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

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I did not point out that there are no Liberal members in the House, although perhaps i could, but what I would point out is that there are so few of them willing to debate the issue.

The way the government has gone about this violates basically everything that has made the country what it is. It really points out the fundamental difference between the government and the people of the country. Many people believe there is a law natural to all men. Some of the people who want to speak on this issue talk about their belief in a creator who has set principles in the hearts of men and women. Other people talk about their belief in universal principles.

I think all of us agree on some fundamental principles, things like honesty, telling the truth, integrity and the importance of democracy. It has been frustrating here because the government has short-circuited those principles in so many ways.

In conclusion, I believe that the Prime Minister has betrayed himself. He has changed his position in the House on this issue. I think he has betrayed Canadians because he has forced this issue on them against their will. I would suggest that he has also betrayed his creator because he refuses to live out what he claims he believes in.

He has a chance to redeem himself. I encourage him to take the bill off the table for the summer, go home, think about this, and come back in the fall. I ask him to set aside Bill C-38 and do what is right for Canadians.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to once again address Bill C-38.

Let me begin with Supreme Court Justice Gérard La Forest in 1995, who spoke on behalf of the majority of the judges in the Egan decision. I want to read for members what he said, because I think it sums up a lot of what we are trying to talk about today. He said:

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 [reason for being] transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities 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.

I would like to make the point that in the 10 years since then, things have not changed. That statement is still a valid statement.

Will Rogers was a cowboy philosopher from the United States. One of his comments was, “I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts”. If he were here today, I wonder if he would be laughing or crying.

The government seems to be out of control in most of its actions. A week ago we were leaving the House and then the government decided that we were staying because we had to debate important issues such as Bill C-48 and Bill C-38. Then the government turned around and said it did not want to debate these issues; it wanted to bring in closure. It did that on Thursday night to ram through Bill C-48. There are indications that it will try that same thing with this bill. It seems as if we are in the middle of a bad joke.

Bill C-48 was a joke in many ways. We talked about that last week and about the fact that the NDP had been sucked in on the bill. If one reads the page and a half long bill, one sees clearly that it states the government “may” commit up to $4.6 billion in spending in four areas. It does not have to spend it and cannot spend it until September or October of 2006.

The bill passed, and although somebody may be stuck with it even after the next election, it really has no immediate consequences. It was a joke of a bill. It seems as though the NDP bought into that. In the end the Bloc did too, in order to carry it through and try to get Bill C-38 through.

Bill C-38 is another joke. The government has decided that it is pushing ahead with the redefinition of marriage, but in the middle of the discussion there has been a lot of debate about whether religious institutions are going to be protected. The government has assured us time and again that it will try to do that even though the Supreme Court said it could not.

Clause 3 of the bill states:

It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

That gave no protection to anybody, which was recognized immediately, so the government has come back with another clause, clause 3.1. It certainly sounds fancy, but I understand that the justice department lawyers themselves say that this gives no more protection than the charter gives anyway. We know how useful the charter is; the judges have the opportunity to interpret it the way they will. It is frustrating. Once again we are faced with what I would say is a bad joke that is being played on Canadians.

As we know, Bill C-38 is being opposed by most Canadians. We just heard our colleague across the way, who is a Sikh, talk about his opposition to it. We know that the world Sikh leaders have opposed a change in this concept. The member for Calgary Northeast talked about his riding and the opposition from the Sikh community there.

Most of the Muslims oppose this. In my riding last year we had a summer rally with the Muslim clerics at which a scholar came to speak. His words were, “This is a non-starter for us”. I thought that was as clear a statement as one could make.

Christian leaders across Canada have been fighting to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, the traditional position, which is seen as a core tenet of their beliefs.

We have had Jewish leaders who have been working on this as well and who have been a fundamental part of the fight to maintain the traditional definition of marriage.

For many of these folks, the belief in the traditional definition of marriage goes back to their holy scriptures and goes back entirely to creation and their perception of that. The Liberals have chosen to listen not to them but to special interest groups instead. In fact, the Liberals do not even listen to their own charter. As the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster pointed out, the charter talks about us recognizing the supremacy of God in this country and the Liberals have chosen to completely ignore that.

I do not know if I have enough time tonight to even go through this, but we are faced with two irreconcilable views about what marriage is. On one hand, the prior status of marriage has been that marriage is recognized but it did not have to be created by law. It was not created by law; it was recognized by our society. Heterosexual marriage had never needed law in order to be socially recognized and accepted. It had been universally accepted that the union of a man and a woman was the appropriate definition for marriage. That view sees heterosexual marriage as a natural fact, as something that unites men and women.

It has been historically recognized down through the centuries. For many, as I have mentioned, it has also been seen as part of a granting of divine revelation to people. Others see it as observable by natural reason. For those who see marriage as a natural fact uniting men and women, the binding force would be nature itself.

As Iain Benson, the executive director for the Centre for Cultural Renewal, pointed out in his presentation to the committee dealing with Bill C-38, “To people who hold this view, the idea that two men or two women could be married makes as much sense as two men trying to become sisters, or two women trying to become brothers. It just does not compute”.

This view of marriage does not depend upon the state. The state's role and function is to recognize it, not to define it. That is why in the past there have been so few statutes defining marriage.

Marriage by definition, to the folks who believe in this, is one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. To change that definition changes marriage. It just changes the definition to where people do not recognize it as marriage.

The other view sees marriage as basically a social construct, something that is not given in nature but something that is chosen and defined by humans, something that is chosen by our will, and then because of that, it is something they insist everyone should recognize. The ones who hold this view will tend to portray this as an issue of rights rather than just a redefinition of a social institution.

The interesting part of this is for the folks who hold this second definition or the second view of marriage, it is essential for them to try to bring the state in and to bring the power of the state to bear on the definition of marriage. That is what we see happening in the House. It is what we have seen over the last few months. For them the act of redefinition requires the use of all possible available means. We see that going on.

We have also been able to see the judiciary be part of this. We know now that eight provinces and one territory have had one single judge in each of those provinces and territory step forward and make a ruling. The federal government and the provincial governments have not had the courage to appeal those definitions. We talked a little about that earlier, but they just have refused to appeal. The Supreme Court actually pointed out in its decision that this change has come about by default, that basically governments have not done what they should be doing. They have not done their due diligence and because of their neglect, they have allowed the definition to change without the proper discussion of it that should have taken place.

Obviously the resolution between these two views is not going to be easy, but the government has made it even more difficult because it has basically destroyed the forum for public debate. With the extension of the sitting this week, we expect the Liberals at some point are going to try to close down debate. We see them whipping votes across the way and we see those members barely willing to come into the House to address the issue. People who have been watching the debate this afternoon will note that very few government members are even interested in talking about this issue.

We see the government rushing to radical conclusions.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Madam Speaker, I continue to oppose Bill C-38, an act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes. Due to my profound concerns regarding the long term impact of Bill C-38, I plan to continue to express my opposition to this proposed legislation.

A Compass poll on February 2, 2005, indicated that 66% of the Canadian population opposes same sex marriage. Clearly, a majority of Canadians remain concerned that the common good of society will not be served by the proposed redefinition of marriage. That is because this legislation fails to recognize, protect and reaffirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

Marriage is a loving, life-giving partnership between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. It is also essential to the survival of society. Its purpose is the common good of the couple and the procreation and education of children. Marriage, as the union of a man and a woman, is a unique and irreplaceable institution that merits government protection and social recognition.

The interest of the state in the institution of marriage has always been and should always continue to be the integration of the sexes in an ideal social unit from which children are born and nurtured, not only for the benefit of the children but for society as a whole.

Unfortunately, the proposed legislation eliminates this time honoured interest. It is clear to me that Bill C-38 would diminish the relevance of the most important social institution of our society.

Marriage even predates religions. Historically, the institution of marriage has always been viewed as the ideal unit for fostering a healthy environment for the development of children. Marriage is the institution which has played the greatest role in our survival and procreation.

As members of Parliament we are often called upon to deal with difficult social issues, including domestic violence and poverty. At the root of all of these debates has been the conclusion that the basic unit of society--the family, mothers and fathers, the children with their mother and father--remains the safest place for children and for women.

It is worth noting that in its final ruling the Supreme Court of Canada did not suggest that the traditional definition of marriage was contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or that a redefinition of marriage was necessary to conform to the charter. In the marriage reference, the Supreme Court declined to answer the fourth question, which was whether the traditional opposite sex requirement for marriage contravened the charter.

As members know, the majority of my constituents are asking that we preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Marriage is an institution with a long and respected history and tradition. It has a clear purpose. Bill C-38 would take that tradition, that institution, and reduce it to the union of two people.

Bill C-38 essentially dismisses the relevance of marriage to any aspect of the social well-being of Canadians. However, there is no other human relationship equal to the only true marriage unit, that of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. The marriage of a man and a woman is unique, as is its contribution to society. Marriage serves a unique function in all civilized societies. The very preservation of society is dependent upon traditional marriage. As members of Parliament, it is our duty to defend the health and well-being of all Canadians, especially our children.

Marriage promotes the bonding of men and women and the creation of a stable and beautiful partnership of life and property. It recognizes the interdependence of men and women. It includes the moral, social, economic and legal dimensions. It reflects a commitment to fidelity and monogamy. It serves as an excellent social structure for the rearing of children for the perpetuation of society. It provides for mutual support between men and women, supports the birthright of children and strengthens relations between men and children.

Therefore, the potential impact of change on the parent-child bond and the overall impact on society is significant and should not be taken lightly.

Finally, I believe that the redefinition of marriage would lead to a major societal change. While it might not have immediate social consequences, over time it could have enormous implications. The potential for long term consequences is so great that we should take the time to more fully assess the broader implications of this fundamental change to families, children and religious freedoms.

The proposed legislation is about diminishing the relevance of the most important social institution of our society. Why should we rush into adopting radically new legislation when there are so many important long term consequences to consider for all society? Why should we be considering the dismantling of one of the most essential institutions in our society?

Marriage clearly plays a meaningful role in our society. Changing one of the basic foundations of this social institution will have a profound effect on the entire marriage structure as a whole. Bill C-38 proposes to change a critical feature of a key social institution. Doing so will undoubtedly have a major destabilizing impact on marriage.

In light of the above arguments, I must strongly and respectfully request that we act for the greater good of our nation by supporting the traditional definition of marriage. The stability and future of our nation are at stake here. The stakes have never been higher. We must all do what we can to support the traditional definition of marriage and to stand up for that which we truly believe to be for the good of our nation.

Marriage and the family are fundamental institutions which contribute to the common good in terms of the formation of children, loyalty, faithfulness and responsibility in our society. Marriage as we have known it cannot be allowed to slip quietly away.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak for the third time in the last few months to Bill C-38, the civil marriage act.

Despite opposition to this legislation throughout the country, the Liberal government is bound and determined to push Bill C-38 through the House before Parliament rises for the summer. The vast majority of my constituents are included in those who are opposed to Bill C-38. It is therefore worth repeating, and I have said it every time that I have spoken, that I am opposed to changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. I firmly believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

A number of my colleagues this afternoon and throughout the last number of times they have spoken have made an excellent case for the traditional definition of marriage as being the most important social institution for bringing order to society and providing the best environment for raising children.

Speaking of children, I naturally think of family. I think of my family today. I would like to focus on the family for a minute, recognizing the fact that a family is defined as people who are related by blood, marriage, or adoption.

If the government can change the definition of marriage, if it can change social institutions, then what is to say that the government cannot redefine what a family is? If two friends want to be known as a family and take advantage of the ensuing benefits such as claiming a dependent for tax purposes, would this lead to changing the definition of family to include people who are related by friendship, or related for other reasons of convenience?

The same argument that the traditional definition of marriage discriminates against same sex couples could apply to the traditional definition of family. It could be argued that the definition of family discriminates against other kinds of close relationships like that between friends.

This point is extremely important because eventually the argument could be extended to include many other relationships. It could be enlarged to include relationships such as polygamy. The Liberal government scoffs at the idea that polygamists will one day argue that they are being discriminated against, but the reality of that happening is very real.

It is also important because it begs a question. Why would one fight for such a change? In the case I used of two friends wanting to be recognized as a family, the sole purpose would be for monetary reasons, for taking advantage of the taxable benefits of having a family member listed as a dependent.

In the case of same sex unions, we must question why these relationships should be defined by marriage. We must question why gay activists are so intent on having same sex unions defined as marriage when they are already entitled to the same rights and benefits as those involved in traditional marriage. The only thing they are not entitled to is the term marriage.

The only difference between opposite sex unions and same sex unions would be a different name or definition which would simply recognize the different makeup of the relationship. One relationship being that of two people of the opposite sex while the other relationship being two people of the same sex. Both relationships have the same benefits and both have the same rights.

Unfortunately, in my opinion this issue is not about legal rights. It is not about human rights. It is about acceptance. That is what this argument is about. For some same sex marriage advocates the issue is about acceptance and forcing Canadians, despite their religious beliefs and the values that they have held for a long period of time, to accept homosexuality as being the same as those involved in the traditional marriage.

Governments simply cannot legislate acceptance any more than they can legislate people to abandon their religious beliefs or to forget about morality or the values that they have held perhaps since childhood.

On the issue of religion, there is no absolute guarantee that our religious freedoms will not be challenged. The Liberal government has failed. Despite promises to the contrary to protect religious freedoms and to protect the rights of those to worship or to adhere to whatever religion they want, they have failed.

During the last federal election campaign, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency told church groups who opposed same sex marriage that if they spoke out they could very well risk losing their charitable status, while churches that spoke in favour of same sex marriage, oddly enough, never received the same type of threat.

Bishop Henry in Calgary is being hauled before the Alberta Human Rights Commission because he spoke out against same sex marriage. Time does not permit me to provide other examples of how our freedoms of speech and religion are being curbed by arguments of human rights.

Many argue that extending marriage to include same sex union is a matter of human rights, yet almost every other country around the world, and the United Nations specifically, has rejected the notion that same sex marriage is a human right. It has already been pointed out that if it is a human right, then why are we trading and dealing so much with countries that are human rights violators? I think even the government realizes it is not a human right.

Marriage is a fundamental social institution, not only recognized by law but sanctified by faith throughout the world and throughout history. The requirement that marriage partners be of opposite sex is one of the core universal features of marriage across many different cultures and many different religions around the world. In Canada and elsewhere, the identity of marriage has always been seen as a bond between a man and a woman.

A University of McGill professor of comparative religion and ethics told the special committee of justice and legal affairs--on which I served--back in 2003 that:

From our study of all world religions, such as Judaism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity, and the world views of small-scale societies, we conclude that this institution is a culturally approved, opposite-sex relationship intended to encourage the births and rearing of children at least to the extent necessary for the preservation and well-being of society.

In another submission to our committee, one witness defended marriage as the union of one man and one woman on the basis of procreation, as I pointed out in my initial remarks.

Traditionally, marriage was defined as the union of one man and one woman, with the expectation that they would procreate and that they would guarantee the survival of the human race. The product of this union was children. They would create and establish a family, and that allows humanity to continue on.

While there are many purposes to the family--that is, providing lifelong relations, shelter, and food to its members--the main purpose is the means by which society can maintain its existence.

Procreation in marriage has to be considered one of the most essential functions. Civilizations of the world have come to embrace this fact in recognition of the benefits it brings to those involved in society as a whole.

As a matter of fact, there are only two countries in the world that allow same sex marriage, and it is important to note that neither of these countries has had the issue decided or defined by the courts of their country. We continue to believe, as does the Supreme Court of Canada--much to the dismay of the Liberal government--that MPs who are accountable to the citizens of the country should have the final say on this matter. We should not be limited in our debate. We should not be sitting back and limiting our debate.

On that note, I implore this government to not shut down debate on this issue, despite the rising temperature outside. Today someone said there is a humidex of 41 out there, and I can tell you that all I know is it is very hot and there are a lot of people with shirts sticking to their bodies and the sweat is pouring down. The heat is not only outside; it's inside the House also.

We have seen the measures this government has taken to ram this legislation through before the House rises. We have seen the anti-democratic ways that this government has used to push something through.

I remember back in 2001, when this House was called back early to deal with September 11 and the terrorist attacks on that day. The House came back early because of what was happening around the world. Today we are extending the hours because this government feels so compelled to push through this type of legislation.

I implore this government to allow the House to rise for the summer recess with Bill C-38 still on the table. Allow us to go out into our constituencies and listen to people, close to 10,000 from my riding--6,800--who have contacted me, asking me to support the traditional definition of marriage. We need time this summer to listen to our constituents so that when we come back in the fall we can properly represent those people who sent us here.

Thank you.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not sure who does the strategy for the Prime Minister. The Liberals thought this would go through and be quite easy. They did a lot of polling with specific questions that were asked and so on which gave them the preordained conclusion for which they were looking.

However, I think they have a lot more than a tempest in a teapot that they thought they had. I think people are finally galvanized over an action. They see this as just the beginning of a lot more things that could come forward. It is almost governance by stealth would be the best way to describe it.

We have to ask ourselves on so many different levels, why this and why now in a minority Parliament? Certainly we have to respond to what the courts are doing but there are ways to do that.

There are ways to address a void if there is one in the Canadian Constitution. I cannot seem to find it. I am not a constitutional expert and I am not lawyer, but I cannot seem to find where anyone's rights are being withheld or circumvented at this point.

As I said, I do not think Bill C-38 will ever give the gay homosexual community what it is seeking.

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

Madam Speaker, I realize this has become a bit of a grey area. I would ask the member why we would defer to the courts in the first place. We are the supreme court of the land, in this building, in this chamber. We are the ones who answer to the people in the way that we are elected.

The Supreme Court answers basically to the laws that are made. It takes a look at them. It judges on them. It makes appeals and it makes rulings. There is not a lawyer who will not bring something to the Supreme Court if it is a juicy enough subject, the money is right and so on. That is the nature of our civil society. That is the way it is done.

However, I do not for the life of me understand why we, as the Parliament of the country, who basically write the rules and set them into play, would allow the courts to rewrite something that we really have not had a chance to work on ourselves.

I guess by ignoring it to this extent, the courts have gone ahead, moved into that vacuum and made some rulings with which the vast majority of Canadians do not agree. In fact, there is a lot of talk about judicial activism, that the judges have gone too far in certain areas and perhaps not far enough in other areas. There are loopholes and grey areas. We seem to write laws for lawyers and they will always be challenged.

Bill C-38 if and when we pass it in the form it is in will be challenged. There is no doubt in my mind. Arguments will go on for decades on either side of the issue.

Therefore, we are not really finishing anything here. This is the beginning, as I said, the thin edge of the wedge. We will see arguments go on into the next millennium over this issue. We will get into family situations. We will get into adoption. We will get into all sorts of things of which this is just the beginning.

Many people are saying that it is a rights issue, that somehow some rights are being denied. However, in our Constitution and in some decisions that were made in the late eighties any same sex couple has access to the rights and privileges of any opposite gender couple.

Really I cannot for the life of me understand what it is that they are missing out on at this point, and somehow Bill C-38 is going to be the panacea and make all of that right.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak again to Bill C-38. We are in the dying days of a dying Parliament and we are discussing Bill C-38, same gender civil marriage. It follows on the heals of almost a preparatory motion that we passed in 1999 when a lot of the front bench of the Liberal Party said that they would never change it, that it was carved in stone, bedrocked in the country and that it would never happen.

Here we are, a short five years later, a couple of elections later and guess what is on the agenda?

Tomorrow is the one year anniversary of the minority Liberal Parliament and this particular issue certainly was not a flagship of its election platform. I guess the Liberals have to look in the mirror when they start talking about hidden agendas because here we go.

A lot of legislation that has come forward in this past year of a minority Parliament has been with the help of the government's buddies in the NDP and some of the Bloc, of course, which is why we are seeing legislation like this come forward. I tend to believe this is the right place for it to be.

We are able to go out and talk to our constituents and ascertain from them what direction they want us to go. In that vane, I did a householder. It is a little hard to quantify the numbers because it goes out to the household but in a lot of cases it came back with Mr., Mrs. and so many voting children who live in that household when they really only receive one particular sheet. We received somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2,500 to 3,000 responses, which goes far beyond a scientific survey. Most polling that is done in the country is on a 1,000 sample coast to coast to coast. Well I received 3,000 samples back in my riding of 73,000 to 74,000 people, so it is fairly indicative of what is happening out there.

Then I received a tremendous number of e-mails, letters, cards and so on from my own riding, as well as from other parts of the country, telling me not to back off on this and not to let this thin edge of the wedge start. I am standing here today committed to doing everything I can to see Bill C-38 hit the scrap heap.

I have gone through every piece of information I could get. I have had two responses from my riding saying that I am on the wrong side of the issue. I followed up on my householder and 12 or 15 that came in said that I should just let it go, that it was not going to affect them. I had two that followed up. One was from a United Church minister and the other was from a young law student who came at it from a little different direction. However the basic premise was that it would not change anything so I should just let it go, or the argument that somehow it is a human rights issue. I know it has been mentioned here before.

I grabbed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and printed off a copy. I will be darned if I can find any mention of marriage in here at all of any description. If we look at the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it tries to govern the world with its decrees and it does not even get into this debate. The European code that has been developed, with the whole European Union giving birth to a brand new continent of countries over there, does not even get into it, other than one of the members, Holland. Our own Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has some pertinent clauses, but we start off with the preamble which says, “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law” , and yet we hear this constant argument that this has nothing to do with religious marriage and so on but our own charter says that we recognize the supremacy of God.

In the church to which I belong, the Catholic church, marriage is a sacrament, as it is in most other churches. We recognize the supremacy of God, the love of God and so on, when we do a marriage. I had the tremendous privilege this weekend of attending and participating in my daughter's wedding. I arrived a little late for the dress rehearsal the night before because of things that went on here until midnight Thursday and making plane connections. While I was driving the two hours to the community where the church is and the wedding was going to be held, I was thinking that this was the only legislation left on the Liberal agenda and we were going to go back Monday. I knew I would have to cut short my revelry with relations, friends and family and everything else because we were coming back to throw into the mix Bill C-38.

I felt a tremendous amount of pride. I even shed a couple of tears at the wedding of my daughter and the gentleman with whom she has chosen to spend the rest of her life. In reflecting on it, how would I have felt if it had been two women up there or two men? Would I have felt differently? Would I have been less of a proud parent? I do not think I would have been but I cannot for the life of me understand how two people of the same gender, sharing their lives under a civil union, or however it can be done now, how that would make it any different than the religious ceremony that I attended.

We had a Catholic priest, which is my daughter's religion, and a United Church minister, which is the religion of the gentleman she married. They coordinated and both took part in that service. However, as much as I tried to concentrate on the beautiful day that was unfolding, I could not help but slip back into wondering how this bill would change anything. I really cannot understand that.

As I said, there are some things in the charter that talk to that. I will quote from section 2:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

d) freedom of association.

It is already in there so nobody can take that away from people, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Section 7 says:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Maybe this is a justice issue. Maybe somehow we are denying them the justice of being married. One member on the Liberal side talked about how we have become a divorce society. That is justice gone wild. That is a perversion of marriage, and we have, because it is now available and it is an easy out.

I read a little article in my daughter's material that she received in her marriage preparation course. It was good advice for people who were getting married. It said that people had to remember and be assured that the better often follows the worse, as it is in the wedding vows when it talks about for better or for worse. I do not understand how this could be a lack of someone receiving justice.

I have heard subsection 15(1) bandied about here quite a bit. It reads:

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.

We seem to have covered everybody who lives in this beautiful country. They have access to everything everyone else has. There is nothing limited in that.

Then there is subsection 24(1) regarding enforcement:

Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

That is what really started all of this. We saw courts at the provincial level rule that they would not differentiate between people of same sex or people of opposite gender in getting married. A lot of people say that they went beyond where they needed to go. I think there was a tremendous vacuum there because this place had never really done its homework in that regard, and that came back in spades when the Prime Minister tried to hide behind an extra ruling he wanted the Supreme Court to make, an extra question he wanted asked, and they refused to answer it. They said that it was under his purview and that he should get out there and do the right thing. The courts said that they were being forced to uphold this because he had let it happen, that he had not stopped it at any of the provincial levels and that he had let it slide this far.

We are at this juncture now. We are playing catch-up and we are going about it all wrong.

Last but certainly not least, section 26 says:

The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

That is a bit of an open-ended section. We could add or subtract anything we want but with more addition than subtraction. I see that tossed around a lot that this is a rights thing, that somehow people are being denied their rights, but it does not show up in the charter at all. We are actually going back into the charter and, in some way, reinforcing that they are not being allowed to advance their cause. I really do not go for that argument at all.

We had a committee of the House of Commons struck under the justice committee and the Prime Minister used it as a bit of a shield for a time. I guess the shield shattered or did not stand up to the job because he lost one member of Parliament over that. The gentleman sits up here in this corner now, the member for London--Fanshawe. He did stay onside for awhile because he had a meeting with the Prime Minister who assured him that the committee would travel and that it would hear anybody who wanted to come and make a presentation before that committee in regard to this legislation because it was such a fundamental change. The member said that if he was going to do that then he would hang in. Well that did not happen. He attended the committee meetings himself and even tried to appear as a witness. They were having three or four witnesses at a time with limited timeframes and 24 hours' notice to come and make their representations to the committee. He felt that it was almost a kangaroo court.

There are some major concerns. We are pushing this through much quicker than we need to do. Year after year there have been fights. In the 30 years that I have been paying attention to politics, those in the homosexual community fought against labels. They did not want to be labelled. They knew they were different somehow. They knew they wanted to do things in their own right and they did not want any labels that the rest of society was putting on them. Now it seems they want a label that is near and dear to my heart, and the bill has gone too far.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in the House to speak against this bill. It takes a lot for all members to be in the House today. In fact, as we speak, my daughter is on her way to her graduation. I feel very strongly that we as parliamentarians have to be here to stand firmly for the kinds of things that need to be addressed.

This issue should not be before Parliament today. This is something that we as parliamentarians need to deal with in our own homes because we live in a democratic society, and in a democratic society we have the freedom of choice. We are here today because we have to take care of the nation's business. The people of Kildonan--St. Paul sent me here to deal with the nation's business.

When we rise to speak, we must speak from the heart and think of our families. This issue has become too political. This is about democracy. In our great nation we have the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and the freedom to live the kind of lives that we choose to live. Making a law that will cause marriage to just go away with the stroke of a pen late at night and probably some time this week is wrong. It is wrong to do that. I am baffled as to why Bill C-38 is before Parliament.

I believe in the definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Marriage does have its problems. Divorce happens. Other things happen, but it is the fundamental fabric for which we stand for in our great country.

I also believe in people's right to choose. I believe people in same sex unions or same sex relationships should have all the benefits they deserve in terms of financial benefits and charter freedoms. Bill C-38 would change the very fabric of our country. Members have come to the House to discuss this issue and have missed graduations or weddings. Our constituents elected us to stand up for what is right and to be brave and have courage.

I cannot stand in the House of Commons and not put my remarks on the record for the sake of our great nation. I represent my riding of Kildonan--St. Paul and over 85% of my constituents have told me that they want the definition of marriage retained as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

They have also told me that they do not want to be discriminatory. They do not want to tell somebody else how to live their life. How people live comes from their heart. That is what democracy is about. It is about the choices we make. When we make choices, we have to live with them.

My daughter knows that I am standing here today as a member of Parliament and as a mom, and discussing the business of our nation, so that when she graduates, she will be able to have those choices. If she decides to get married, she will know that the meaning of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. If she chooses otherwise, it will be her choice. The definition of marriage will not go away in the dark of night with the stroke of a pen.

Many things cause us to question Bill C-38. First, how in the world could a government in 1999 say it would not change the definition of marriage and then turn around today with this piece of legislation?

I will quote from the Deputy Prime Minister's letter dated April 24, 1998:

--the definition of marriage is already clear in law in Canada as the union of two persons of the opposite sex. Counsel from my department have successfully defended and will continue to defend this concept of marriage in the court...I continue to believe that it is not necessary to change well understood concepts of spouse and marriage to deal with any fairness considerations the courts and tribunals may find.

She could have written my speech today because that is exactly where I stand, defending the right of one man and one woman to marry, defending their right to propagate and have children, and defending the right for them to make a choice.

I am also here defending the right of same sex couples to make that choice, to have financial benefit and live as they choose. I am defending that right because it is called democracy. In our family we have spent our lives, generations of people, standing up for the democracy that we have here in our great nation.

My father went to war during the second world war and defended our country. He did not come back to tell people how to live. He did not come back to say that there had to be rules and regulations. I am appalled that the bill is before Parliament today because it is not a bill about equality. It is a bill about discrimination against people who are now married and have been married for years. As members of Parliament, we sign certificates congratulating our constituents for 20, 50, or 60 years of marriage. I signed one the other day for 65 years of marriage.

This is something special. That is not to say that marriage is perfect and I hope my husband is not listening now. I can say quite categorically that it is not always perfect, but it is something that I would not trade for all the world. Over and above that, I would not trade as a member of Parliament the democratic right to make those choices.

Today we have heard so many arguments. We have gone through the bill. We have stated our ground back and forth. Today I am here because I needed to speak to the bill and make my words known. It is very wrong to have this bill before Parliament and I certainly will be voting against it. I would call on all members from all sides of the House to show the courage and vote against the bill, not party against party and not person against person but to vote for democracy.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague reminds me of the democracy that prevails in the Liberal caucus, which is true. It is a fairly highly contentious caucus from time to time over a variety of issues, not the least of which is this one. It is also ironic that just as the public is starting to engage in this debate, we are now moving to a vote.

I hear hon. members argue that we have been talking about this for years now, incorporating the travelling road show that we had with the justice committee, et cetera, on which the justice committee of course could not report because the court of appeal pre-empted the decision. Actually there has not been that much debate other than the hearings that have been held by the legislative committee over the last few weeks.

I know that both sides of this debate are, frankly, heartily sick of the debate. They just want it to end. They think that because the debate is ending the issue is going to go away. I respectfully suggest that this is just the beginning of the end.

This bill will revolutionize the way we think about marriage in this country. I would analogize it to the way in which the Divorce Act back in the 1970s under the late Prime Minister Trudeau revolutionized the issue of divorce in this country.

Who would have thought at that time that by making very minor and arguably insignificant changes to the Divorce Act, it would create a divorce culture where a considerable percentage of marriages now end in divorce? Who would have thought that we would create a feminization of poverty? It is women and children who pay the bills at the end of the day with respect to the marriage breakups. Who would have thought that we would have created a culture in which parents and children are increasingly disconnected, largely to the detriment of the children?

Small changes in law inevitably lead to large societal changes. I would argue that this small change is in fact going to lead to a large societal change.

The Government of Canada wishes us to believe that we are changing the definition of civil marriage. The previous speaker laid great emphasis on the notion that this is a civil marriage change, but I would beg to differ with the hon. member who previously spoke. This is a distinction without a difference. This bill changes the meaning of marriage, period. It is a profound bill. It changes the way in which Canadians think about the institution of marriage.

Trying to make distinctions between civil marriage and religious marriage or any other kind of marriage in my respectful opinion is nonsense. Marriage under Bill C-38 requires no gender difference. Therefore, anybody who believes that marriage requires a gender difference, that it is between a male and a female, is by definition a bigot. Look at the preamble:

WHEREAS, in light of those considerations, the Parliament of Canada’s commitment to uphold the right to equality without discrimination precludes the use of section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to deny the right of couples of the same sex to equal access to marriage for civil purposes;

Anyone who believes differently is in implicit violation of the law. The preamble declares that the view of marriage which requires no sex difference prevails in all matters, and anyone who believes otherwise is a bigot. We could line up all the priests, rabbis, imams and pastors from here to Montreal and back, and frankly it would make no difference. Seventy per cent of Canadians believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. With the passage of this bill, that 70% will be the new class of bigots in our society, and they will feel the wrath of transgressing this law very shortly. The state of course cannot sanction bigotry, so clause 3 of the bill must fail, because it pretends to protect and it cannot. It simply cannot.

Those Canadians who take the view, as do many of us, that marriage is between a man and a woman are simply going to be on the wrong side of the law. Any person who refuses to marry two persons of the same gender is going to feel the effect of that law. We have already seen marriage commissioners fired for their perverse view that marriage requires a man and a woman.

Inevitably, a religious official will be set up and inevitably a prosecution will entail. Inevitably, under a human rights council or something else similar to a human rights commission, the person will be prosecuted and will be found guilty of discrimination. Frankly, there is no protection that this government or indeed any other can give to that perverse view that marriage is between a man and a woman.

In my view, Bill C-38 creates a whole new class of bigots for that strange and weird and crazy view that marriage is between a man and a woman. Why is it that these crazy bigots insist on this perverse view that marriage is between a man and a woman?

For thousands of years it has been the view of human beings throughout the world that when people entered into a state of marriage they all understood that marriage was something about sex and something about babies. No marriage, no babies; no babies, no marriage. It is not much more complicated than that. Life itself is more complicated, of course, but the institution in and of itself was central to the well-being of society and its perpetuation. The cross-generativity was and is the norm of most people's view of marriages.

Why is it that the laws of marriage and divorce are so complicated? I know that there are a number of men and women in this chamber who have studied law. They realize that the family law area is incredibly complex and has become incredibly complex over the period of time since the changes to the Divorce Act. One anticipates that it will become even more complex.

If marriage is just about two people announcing to the world that he or she is my new best buddy, really who would care? Why would we have this whole set of complex laws?

In order to get to this close relationship theory of marriage, which is the theory that now replaces the theory that currently underpins marriage, we have to eliminate a lot inconvenient beliefs and facts. We have to believe that a cross-gender relationship that leads to the bridging of the sex difference is of no consequence. We have to believe that babies that result from a sex difference are not important to the marriage bond. We have to believe that how babies come into this world makes no difference to the child.

Why does society insist on this very public commitment of a male to a female and a female to a male? Why does it create law to protect the female and the child during the very vulnerable period of baby making and baby rearing? Why do we make it so difficult to be divorced? If in fact the law was just about two people getting together and announcing their commitment to each other, what would be the point of all of these divorce and family laws?

The only answer is that society gets its existence out of marriage. Society builds up elaborate rituals, religious and others, and laws to ensure that it continues. It is the way that the male is brought into the system and that the female is protected. Marriage reaches forward into future generations and it connects back into previous generations. It says to society at large, “We will perpetuate you; you, society, through your rituals and your laws, protect us”.

Under the close personal relationship theory of this bill, which is the theory that underlies the bill and underlies the decisions of the court, everyone should have a buddy, all of that becomes irrelevant. I would point again to the preamble:

WHEREAS marriage is a fundamental institution in Canadian society and the Parliament of Canada has a responsibility to support that institution because it strengthens commitment in relationships and represents the foundation of family life for many Canadians;

It is the foundation for family formation. When marriage is degraded to simply a public declaration of one's best buddy, then the institution of marriage becomes meaningless.

The other area I object to in the bill is the delinking of children from their DNA and biology. In order to do that, we have to put in a consequential amendment, because now a child will have its parent determined by a judge. It will be a judge who says is a child's parent. I think this is a retrograde step, but it is a necessary consequential amendment.

The bill is seriously flawed. It should be defeated. It changes the public meaning of marriage. It creates a whole new class of bigots. It delinks children from marriage. It cannot be amended and it should be defeated.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to stand and debate Bill C-38. It is certainly a debate that has caused a lot of division among Canadians, and it is one where I think many of us are searching to find something within the debate that will actually unite us.

Unfortunately, I think this is an issue that Canadians have decided. They are either on one side of the debate or the other. I really suspect that we will not change a lot of opinions, that we will not turn many heads, and I do agree that it is time to have the debate out on this, to have the vote on it, and to move on as a Parliament.

Certainly the debate on same gender civil marriage--and I do want to emphasize the word “civil”--is an issue on which I have spent a great deal of personal time and research, and it is one where I have struggled to find balance. This is not an easy issue for many, but it is also not an issue on which I intend to abrogate my responsibility as a member of Parliament.

I can say to anyone in South Shore—St. Margaret's, the riding I am fortunate to represent, that I have approached this issue in an honest, straightforward, and methodical manner, and I plan to continue in that manner.

From the beginning of the discussion on same gender civil marriage, I have maintained that all of our religious institutions must be free to decide for themselves whether to sanction same gender marriage. Allow me to be very clear on this point. Paragraph 2(a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives extremely clear and unambiguous protection for religious freedom. People who say differently are using scare tactics. Our churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples in Canada will decide their own future on religious marriage, as they have up to this point.

I think it is extremely important to mention that we already have same gender religious marriage in Canada, that the United Church of Canada recognizes and some of our Anglican churches in Canada recognize same gender marriage now. They moved on this point before the Parliament of Canada. They did not wait for the Parliament of Canada. That is up to the churches. We could not say yes or no to them because they are independent of the legislative process.

Bill C-38 deals only with civil marriage, but it does go so far as to actually reinforce the protection for religious marriage in the preamble of the bill. Again, I think this is the strength of the bill, whereas nothing in the act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion, and in particular the freedom of members of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Every day our churches refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. The Catholic church refuses to marry divorced couples. The Anglican church that I was brought up in refuses to marry divorced couples. Someone might find a priest who is friendly and may marry them, but that is their doctrine.

The church has always been clearly separate from the legislative process. They have always set their own rules. They have always had the ability to change the rules should the church itself decide to change them. I am very afraid that we could set a precedent in Parliament that turns that around, that we do start to tell the churches who they can and cannot marry. If we do not pass same gender civil marriage, are we de facto then saying to the United Church of Canada and the Anglican church that they cannot recognize same gender marriages, that they should not marry same gender couples, that they are not an independent religious institution? That is a question we should all be asking ourselves.

Parliament, on the other hand, has a responsibility to legislate same gender civil marriage. The only way Parliament cannot allow same gender civil marriage is to use the notwithstanding clause. I adamantly believe that this would be an abuse of civil rights which could lead to the erosion of other civil rights that Canadians have long carried. If we use the notwithstanding clause on this issue, what would prevent us from using it on other issues? I am not willing to agree to that in any way, shape or form.

I believe that my job as a member of Parliament is to be informed of all the ramifications surrounding an issue and vote on that issue to reflect the will of my constituents. I am well aware that every time I vote a group of people in Canada and a group of my own constituents will disagree with my position. Therefore, I try to the best of my ability to base my decisions on fact, not on fear, and on reason, not on instinct.

I am well aware of the sensitivity of this issue and the almost visceral response that some people have to it. I have saved all the e-mails that have threatened my life, my kids and my family because that is a stance that is unacceptable. It does not matter which side of the debate one is on, that is unacceptable.

None of that, however, changes the fact that Parliament has to deal with same gender civil marriage. I have not made a rash or uninformed decision and I fully understand, I believe, that people are split roughly fifty-fifty on this issue. I have certainly considered the fact that the overwhelming majority of the public is willing to recognize same gender civil marriage but wants religious marriage to remain under the jurisdiction of our religious institutions.

I explained earlier that section 2(a) of the charter protects religious freedom. Parliament's responsibility is to study and make informed decisions about same gender civil marriage based on Parliament's role to legislate, guided, I would add, by the parameters of our Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to say that Parliament does not have to legislate this.

Today Canada has varying forms of same gender marriage in eight provinces and one territory. This includes a decision by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia that has led the way to same sex civil marriage in my own province. A recent decision has led the way to same sex civil marriage in the province of New Brunswick.

I am absolutely satisfied that churches are protected and are masters of their own destiny. I have explained in a couple of instances already where that has proven to be true throughout the ages. Therefore, they can refuse to marry same gender couples or, like some of our churches today, they can choose to marry same gender couples. It is clearly their decision for religious marriage, not Parliament's.

For civil marriage, however, government has only two options. The government can challenge the provincial supreme court decisions, which the provinces have already chosen not to do, or it can legislate civil marriage. I have carefully reviewed both options and agree with the government's decision to proceed with legislation on same gender civil marriage, as eight provinces and one territory have already done.

I am frankly astounded by the reaction of some parliamentarians, who in the past have criticized the Supreme Court of Canada for making decisions they thought should best be left to parliamentarians. Now, some of those same parliamentarians are saying the government should litigate and not legislate.

Frankly, I am also surprised at the clarity of the language in Bill C-38, at the lack of ambiguity and the clear protection for religious marriage because of the protection of the charter. I am not used to this type of clarity from the Liberals and generally expect to find legislation riddled with mistakes. Bill C-38 is one of the few pieces of their legislation I have analyzed that is not.

In summary, I note that Bill C-38 has done what I believe it has needed to do in order for me to support it. It has clearly protected religious marriage while allowing for the civil marriage of same gender couples.

I realize that not everyone will agree with same gender civil marriage. Some will continue to say that a civil union is good enough, but I respectfully disagree. This was the same argument that was used to justify segregated schools in the United States and was struck down in the now landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, which ruled that separate is not equal. I feel certain that the same result would befall any similar legislation here.

I also know at first hand the entrenched views of many people who would deny the right of civil marriage to same gender couples, yet I know that there is a lot of tolerance in this country. Often I hear that there is less tolerance in rural Canada, but I believe there is as much tolerance in rural Canada as there is in urban Canada, whether the issue is same gender civil marriage or any other issue that is put before people. I represent a rural riding in a very conservative part of the country that is as religious as any other part of this country. I can say for a fact that there is room in most of this country to accept divergent views and to accept the right of couples who are in a committed relationship to further commit to that relationship through civil marriage.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that I believed the legislative process was a farce.

With respect to the hon. member who ran the committee, he did an excellent job. However, this is no valid way to study it.

I was plopped in there. We did not receive any reports beforehand. Many of the witnesses complained they had received only 24 hours notice to testify. They received 24 hours notice to prepare a presentation to a committee that was supposed to study the ramifications of Bill C-38, which could be astronomical for our social policy in the future.

There was no timeframe. The committee heard from 55 witnesses. I still have not received some of the reports. I have only read two or three of them because that is all I received before questioning. We had four days in a row of six hours of committee work, working through supper and through different meetings. There was not enough time to study the ramifications of it.

I believe the committee itself was a farce. It was a put on. I do not think anyone, except for maybe some of the members of this side of the House, even read most of the briefs and presentations put forward. They certainly did so with an open mind, compared to other members of the committee.

As far as the member's second question, I cannot speak specifically to those people on the other side of the House. I think it is a situation where they have had the ability to topple the government and stop Bill C-38 if that were he wish of their constituents.

I believe, no matter what happens here today, that we should follow as a House and as members of the House the will of our constituents. I believe the will of Canada overall is to not have Bill C-38 go forward and to have it stopped today. It should stop today.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have two quick questions for my colleague. I had the opportunity to sit on one of the legislative committees. He touched on it briefly in his speech.

First, does he think this legislative committee process was a valid way to study the impact and issues surrounding Bill C-38?

We have heard from a former Liberal MP, now an independent MP, who was so disgusted by the way the rules were set up. With the heavy-handedness of the government, it was going to ram this committee along, lump all the witnesses together, preventing people to speak against the idea of homosexual marriage or from having a reasoned and timely way to express their opposition to it.

Second, does he think the Liberal MPs, who pretend to be in opposition to homosexual marriage, are being truthful with their own constituents? Time and time again when they have the opportunity to put the nail in the coffin for Bill C-38, to stand up for what their constituents want them to do and to vote on their behalf, they have voted with the government. They have obeyed their political masters in the Prime Minister's office rather than the voters in their ridings.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with pleasure to support the concerns of my constituents and to take their position in speaking in opposition to Bill C-38. I would like to encourage my friend from Hochelaga to take a closer look at the Conservative position on this issue because it deals directly with his concerns. I would suggest that if he were to look closer at it, he would be prepared to adopt our position.

I stand in surprise that I am in agreement with two Liberal members, specifically from Mississauga South and Scarborough Southwest. I would suggest that my friend from Fundy—Royal, who is also on the committee that studied Bill C-38, did an excellent job today in summing up the findings of the committee, in fact speaking about some of the procedural difficulties with that committee.

The institution of marriage was created for the purpose of procreation and nurturing children of the union. After listening to many of the experts who came forward at committee, I am greatly concerned that the committee has not had a thorough analysis of the issues and has not drawn enough attention to what I consider to be the voice that has no voice, and that is the children of future generations of Canadians. I am greatly concerned about the children of our future, as they must be protected.

A stable home with a mother and father is the foundation of our civilization. Although it cannot in today's age always be attainable, it is something that we should work toward and maintain and keep secure.

I would like to begin by summarizing my position and state emphatically that the bill is about social policy. It is not about charter rights and in no way can it be expressed that the definition of marriage itself is an inalienable human right. I have argued constitutional and charter cases protecting minority rights in northern Alberta. I have immediate family members who are members of visible minorities, including the homosexual community, Métis and treaty communities. This is why I will not support any legislation that infringes upon the rights of any Canadian. I believe Bill C-38 will do so.

I believe in this case the Government of Canada is taking one group's position over another group's position and is therefore infringing upon the rights of that other group. I believe strongly that the Charter of Rights must be respected and the rights of all minorities must be protected, not just the rights of the homosexual community but also the rights of the heterosexual community, especially religious groups, and the rights of children, which must be of paramount concern in this case. That is why I support the traditional definition of marriage.

I have risen in the House before and given this same argument, but I like the argument so I will give it again. I believe words have three parts: the first is the word itself; the second is the meaning that describes the word; and the third are the rights and obligations that flow from the word. I believe the word “marriage” is no different from that and it is no exception. It identifies a group of individuals within our society. In this case the group that it describes is the relationship between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others in a state-recognized contract, nothing more, nothing less.

It is my position that the rights and obligations that flow from this word need to be extended to other groups that have not even been a part of this discussion, other minority groups that are not protected. I would submit those other groups should receive not only the rights of married couples, but also the obligations of married couples which are so obviously and continuously ignored.

As the leader of the official opposition has stated time after time, we must respect all Canadians regardless of sexual orientation. All couples who apply for solemnization of their relationship should receive that respect and the rights and obligations of married couples. However, this can be done without changing the definition of marriage.

I also believe we should send a clear message of protecting minority rights to another minority, and that is the minority of common-law couples who have been in cohabitation for a certain period of time. Some provinces in Canada currently do this, but this is a place where we as legislators should move forward and protect the rights of individuals which are at this stage taken for granted.

Each of these groups, though, should be defined individually. Let us face it, the relationship is different between a man and a man, a man and a woman and a woman and a woman. All these groups should have the same rights and obligations under the law and should be respected equally.

In terms of protecting rights, it is also my belief that as members of this House we must protect the rights of those who have already entered into marriage, believing that it is a contract between them with specific terms. We must protect the rights of those people who have no voice, who have no vote here today and have no vote even to elect us as members. They are the future generations of children who have been ignored by the legislation and will be the cost of our society.

Protecting rights is a dual obligation though. Just as with every right comes a corresponding obligation, receiving a right can sometimes infringe upon other people's rights and expectations. Respect works both ways. If Bill C-38 is passed, there is no question that we will infringe dramatically on the rights of people and groups within our society.

If we want our beliefs respected, then we should respect others, but it is reciprocal and they should respect our beliefs as well. With mutual respect comes the end of bigotry, hate and prejudice, and this is what I seek: a utopia where we can all get along, not just in Canada but in the entire world.

The Conservative Party is calling for a free vote. I would challenge the members opposite to allow their members, even the members of the government, to have a free vote so they can express and take the ramifications of their decisions on that final day, election day, when it does come.

We in the Conservative Party respect the supremacy of Parliament. I believe we should respect the will of Canadians and vote that way while at the same time protect minorities. With the agenda and policy that Conservatives have put forward, that can be done.

In my constituency of Fort McMurray--Athabasca in northern Alberta, I had less than 12 responses in favour of same sex marriages. I had almost 2,000 responses wanting the traditional definition of marriage maintained but at the same time protecting the rights of all society and all groups in society.

We have taken a reasonable compromise position that should be more thoroughly analyzed. I believe and would suggest that it would protect the rights of minorities. At the same time, it would be consistent with the views of a vast majority of Canadians. We want to recognize the traditional definition of marriage without detracting from the rights and obligations of people in same sex relationships.

Here is a reminder. After hearing evidence at committee, it is obvious that 99% of the world's population continues to honour the traditional definition of marriage. That means 99% of the world, except for Canada, possibly and a few other nations in the world, take the position of the Conservative Party.

We want to create the status of civil union. I would suggest to the party opposite that it is not too late to recognize civil unions but at the same time give identical rights to all groups. With Bill C-38 passing, I foresee serious threat to religious freedoms, more serious than I thought originally before I sat in the committee. I believe charitable statuses will be taken away, that it will affect the ability to preach sacred text and ultimately force the change to the text itself, including the Bible and the Quran. I can see that in the near future being part and parcel of passing Bill C-38. It will simply not protect religious freedoms or religious institutions.

Finally, the Conservative Party represents the only middle ground, the only compromise position on the debate from any political party. Canada's law should reflect the priorities of Canadian society while protecting the rights of all minorities. We should be following the will of Canadians. We are elected and we are answerable to them, so why are we not following the will of Canadians?

The Conservative Party has proved that we will respect both sides of the debate and all Canadians equally. Now it is time for other members of the House and other Canadians to do the same. In 25 or 50 years, when Canada reaps what it sows from this Liberal same sex social experiment, Canada and Canadians will be able to look back and see that we in the Conservative Party had the best interests of Canada in our hearts, our minds and our words.

My opinion is the terms of reference of the Bill C-38 legislative committee were a farce. With respect to how it was run, I believe the timeframes were ridiculous, the witnesses and the research materials were impossible to logically study. The time and the witnesses were quite frankly disrespected because they did not have time to prepare and provide proper analyses.

It is obvious to me that although the rule of law and due process are requirements of all Canadians, the courts and tribunals, it is not necessary in this House of Commons and it is shameful. The House is supposed to represent the people of Canada. Those Liberals in control of this agenda should be absolutely ashamed of how it was run.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with considerable serenity, joy and solidarity, I rise with pleasure to speak to this important bill.

As we know, this bill adds an extremely important building block to the institution of human rights. I believe all parliamentarians concerned about human rights have a reason today to delight in the fact that this matter is before Parliament, in order to give homosexual persons the right to enjoy loving relationships and, since it is the issue, to also contemplate marriage.

The origins and roots of today's debate run deep. In the early 1970s, some people went to court to contest the ban on their getting married. I would like things to be put in perspective. It is easy, in such a debate, to get off the track, to mislead the House and even to make erroneous statements.

Bill C-38 does not have anything to do with religious marriage. It is true that, in the division of powers we have in Canada, the celebration of marriage is a provincial responsibility. What has been challenged before the courts in this new century is the question of whether it is compatible with the equal treatment provisions in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to refuse access to what is still one of the great civil institutions in our society, the most important one after schools, namely marriage.

The Supreme Court ruled that it was inconsistent with equal treatment and with Canadians' and Quebeckers' ideals of magnanimity and equality and the recognition of full citizenship rights not to recognize the right of same sex partners to engage in marriage.

It has nothing to do with religion. Every time the Supreme Court has been seized with the issue, it has recognized an extremely liberal definition of freedom of religion. This freedom is defined as the right to profess a dogma, a religion or a world view without fear. I am convinced that no one in this House would want any religious denomination to be harassed or accused of discrimination for refusing to recognize same sex marriage.

It is something else, however, to lead people to think that even secular public officials, whose job it is to apply the law, could fail to do so in the name of their personal religious convictions. All are equal before the law. From the moment that Parliament passes legislation—as we are confident Bill C-38 will pass—this legislation applies everywhere in Canada and there is no room for people who refuse to apply it. People who do not agree with the interpretation of the law will have to do something else.

In any case, it will not be possible to avoid applying the law, any more than it is for a public servant at Revenue Canada who does not agree with the tax tables to avoid taxing people. When someone is a public official, and not a religious official, he or she has a responsibility to apply the law as it was passed by people with democratic legitimacy, that is to say, elected officials.

It is interesting to ask the following question: why do people with a homosexual orientation want to get married? I know a lot of people who are same sex partners and have been together for 15, 20, 25 or 30 years, sharing exactly the same values as heterosexuals, and who have decided to get married.

What are these values? Obviously, spouses want to mutually support one another. There is also fidelity, the desire for recognition as a mutually exclusive couple. So we have mutual support, fidelity and, of course, last but not least, a third value, which is the need for social recognition. It would be extremely sad not to see homosexual unions receiving the same consideration and respect as heterosexual unions.

During this entire debate, people have tried to make us believe that homosexuals are less capable of commitment and seriousness in a relationship. This begs the question. Who has threatened the institution of marriage?

I am not saying that people have to get married. Common-law partners mutually support one another, obey the law, pay taxes, are involved in their communities and are model citizens. No one has to get married. However, believing that just because people are homosexual, they are less capable of honouring the commitments of marriage, just does not hold water, in my opinion. Allowing the marginalization of homosexuals is a form of blatant discrimination.

Currently in Canada, eight provinces and two territories have permitted homosexuals to marry in the last few years. Has anyone in the heterosexual community been denied their rights? Has allowing homosexuals in Canada to marry infringed on the freedoms exercised by the family or the heterosexual community? No one in the House could give an example of a negative consequence that could be attributed to the recognition of homosexual unions and life as we know it, or as our communities should know it.

One political party in this Parliament has systematically practised institutional homophobia. Since 1993, its members have asked us at every opportunity to consider homosexuals as second class citizens. I am happy that the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and a majority of Liberal members have never responded to this call to treat homosexuals as second class citizens.

The official opposition voted against recognizing same sex spouses in the public service, against recognizing spouses as common-law partners, and against section 718 of the Criminal Code prohibiting hate crimes and giving harsher sentences to those who beat up homosexuals. The official opposition is going to vote against the recognition of same sex marriage. That is their right. Perhaps they are doing so for political reasons, but, once again, I am quite pleased that a majority of parliamentarians in this House have chosen to put an end to the institutional homophobia that exists and denies full citizen rights to gays and lesbians.

Why is it important to recognize same sex couples? It is important because from now on in the public schools in our communities, we will be able to say that the issue of marriage and the family encompasses the right of gays and lesbians to be full citizens. Anything that contributes to giving a sense of respectability to same sex unions and to gays and lesbians as individuals deserves to be encouraged.

Did you know that there are still many adolescents who, at age 15, 16 or 17, discover their homosexuality and wonder how they will fit into society in the future? Well, in the future, if a young person, regardless of where he is in Canada, wonders what his place will be in society, he will know that in his professional life and in his romantic relationships he will be recognized as a full citizen who contributes to society. I am convinced that this will be a positive step to his full acceptance as an individual.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as much as I would like to support the member's motion, the problem with the motion is this: if we stand and say we vote against that particular provision, the Liberal government will stand and say that we do not want to protect the rights of religious organizations to solemnize marriages. It is a clever trap, the kind of trap that the government has consistently performed.

As for the Bloc, I am not surprised. The Bloc has no long term interest in this country. Supporting this bill has absolutely nothing to do with the Bloc. The majority of federalist MPs in this House oppose this bill. The Bloc has no interest in this country. It does not want to see this country survive and for the Bloc to work together and make an agreement with the government is absolutely shameful.

My question is for the member. He had it in his hands on Thursday to vote with us against the government in order to stop this scandal from spreading, and those Liberals simply went with the government. What I find interesting is that when their votes are not necessary, then they can vote against the government. When the government wants their votes, then they have to vote with the government. That is what I find difficult about those Liberals who purport to support Bill C-38.