from all constituents, correspondence and also the many conversations I have heard around the riding. Overwhelmingly, over 90% have demanded that I vote against redefining marriage. I made a promise to represent them in the House and I will. I will be voting against Bill C-38.

On a final note specifically to my gay, lesbian, transgendered and two-spirited community, I would like to assure them that I will continue to ensure that their registered relationships enjoy the same legal rights, responsibilities and obligations as other registered relationships. They play an important part in my community and they deserve the same respect as their neighbours. Any less is unacceptable.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak on behalf of my constituents in Langley, British Columbia, to this important issue facing all Canadians.

I told my constituents that I would listen to their positions on the same sex marriage debate and that I would represent them here in Ottawa. Langley residents have been loud and clear. The vast majority believe that the traditional definition of marriage should not be changed.

The people of Langley have had plenty to say about marriage. I have received thousands of letters, e-mails and cards and I will read one of them. It states, “We personally are opposed to the idea of amending the definition of marriage based on God's direction in his word. Marriage is not just a commitment between two loving people. We thank you for at least hearing from and being accountable to your constituents”.

Over 3,000 Langley residents responded to my request for their input and 96% said that they wanted me to vote to uphold the traditional definition of marriage being between one man and one woman excluding all others.

Canadians want a free vote on this legislation. Why are the Liberals so afraid of a free vote? Parliament voted twice on the definition of marriage in the past five years. In 1999 the Prime Minister and many of the current cabinet ministers supported a motion that defended marriage as the union of one man and one woman excluding all others. It passed 216 to 55.

Two years ago the Prime Minister promised Canadian religious leaders that he would never permit the definition of marriage to be changed. Then, in 2003, the Prime Minister and many of those same cabinet ministers voted against traditional marriage causing it to be defeated. During the last election, only months ago, many of his cabinet ministers were again promising Canadians that they would defend traditional marriage. Promises made, promises broken.

The Liberal government does not want a free vote on this issue. It is also misleading Canadians in three major ways. First, it said that redefining marriage was a human rights issue. That is wrong. Second, it said that redefining marriage would erode equality rights under the charter. That is also wrong. Third, it said that the Civil Marriage Act would protect religious freedoms. That is also wrong.

Let us start with the human rights issues. Same sex marriage is not a fundamental human right. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights upheld a New Zealand court decision that same sex marriage was not a basic universal human right. No national or international court or human rights tribunal has ever ruled that same sex marriage is a human right.

If the Prime Minister really believed that same sex marriage was a human rights issue he would have to force his entire caucus to vote for the bill. However the Prime Minister is only whipping his cabinet, not the entire caucus, to support the bill. The Prime Minister is aware that the decision of the United Nations does not support what he has been saying. Why is the Prime Minister whipping his cabinet? It because without manipulated support the bill would fail and that would be embarrassing.

The second way the Liberal government is misleading Canadians is regarding equity rights. The Liberal governments says that only equal access to civil marriage will fully comply with charter equity guarantees. It has also said that any institution other than marriage is less than equal. That is utter nonsense. Same sex unions have equal rights.

The Liberals would also mislead Canadians by saying that the Conservative Party is against equality rights. To the contrary. Let me be absolutely clear that the Conservative Party supports equal rights and benefits for same sex couples. We are the only party that believes in the Charter of Rights for all Canadians, not just a select few.

Many gay and lesbian Canadians have long term relationships. They contribute to our communities and pay taxes. Gay and lesbian couples have equal access to central social institutions, such as legal unions, and have equal rights.

The justice committee began studying the same sex marriage issue in November 2002. Many members and witnesses at that committee thought that the civil union option for same sex couples should have been explored further. We need to openly debate the potential for creating a civil union that could provide equal rights and benefits in accordance with the will of millions of Canadians.

Equal rights are not same rights. Canada has many instances where Canadians have equal rights but not the same rights. For example, child tax benefit cheques normally go to the mother and not the father.

Quebec says it is equal but not the same; therefore suggesting its distinct society clause. Men and women are equal but not the same.

The Supreme Court has not ruled that marriage must be redefined. The Supreme Court has not ruled that the definition of marriage must be changed to allow civil unions. The Supreme Court said that Parliament has the authority to redefine marriage if it so wishes. Canadians do not want the definition of marriage to change, but the government does, and it is ignoring the wishes of the majority of Canadians. By legislating changes to marriage to include same sex unions, is the government aware of the unintended consequences?

The government is misleading Canadians and is forging ahead with its social experiment, changing the Canada that we all know and love. It is changing historical religious definitions such as marriage without any thought of the consequences. The government wants to legalize marijuana, legalize prostitution, and take away charitable status from faith based organizations. Who knows what will be next.

The third way the government is misleading us is with respect to the protection of religious freedoms. Bill C-38 would not protect religious freedoms. The third clause is merely a recognition and has no teeth whatsoever. Saying that the civil marriage act would protect religious freedoms is dishonest and misleading.

The solemnization of marriage is a provincial jurisdiction. That is very clear, and the Liberals had their hands slapped by the Supreme Court. They were reminded of this in the draft legislation. If the Prime Minister really wanted to protect religious freedoms, instead of hiding behind the charter, he would have drafted amendments to the Income Tax Act and charitable status act. Before tabling Bill C-38, he had the time to draft amendments, but he chose not to. Instead, he has included a gutless clause hoping that Canadians would take the word of his scandal-ridden government.

The Liberal government is insulting the intelligence of Canadians. Canadians do understand the difference between provincial and federal jurisdictions. They do understand that the Constitution creates divided jurisdiction over marriage. To ensure consistency across Canada, the founders of Confederation gave Parliament the responsibility for the definition of marriage and for laws governing divorce. The federal government has traditionally relied on the legal definition of marriage, which until recently applied exclusively to opposite sex couples. The provinces are responsible for the solemnization of marriage, which includes licensing and registration.

Bill C-38 is not about human rights. It is about the Liberal government attacking religious rights. Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus and other faith based organizations are all vulnerable to activist attacks in the courts and human rights tribunals.

Canada's judicial courts and human rights tribunals have a near perfect record of finding against religious freedom rights, that are under attack by activists. We saw this in Oshawa where the civil courts ruled that a Catholic school had discriminated against the rights of Marc Hall by not allowing his boyfriend to the graduation dance. In Vancouver the Knights of Columbus were hauled before the B.C. human rights tribunal for cancelling a booking for a same sex wedding reception. More than 50 marriage commissioners have resigned or been fired because of their religious beliefs. They are not protected. What does this say? It says that religious freedoms are not being protected.

That is just the start. Marriage commissioners are giving up their livelihood because their religious beliefs are not being protected. Will teachers in faith based schools have to resign because they will be forced to lecture against their religious beliefs?

Already members of the Liberal government are describing religious institutions as being discriminatory and have argued that their charitable tax exempt status should be revoked. Shame on them. The attacks on religious freedoms by this intolerant, biased government have already begun.

Marriage vows are a bond with God. Marriage is more than just two couples uniting. God is part of it, and joining the union according to His will. God is present and part of the marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. That is what I am standing here to protect. I will be voting against Bill C-38.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-38. I cannot help but think that, somehow, we are witnessing a bit of history unfold and times change.

If I am not mistaken, this is our 10th debate in the House on the rights of gays and lesbians. During each of these debates, we hear the same arguments, sometimes as questions, but other times as prejudice, unfortunately.

The government deserves credit for this bill. We must recognize that it takes a great deal of courage to introduce legislation on civil marriage between same sex couples, not just because this is a minority government but also because many people feel very strongly about this subject.

I also cannot help but think that we are able to discuss such a bill today thanks to people such as Svend Robinson, Michael Hendricks, René Leboeuf and activists who, throughout Canada and particularly Quebec, spoke out to make homosexuality normal, respectable and deserving of the support of parliamentarians.

One might wonder why men and women of homosexual orientation would want to marry. The bill responds to legal issues in the aftermath of a reference to the Supreme Court. It also follows on numerous challenges before appeal courts as well as courts of first instance. There are, of course, some legal realities behind this bill.

They are not, however, the fundamental reason why we, as parliamentarians, must support this bill. I have had an opportunity to discuss this with my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, and I thank him for his work on this.

The first reason why this bill must be supported is, it seems to me, a matter of citizenship. I do not believe that homosexual men and women have different reasons for wanting to marry. Nor do I believe that motivations other than those for heterosexuals are involved in the debate.

We all know what it means to be in love. Two people feel right together. They see no one but each other, think only of each other, want to plan a life together. It makes no difference whether the two are homosexual or heterosexual.

People of homosexual orientation, like myself, consider marriage to have to do with fidelity, a shared life, mutual commitment, and support, all very important values.

Some day, our friends the Conservatives, those from the churches and others opposed to the bill, must explain to us how same sex couples' access to the most important lay institution after the schools is likely to weaken marriage. That is what I do not get about this debate.

I can understand that some people may be uncomfortable when they see two men or two women holding hands. I can understand that the homosexual reality is less present in some communities. Certainly, in a major centre like Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto or Halifax, it is virtually impossible to live one's life without knowing someone who is homosexual.

Today's debate is basically focussed on values.

Gays and lesbians are calling for the right to marriage, but there are no statistics on this. To think, until the last census we did not even know how many gays and lesbians there were in Canada. We certainly do not have accurate statistics on the number of people wanting to get married. However, one thing is certain, our responsibility as parliamentarians is to pass the bill that will give them this possibility, so that those wanting to get married can do so.

In my life, I have had three long-term relationships: the first when I was 20, the second when I was 25, and the third began a few years ago. Each time, in my experience as a gay man, I never felt as though the highs or lows of my relationships were any different than those of my twin brother, René, who is undeniably heterosexual—not polygamous, but heterosexual.

All that to say that some arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. The Supreme Court reference includes a paragraph which is very important, in my view, to our debates. It is paragraph 46 and it reads:

The mere recognition of the equality rights of one group cannot, in itself, constitute a violation of the rights of another. The promotion of Charter rights and values enriches our society as a whole and the furtherance of those rights cannot undermine the very principles the Charter was meant to foster.

Why is this paragraph so important? The Supreme Court clearly stated that there is no “conflict of rights”.

When this debate began in 2002, 2003 and 2004, they tried to have us believe that if you were driven by a sense of religion, you could not subscribe to the idea of equality for gays and lesbians. I believe this is absolutely not true. No matter how a person expresses their spirituality, or identifies themselves with religion, I think that in this House we can vote for what I call a supreme value, a value at the core of charters, rights and freedoms, in Canada and Quebec, and that is the right to equality. It is unacceptable to have two categories of people, who pay taxes, who take part in democratic institutions, who participate in community life, who are professionally involved and who do not have the same rights.

We heard the argument that recognizing the right of homosexual persons to marry would open the door to polygamy and polyandry, which would cause the disintegration of all marital relationships or committed relationships as part of a family.

I do not think that that is an honest argument because, frankly, is there one person who believes that the courts in B.C., Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere could have ruled that the lawmakers had to recognize same sex partners, had it not been for the right to equality?

The right to equality excludes polygamy and polyandry. Why? Because this concept that men could have more than one spouse is completely contrary to the right to equality. Women are considered to be so distinct that their relationships have to be legitimized, and using these as a mere bargaining chit within a broader type of relationship is completely contrary to the right to equality. I do not think that anyone in this House could find a court ruling or decision, in any way, shape or form, suggesting that the right to equality legitimizes polyandry and polygamy.

I will conclude with a wish: that this bill be referred as soon as possible to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, a special committee or a committee of the whole.

I hope that all parliamentarians will support this bill, which is a step in the direction of equality, gives respectability to homosexuality and in no way threatens families and the right to loving commitment.